E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA new government report found the overall cancer death rate is falling, and the incidence of cancer deaths is declining in men and has leveled off in women. NBC's Robert Bazell reports.
By Robert Bazell
Chief science and medical correspondent
NBC News
Two thought provoking and disturbing studies out Wednesday raise major questions about conduct of the “War on Cancer.” One examines the quality of basic research and the other concludes that half of current cancer deaths could be prevented.
Almost 90 percent of early stage cancer research looking for improved treatments is wrong, according to scientists at biotechnology giant Amgen and the MD Anderson Cancer Center. The researchers describe their findings as “shocking.”
Read Wednesday's news about the decline in cancer death rates.
The allegations about questionable research in the quest for treatments appear in the prestigious journal Nature. C. Glenn Begley, the former head of cancer research at Amgen, and surgical oncologist Lee M. Ellis of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston describe how scientists at the Thousand Oaks, Calif.-based Amgen tried to replicate the results of 53 landmark cancer research papers. By landmark, they mean papers cited by others as significant progress. All were so-called “pre-clinical,” meaning they were studies in rodents or with cells in petri dishes. The scientists were able to replicate only 11 percent of the conclusions. In science, replication is proof. If a study can’t be reproduced reliably, it is wrong.
Most of the papers in question describe gene mutations or other changes in cancer cells that could be potential targets for new cancer treatments. Such research is obviously critical for companies like Amgen deciding how to spend hundreds of millions testing potential drugs in humans. The findings at Amgen do not differ greatly from those at a team at Bayer HealthCare in Germany, which reported last year that it could not replicate 25 per cent of studies.
Begley and Ellis assume that fraud plays little or no role in the bad science. “These investigators were all competent, well-meaning scientists who truly wanted to make advances in cancer research,” they write.
So, what is the problem? Scientists often ignore negative findings that might raise a warning, cherry picking the results and putting the best face on their research. The practice involves many parties -- not just the scientists -- in the research process who turn blind eyes to questionable actions.
As Begley and Ellis detail it, “To obtain funding, a job, promotion or tenure, researchers need a strong publication record…Journal editors, reviewers, and grant review committees [and I might add journalists—R.B.] often look for a scientific finding that is simple, clear and complete—a ‘perfect’ story. It is therefore tempting for investigators to submit suspected data sets for publication, or even to massage data.”
Whatever the motivation, the results are all too often wrong.
Begley and Ellis call for nothing less than a change in the culture of cancer research. They demand more willingness to admit to imperfections and an end to the practice of failing to publish negative results.
“We in the field,” the say, “must remain focused on the purpose of cancer research: to improve the lives of patients.”
While the Amgen report casts doubt on cancer research, a separate study concludes that fully half of all cancers occurring today are preventable. It raises questions about the billions spent searching for treatments and concludes that “we must vigorously implement what we already know about preventing cancer.”
The article about prevention appears in the top-tier journal Science Translational Medicine. Epidemiologists Graham Colditz, Kathleen Wolin and public health researcher Sarah Gehlert of Washington University in St. Louis review the best data.
According to the careful Washington University study, smoking remains the biggest cancer-causing environmental factor -- responsible for 33 percent of cancer deaths, almost 189,000 lives a year in the U.S. alone. Obesity now follows closely, causing 20 percent of cancer deaths, or 114,000 people a year. Pollution and radiation (most of it from medical sources) each account for only about 2 percent of cancers.
The argument about allocation of funds for reducing the risk of cancer versus treatment is as old as our efforts to confront cancer. But as these authors show the evidence and the need to act on it grow ever stronger.
As a society, we have shown we can do a great deal — but not nearly enough – about tobacco. Obesity is another story, but we must do better if we want to be serious about cancer – and all the other attendant diseases.
Even short of the huge social challenges in confronting tobacco and obesity, there are many proven relatively simple methods to cut cancer deaths. They include effective screening tests, such as pap tests and colonoscopies. The vaccines against HPV and hepatitis B both prevent cancer-causing viral infections, and aspirin is looking ever better as a cancer control agent.
Only 1.5 percent of the U.S. cancer research budget now goes to risk reduction. The rest seeks to find treatments, an effort that Begley and Ellis show is seriously flawed. As these two powerful studies out Wednesday show, it is high time we reorder our priorities.
Robert Bazell is NBC's chief science and medical correspondent. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
Related:
Daily aspirin linked to reduced cancer risk
What kills one person every six seconds?
More from Robert Bazell:
Leave a Comment:
Cancer kills millions of Americans each year. On a per-death basis, or even overall, the government+industry spends so much less on research into preventing and fighting it than it does on national defense (which kills a few thousand at most). And when they do come out with a new drug, it costs over $100K per patient. We already have nukes for national defense. My point is that these defense dollars would be better allocated on a per-death basis, to defend us from the things that actually kills us.
Oh and did you have your vegetables today? How many can you name?
I think it's obvious where there isn't much money spent on prevention.
AB
If we don't have national defense, there will be no need for cancer prevention or treatment.
Duh. We spend as much on defense as every other nation on earth combined. And we've started more wars since 1945 than any other country.
Yeah AB, here's a news flash. The vast majority of people don't go out and start wars. But the vast majority of cancers are started by the people who get them. In other words, most cancer is preventable by the actions of individuals. Period. End of sentence.
Prevention means avoiding the things that start the cancers in the first place. People don't do that.
On another note, these research studies sound like more of the same greed at any cost that has become so prevelant in today's society. There are no morals nor ethics just greed.
Bob,
Which wars have we STARTED?
Wars we started? How about: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Korea, Honduras, Guatemala, Grenada, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Colombia, Malaysia, Greece, Cuba, Haiti and as this is written, we have
combat troopstrainers in 50, count'em 50 countries around the world.If one wants to add marginal incursions, then we can throw in the Philippines, Congo, Somalia, Kenya, Yemen, Sudan, and a good part of South America and Africa. We spend as much on military equipment and activities as the rest of the world combined, plus some pocket change. Our guns, bombs, mines and other instruments of destruction, mass and otherwise, are the most popular in the world. When it comes to killing, America takes a back seat to no one. Next, Mexico.
trainee,
The question was STARTED! Our involvement in a conflict does not mean that we STARTED it.
Jack - I did nothing to "start" my cancer. I don't smoke, never have, never will - and it doesn't cause my kind of cancer, anyway. In fact, the best guess is that my kind of cancer is caused by exposure to high doses of radiation, but as I do not live or work near any known massive radiation sources (nuclear power plants, nuclear subs, hospital radiation department, etc), that wasn't the cause. So how did I get it? I think that deserves study and, hopefully for other folks' sake, prevention. One of my good friends died of cancer at 14. I suppose that was her fault, too. Or my clean-living grandmother who died of pancreatic cancer two years ago -- never smoked a day in her life, never drank more than a glass of wine with dinner. Obviously her own doing.
You're a real piece of work implying that cancer patients deserve what they get. Yes, some are avoidable and some people are unlucky enough to have cancerous consequences to bad decisions that most people who make the same decision don't get. They should know better - and those cases are already largely preventable. But to say the "vast majority" of people do it to themselves is unfair, misleading and irresposible.
Laura - Iraq, Afghanistan, just to name the most recent.
where the bleep have YOU been?
FYI Afghanistan and Iraq did not attack us. Saudi's attacked us, and they "trained" in afghanistan in ways that had nothing to do with 911. Im still waiting for the invasion of florida, given that is where the saudi's trained to fly planes into buildings.
and im still waiting for the invasion of michigan following the bombing of the federal building by michigan militia member Timothy McVeigh.
apparently our response to individual terrorists is to declare war on everyone that "looks and talks" like them...and there are tons of white guys in america who hate govt, many are republican and running for president in fact.
saddened - i understand your point.
and yet, there are so many who do engage in behaviour in which it's well known that they might get cancer, and there's not much care or concern until AFTER they wind up with cancer.
it's those folks I truly struggle to feel sorry for. I feel sorry for the family they have hurt and left behind, but I cant really feel truly sorry for someone who smoked all their lives like a chimney despite knowing the odds of getting lung cancer were extremely high.
or the person that gets throat cancer and drank like a fish all their lives.
this reality alone has hit my good friends parents - her mother died last month from lung cancer, smoked like a chimney until "something was wrong"...and then her dad was diagnosed with throat cancer while the mom was dying...and he drank like a boozer as long as I knew him (10+ years).
i bet they both enjoyed their smokes and drinks and if given the chance, likely wouldnt have made any different choices.
i just wish that we'd identify the activities that come with the most well defined risks and tax them up and use that tax money to treat the likely result from their consumption.
then our health insurance could breathe a little and our premiums would go down.
every time you buy a six pack of beer...you're buying throat cancer insurance.
every time you buy fast food, you're buying cancer insurance against the plethora of cancers that are associated with obesity.
I dont mind people being able to do as they please, we should just have an element of personal responsibilty built in so it cant be eschewed.
when it comes to cancers that science cant figure out and tax...that falls under reg health policies.
and this could be applied to just about ANY disease.
maybe a more informed society would simply make better choices? if not, they can at least pay for it.
IMHO, the loss of the War on Cancer is attributable to three things:
1) Research money (as a function of all R&D money, expressed as a percentage of GDP) is at the lowest it has been since before WWI. I know this well because my wife is a PhD researcher (a psychologist) and there is simply far less money than deserving and promising research. And R&D funding money is continuing to drop.
2) When the "War on Cancer" was started in 1971, a bad choice was made. All the promising academic research pointed toward a "systemic" approach. The drug companies and physicians wanted a "cellular" approach. The cellular approach was a failure. It was tantamount to looking for your wallet where the light is good rather than where you lost it. But the research had developed a sort of inertia and while most actually useful breakthroughs are happening at the systemic level (such as therapies that starve off the blood supply to tumors), the research money continues to go almost entirely to the cellular approach (chemotherapy, surgery, radiation, etc.) We wasted a lot of time and billions of dollars.
3) Cancer research has shifted from scientists to physicians. Instead of scientist/specialists with the appropriate training and skillsets, most cancer research is now being done by physicians. An MD simply has zero training or skillsets pertinent to research and including designing, conducting, and evaluating clinical trials. Few MDs have an academic degree of any kind. (An MD is a vocational degree that doesn't fulfill the academic requirements for a BS.) With no research skills, physicians have to find "creative" ways to get the research done within a medical school, since MD's cannot operate in academic institutions. So you see lots of research "supported" by drug companies who do all the heavy lifting and breakthrough after breakthrough that never comes to fruition because there was no "there" there in the first place.
I just had my own brush with the "Big C" that illustrates some of the problems. My family physician had been running PSA's on me without getting informed consent (had he done so, I would have refused.) The current recommendations are not to do PSA's unless requested or if there are other factors such as a family risk. The PSA is just a crummy test to start with. When one turned up high, he referred me to a urologist for a biopsy. After doing my reading, I find that PSA's, biopsies, and intervention do slightly reduce a person's chance from dieing from prostate cancer, but do not change mortality numbers at all. Biopsies turn out to be a major cause of prostate cancer (its called "needle tracking") with a risk proportional to the number of samples taken. They are also a major cause of "inconveniences" that can "last until natural termination" (death) and hospitalizations for complications. Both biopsies and the resulting treatment seriously degrade the quality of life for their survivors. The bottom line is that PSA's can only detect two of the four cancer types and cannot distinguish between the other two. The two it can sometimes detect are of a fast-growing kind where survivability is not good (about 5%) and a slow-growing kind where it is so slow growing and unlikely to metastasize that it is highly unlikely to kill you at all because you die of something else first. The urologist tried the Big C Scare --- telling me how the fast-growing kind leads to a horrible and painful tortured death and don't I really want it out of me "just to be safe." I told him that by his reasoning we should just skip the biopsy and go right to surgery. His face lit up like a christmas tree. But eventually he settled for no biopsy, no follow-up and no hassles since my chance of having the fast-growing kind of prostate cancer were about 1 in 200. He tried to tell me that the numbers weren't true --- that "these were the same people who recommended that women never get mammograms" that were making the recommendations that asymptomatic men not get PSA's, biopsies, or surgery. Unfortunately, no such recommendation was ever made (and they weren't the same task force even.) This is the way that physicians work. They only have one or two hammers in their toolkit, so they end up using a sledge hammer to hammer tacks. And they always seem to pick the most expensive possible hammer. It was very easy to see this urologist as someone not up on the literature, someone who does not follow best practices, and someone who will not hesitate to lie to talk a patient into a risky, unnecessary, intrusive, and potentially damaging procedure "just to be safe."
Is it any wonder that physicians are a corrupting factor in medical research?
the research is wrong cause the university professors are stoned outta they minds man!
We have a for-profit medical industry. Cure is far more profitable than prevention.
There is a glaring solution to a large portion of cancers / deaths each year. BAN Nicotine! (the driving force to hook the smoker) There is absolutely no reason why a drug so addictive with no benefit to the user other than treatment of nicotine addiction itself, has a need to be sold /marketed.
No company has a "right" to put profit above human health and NO user has a "right" to assisted suicide through the use of tobacco products.
The arguments of "alcohol is addictive" , "Prescription Drugs are active" have no merit in this argument. None cause death when used as intended. None. There is only one single type of product sold worldwide that "Will" kill the user in time - if the user lives long enough for cancer to take them.
Here's the solution
1. Just as with Carbon Emission - set a limit of allowable Nicotine content in any product.
2. Reduce the allowable Nicotine content over several years (weaning the heavy user off slowly)
3. Finally ban nicotine all together after that.
4. As Nicotine Levels decrease, increase taxes on tobacco products
People will be smoking more at first to get their fix but will eventually be financially weaned off and "taken off the drug over several years - like a drug addiction program would do.
Banning cancerous products wont work at all just sounds like more "big brother/sister domination". There has to be something better to live for. Why live longer you'll just to lose your mind to dementia. Better party now while your young and alive old age is catching up.
ya feel that itch on the back your leg? that be satan himself.
Ragge
Yes it is "Big Brother-ish" in a sense. But unfortunately the big brother is the Tobacco Industry that's selling people's lives like livestock. Just like any other product on the market, it must be proven safe. Tobacco products are proven unsafe, yet are allowed to be sold as-is. That's about as big brother as you can get.
Remember addiction is not a choice. If their products are void of addictive ingredients and people still wish to smoke, then that is their choice.
Old age hopefully will come to everyone one day, but that doesn't mean you need to suffer in your old age. My mom is 83, and yes her memory is not a good as it used to be - and she doesn't walk as fast as she used to. But she has no pain. She plenty of energy. And she really enjoys life. Most of her adult life she has been into nutrition.
Something happens to the mind of a physically healthy person though, optimism.
Your foolish to think products are proven safe. Products are in the market cause they sell. Better die of cancer then to be beatten in your Memory Care Facility by a frontal lobe monster!
Ragge
HAHA.. you're not getting it. Prevention is the process of stopping something before is goes too far and destroys the body.
The number one product throughout the world that causes the greatest numbers of cancers and has killed probably more people every year than any war we have been involved in (as far as my history knowledge goes) is Tobacco.
Are other products un-safe? Absolutely. Does any other single product ever created by any company since the beginning of man had such a catastrophic affect on human health as Tobacco? No. Not one single product sold to the masses has killed as many people.
As far as Alzheimer goes, yes - it's not a pretty disease. But my take on it, stall as long as you can of prematurely aging your body by making bad decisions. The longer you can stall the greater the chance of treatments for the disease. If you accelerate the aging process - you're screwed.
So you advise to stall life untill the end. Why not live now?
No, live well and enjoy. Just don't do anything stupid that will expedite the process, because sometimes really bad decisions don't always kill you right away - it just makes your last years of life a living hell.
that be good advise. as for living hells the alzheimer facilities are awfull. at the door the staff is all real sure the place is safe and nice. but yea what the experts say are good decisions today really aren't.
A case in point. A good neighbor of ours growing up contracted Mouth Cancer (yep, a long time smoker)... This angel of a person went through a literally living hell for about 4 yrs. Losing part of he tongue and part of her lower jaw.
The agony we all felt for her when you can see behind her eyes that she was in excruciating pain for years - and there was nothing we could do to take away the pain, not even morphine could take it all away.
Her husband lived several years longer - he suffered from emphysema (sp) which was also as heart wrenching - also a long time smoker. Him fighting for every breath as if being slowly chocked or drowned slowly.
To think their suffering could have been prevented is equally agonizing.
Science takes leaps of faith in assigning blame to events and doctors
always blame their mistakes on the patients. So don’t think for a minute our
unfortunate painful deaths are preventable.
Your're right not everything is preventable - Most people don't die healthy or without some pain.
But when tens of millions or people over generations all sharing the same forms of cancer / heart and lung disease AND all sharing the use of Tobacco products - I would venture to say... yep. Probably not good to smoke.
Statistically, there is no formula with this huge sample that crosses all geographic areas of the globe over a very large passage of time can prove otherwise. The probability is about as close to 99% as you can get.
That's not to say that if those people who have never smoked, wouldn't get the same diseases, it's a statistical probability that smoking lead to the progression of disease and premature death.
Bad science bad women at the top! As for having no pain buy some long term heath insurance get yourself in a home and let them turn you into a drugged out zombie. And have the monster residents beat you up.
It'sSimple and Jessica - I won't defend smoking, but that is around 20% or few of adults now, compared to about 66% who are overweight or obese. Heart disease is one of the bigger or most costly problems. Yet when Michelle Obama even suggested that we could improve children's eating habits, and at least school lunch menus, she was villified by certain groups. Back under Kennedy physical fitness was a national and patriotic goal and incorporated into PE. Times have changed, but we have not become more sensible.
We have a big problem. The Republicans and Teabagger's are pro-obesity... or rather against anything that would reduce obesity. They attack the First Lady as a traitor and a socialist just for suggesting fat people eat vegetables. They go hog-wild if you suggest that McDonald's (including the pink slime) isn't healthy. They go ape if you suggest removing candy and soda from schools. They refuse to eliminate subsidies to make mountains of corn for the production of high-fructose corn syrup that goes into nearly every processed food product. They are beholden to the food industry and do nothing to limit the sales of horribly unhealthy "food" products to our citizens. Do you see the pattern here?
There is no practical way to reduce obesity until the Republicans are voted out of office. Until then get used to ever increasing cancer deaths (and other deaths associated with obesity) from being fat.
WOW, talk about scape-goating - that's ridiculous!!! Obesity is NOT a political issue, it's a personal issue; further to suggest that Dem senators AREN'T in the same pocket is hypocritical. If you come from a farming state, you will support farm subsidies no matter what party you belong to, that's just the way politics work. Therefore, relying on politicians to solve the Obesity problems in America is about as wrong-headed as these cancer studies. I AM a Republican and I'd LOVE it if my daughter's school cafeteria would serve better food; but ultimately as her mother I am the one most responsible for what she eats, not the schools, not Michelle Obama, not the government. And when she moves out in a few years, it'll all be on HER - again, not the GOP or Dems, but HER.
Shocking. Not.
This is capitalism at work.
How true, James. For-profit health-care has gotten completely out of hand. The industry makes money on people getting sick and treatment. Cures, natural remedies, and less sickness are money-losers. That's why the AMA and FDA are there to protect expensive treatments that perpetuate sickness.
There was an obscure article this week that licorice - natural licorice - had been show to suppress different types of cancer cells. You'll never hear about it. It will be completely suppressed. The government and industry will not allow it.
It's truly a sad state of affairs.
How naive they are, too.
unfortunately though, the ability to make steaming loads of cash is why most of the major medical advancements and technologies have from the American "for profit" healthcare industry. Money is a better motivator for innovation than good intentions.
Money is the ultimate motivator. For the last thirty years all research has been "cherry" picked. Produce a diagnosis, treatment, procedure, or program that will generate a huge return for the researcher, institute, university, or non profit organization. NO ONE is promoting or presenting research that is problem solving. What I mean by this is to know everything that happens from the beginning to the end. Instead pieces and parts have been extracted, for profit, without any continuity to the "understanding". What this leaves is a bunch of ideas that look like a 1500 piece puzzle. The government agencies, non profit organizations, the medical industry, universities, and institutes are all GUILTY, but MONEY talks!
@Bob
Oh I believe it.
Most of the diseases out there are man made...even in ancient times.
You can't patent natural cures...hence no money and the full barrage on them to keep them suppressed.
@Bob, contrary to popular belief, clinical pharmacology places high value in natural compounds that show promise in either suppressing or killing cancer. In fact, many of the most successful cancer treatment medicines are compounds from natural sources. The problem with treating an existing cancer spread with natural remedies is that these substances often lack the potency and specificity in order to successfully attack the cancer. Additionally, both the AMA and NCCR encourage more exercise, incorporation of whole foods into a diet and decreases in fast food and processed foods. It is easy to lay the blame at the Dr.'s and government and say they are not doing enough to encourage prevention, however those who often use this argument never seem to be able to provide an answer to HOW this will be implemented. How often do Dr.'s recommend different diets, exercises, and habits to their patients, and how often is that advice followed?
@Bob,
The medicinal properties (and dangerous side effects) of licorice have been known for around 3000 years plus. It is a staple of Chinese, European, and Sub-Asian herbal treatments for a number of things. But it is not really licorice that does the trick, it is one ingredient, glycyrrhizin. Glycyrrhizin has been removed from the licorice used in candy, health food stores, cigarettes, etc because of its side effects.
But the larger points are these: Just because something inhibits the growth of cancer cells in a petri dish tells you surprising little about how it will work in humans. You can find tiny effects in large studies that likewise cannot be translated into a cure because the Law of Small Numbers makes it impossible to use at the individual level.
The government doesn't suppress things like this --- in fact NIH has funded considerable research into glycyrrhizin and is a good source of information on it. What happens is that 1) they can never figure out what the active ingredient (or combination of active ingredients), 2) they cannot find a large enough effect to make it worthwhile on the individual level (such as having to treat 200,000 people to save one life), or 3) it just does not survive the harsh scrutiny that medical school "discoveries" get when they get into the grownup science world.
Everyone likes a conspiracy theory. But drug companies have always done the right thing where cures were involved. For example, there have just been two huge studies suggesting that 1 81mg aspirin a day may have unexpected benefits in preventing certain cancers. Certainly there will be no blockbuster drug come from that and there is only a tiny profit to be made on aspirin (whose patents expired long ago.) There are very successful cures for any number of things if you just stop and think about it. You just don't usually stop to think about such things.
While I have a lot of concerns about the for-profit medical industry, a massive conspiracy in league with the government, is not one of them.
http://norml.org/library/cannabinoids-as-cancer-hope
I have lost all faith in anything put out by my government, corporations and studies done by corporations. You all will do anything to line your pockets. What is worse, is you are killing the average person. So you are murders by greed.
Hey some, people can prevent cancer without anyone's help by following a few sensible rules. So in reality you may be killing yourself. Kind of a slow burn suicide.
Got hooked on smoking in the Army. Everybody smoked. I tried unsuccessfully to stop many many times. Truth was that I enjoyed it. When I left the Dr. office with a diagnosis of lung cancer and a year to live, I never smoked another cigarette.
I just wish someone would get it right.
If you eat right, you will live right. Our problem is that is too much crap in our food. We are killing ourselves just by eating. Also, there is NO MONEY in prevention. Only in pharmaceuticals.
This is why our for profit healthcare industry is completely broken. Unless your an insurance CEO.
Don't blame the companies for lack of prevention. There are many things that people can do to prevent cancer, but they are too lazy or stupid.
Look at all of the young people that you see smoking. They have known there whole lives the risk and addiction of smoking, but you can't prevent STUPID.
@Shot,
"Just think about your average guy --- and then remember that half the world is dumber than he is." - Geo. Carlin.
I would be curious to know a comparison of the quality of the cancer studies by country. If some country or region is doing better science, we should learn that and learn from that. I would also like to know whether the quality of cancer studies varied based on the funding source (e.g. independent national funding v. independent private funding v. interested private funding).
@resoke,
There is very, very little funding by the for-profit medical industry. There is a small amount of independent foundation money. And some of that is very effective --- St. Jude's Childrens' Hospital, as an example --- but most of the furaising to raise money for medical research is actually raising funds to support fundraising. Virtually all medical discoveries are made by non-medical school academics who are not physicians. Their funding comes from the National Institutes of Health. That is the taxpayer!
Except NIH and similar agencies, that have had some success, have been de-funded drastically and some segments of the population want to get rid of it entirely in favor of their own favorite FOR PROFIT companies.
I was diagnosed with prostrate cancer a few years ago and was told many cancers are hereditary. I was treated with radioactive seeds but my cancer came back but I was treated to late and it was in my bones by then. My DR. told me I was terminal and get ready to die so party it up well I read up on cures and found that by using organic maple syrup and baking soda my psa numbers are now back to normal plus i have got tired of the life here in the states so live in the philippines most of the year and flush my system every 2 weeks with 7 avocado leaves boiled into a tea to detox my system. I agreee as a american we don't eat right. Very few cases of cancer there but not many obese people there. Maybe this will help someone with cancer. John Hopkins has good things to read just don't give up and relieve the stress.
At sixty (plus) years of age, I have watched the War on Cancer from its beginnings. Witnessing friends and relatives battles with cancer for the better part of forty years, I have wondered, many times, why we just don't seem to close in on answers. I've read much on cancer research and I am aware of the progresses made. The need to find cancers early by finding new methods of searching for this sometimes secret enemy through new advances in blood testing and imaging equipment. It always seems close but never close enough after watching for four decades and more.
Today's revelation then, should be no surprise. The 'jockeying' for position; The need to get those studies done and out there for advancements or for more research monies seems to help no one but the researchers in the long run. I suppose better late than never, but let's just see where it all goes from here.
Howver, our age and death statistics have certainly improved since the 50s and 60s. At that time a man could expect to live to late 50s or early 60s. A woman somewhat longer. Now it's mid-to-late 80s for women and 70s for men, so they must be doing something right. Even though I love the blogs and like to read the comments, they oftentimes seem to be such doom and gloom, as do the articles. God help us if we really did go back politically, medically, and in every other way to the 50s/60s. We wouldn't make it, now, would we? Thank god I live in this day and age. I think of the terrible suffering of people back in the good old days and even though we all have to die, at least most of us live our lives with a good deal of help from those pharmaceuticals when we are in pain or have chronic conditions such as arthritis or diabetes. The fact is we are meant to get sick and die. That's how we were created. And it sure would be nice if we all had the same playing field in order to take care of our health with decent healthcare and that the chips were not stacked for some and not for others.
Nobody cares about cancer unless they have it
Oh gee, a study of the studies. How interesting. Not.
The whole article underscores the unreliability of study results. Of all these studies, only 11% were found to have repeatable, reliable results. That means that 89% were NOT valid. So every time we read about a study for this or a study for that, we should be highly suspicious of the results, as by this very probability--is WRONG.
I know some results were probably due to some sort of unseen error, a fluke of chemistry, or whatever, but 89% is a very damning percentage of failure. The next time we read about a study on MSNBC, CNN or whatever, that touts that studies regarding PAP smears timing, etc., aren't valid--remember the study has an 89% chance of being wrong. The same goes for the studies pooh-poohing breast cancer screening, prostate screening, etc.
It looks like the studies need a bit more study, not solid common sense and reasoning.
On the other hand, the study of these studies has only an 11% chance of being right. What a conundrum! No matter where you go, there you are. Wow.
Actually zapper, one of the major problems with studies are that they simply don't have enough participants to account for the enormous amount of genetic variability present in the population. Results can be completely valid for the particular test group but because cancer has so many genetic avenues, you won't see that same result in another group.
There's a lot of peope here who need to look in the mirror. Most cancers are preventable by your own actions.
Jack, your simplistic views on cancer and its causes are quite disturbing. As a testicular cancer survivor, I ask you, what should I have done differently to prevent my cancer? Considering most research is currently indicating that the cancer results from factors during fetal development, exactly what should I have done? What should my uncle have done to prevent the glioblastoma from forming in his brain and ultimately taking his life?
See, your simplified view of cancer is all nice and pretty until you stand on the other side and realize that the answer to your post-diagnostic question of "What could I have done to prevent this?" is, "Nothing". There are certainly people who more or less caused the disease they are forced to fight, but making such generalized statements for all cancer patients is dishonest and terribly disrespectful. Actually, if you feel so strongly in your belief I highly encourage you to show up to the next Livestrong or Susan G. Komen event and enlighten us all on how we could have simply avoided this fate. It's a shame you are just now sharing your groundbreaking ideas, but now that we know we can prevent our cancers we'll get this ship righted in no time. Or, perhaps you could show a little compassion and respect for those who walk down a road you could scarcely comprehend.
Most people have a very very poor understanding of what cancer is or how it occurs. They don't know that they most likely have cancerous cells in their body right now. Your cellular system has just developed some very clever ways of eliminating them. While some actions can increase the risk, those actions are limited to particular types of cancers. Lung cancer is highly preventable but many other forms are not.
If the researchers lie about their research for finding a cure then can we assume that they also lie about the causes?
Not really. The problem with many of the studies cited were that they were new and not yet independently verified by several groups. Much of the causes have been replicated time and time again, thus proving their accuracy. Not to mention no one is claimed to have lied at all. They only showed bias, a rather ugly demon present in most any research.
I have to reply to the general tenor that most cancers are preventable by your own actions. This is a blanket statement made by people who don't have and haven't had cancer and, for some reason, think it is all alike. What are the causes of: pancreatic, bladder, stomach, brain, breast, well, all of the non-lung cancer cancers! As someone with breast cancer (not caused by smoking or obesity, acc to my surgeon and oncologist, since I do and am neither), I assure you that no one knows the causes. I suspect , aside from the genetic propensity for damaged cells, environmental pollution, pesticides, herbicides in the food we buy (or did buy until we switched to organic), certainly stress is a huge factor. So, no, I disagree - MOST CANCERS ARE NOT PREVENTABLE because no one is willing to tackle the causes. So, it's not just what I do, it's what YOU do to me by having to drive your spewing vehicle everywhere instead of taking public transportation, riding a bike, or walking, god forbid! It's what YOU do when you demand cheap food year around, no matter what is available in what season, laden with chemicals so you can have your asparagus in July. It's what we ALL do. If you have to assign blame, blame us all. Personally, I think blaming people for getting cancer is heartless and cruel. They have enough on their plates without your scorn!
I do not think that anyone is claiming that all cancer is preventable. That's just ridiculous. It's also unfair to blame environmental pollution so heavily. Environmental pollution as cited by this article is only responsible for a tiny portion of cancer cases. You shouldn't hold such rancor for it. While it is a factor, it is a very small one. Especially when you consider how carcinogenic even the natural world is.
Cancer is mutated cells gone awry. It doesn't take anything for a cell to go rogue. DNA replication is unbelievably accurate, but it is not perfect. A single mistake anywhere along the line can insert or delete the information necessary for a cell to begin down the path to cancer. Fact is even in the Garden of Eden cancer was everywhere.
Not only can the cells make mistakes on their own in a billion different ways, but we are also exposed to 'natural' carcinogens like background cosmic radiation and countless compounds present in the environment. Lightning strikes kick off dozens of compounds that are carcinogenic and forest fires send all kinds of carcinogens throughout the environment. Neither of those factors are man-made.
Those who get cancer through their own actions (obesity, tobacco, etc.) have brought the scourge upon themselves, but that does not mean that they do not deserve compassion and pity. Those who are victims of circumstances out of their control or just lost the lottery in DNA deserve compassion even more. This is the reason so much effort is being put forth to treat and prevent cancer.
I actually wrote "most" not "all", and that was largely in response to Jack, who lives a very simple life. I believe that there are "triggers" out there, e.g., exhaust will trigger a reaction at a cellular level in some people but not all; same with pesticides and herbicides, too much exposure to radiation, etc. I probably shouldn't have run behind the DDT sprayer as a kid. I also think that the talking points used by the medical community ("smokers," "first-hand smoke", "second-hand smoke", and now "third-hand smoke" and let's not forget"the obese") help cover up the real triggers of adverse cellular reaction by focusing everyone's attention on "THEM" not on "US". So, as far as the article's claim that environmental pollutants play so little role in causing cancer, I believe it is easier to point fingers at smokers than drivers, who are polluting much more than any smoker I've ever encountered. To lighten the discussion, blaming smokers for all the lung cancer (and asthma, at least that was in vogue for awhile) in the world is a smoke screen.
Obviously there simply needs to be more people verifying the claims put forth each year. These researchers would certainly think twice about submitting a shoddy study if they knew that within a year it would be put to the test by two or three different groups. It is beyond humiliating to publish something that is not replicable. Just take cold fusion for example. It is the paradigm of a great result being published only to be completely and utterly disproved by later studies. It ruins careers. With all of that risk the researchers and those who back them will think twice about publishing something that are anything short of completely confident in, or at least make it to where they publish everything.
@Terror,
It isn't so much shoddy studies as it is that the physicians supposedly doing the research have approaching zero training or skills in medical research. This is simply not something that they teach in medical schools. They teach treatment and that teach that by system. Anything that does not fall into treatment (such as research or prevention) or a system (such as pain management) gets little, if any, notice in the curriculum.
And cold fusion research is still very much alive and still holds promising leads.
Marijuana cures cancer. Big Pharma can't patent it. So the cure eludes most cancer patients, because Big Pharma can't make huge profits off it it by cornering the market on it, so those who find the cure must become CRIMINALS in order to be cured....yay for the war on "drugs"! If you get cancer, or know someone who has it, remember this post.
Maybe it’s not the marijuana but the psychological relief it gives to hell with the teachers, bosses, parents, and bullies live life free.
Marijuana shows a lot of promise for medical research, especially in regards to pain and nausea management for cancer patients, but we want to avoid making unsubstantiated claims about the plant in the absence of peer-reviewed findings. I hope marijuana proves to be as clinically significant as so many of its proponents claim, but I highly doubt it is the pharmacological Panacea many want it to be.
Another opinion in search of substantiation. Smoke it if you like, but don't demean serious medical research with your self serving opinions.
I love pointing this out to those who claim that marijuana "cures" or "treats" cancer. The Netherlands is pretty much the only modern country with legal marijuana for recreational use. They also have one of the highest cancer per capita of any country. Much higher than that of the US and somewhat higher than nearby Germany or France. I won't argue that its appetite enhancing properties and anti-nausea claims may help those going through chemotherapy keep a healthy body weight, but that's only because there is no research to support or refute it. Fact of the matter is that when you burn any carbon compound (pot included) you get a cornucopia of carcinogenic compounds like dioxins and benzene. Inhaling the smoke of anything is not advisable in pretty much any circumstance.
There's no money in prevention, only treatment. All the "pink" campaigns are marketing money grabs.
they make a lot of money in prevention, treatments and cures. but with the aging of america there making more money with the housing and care of the elderly. the care of the elderly is the real issue! BAD SCIENCE OR NOT WHAT HAPPENING TO THE ONES WHO SURVIVE IT.
All the research about what causes cancer and what prevents it HAS already been done. Research the works of Dr. Otto Warburg. He was the only German Jew who Hitler allowed to remain in the country because he knew of Warburg's work and was terrified of getting cancer. Warburg won 2 Nobel prizes in Medicine for his research.
Also, look up a chemist named James Sheridan who created an alternative cancer treatment that has been successful for many.
Additionally, the book, "The Hidden Story of Cancer" by Brian Peskin. Pesking is controversial for sure but the book is well worth reading. And, try "Outsmart Your Cancer" by Tanya Harter Pearce.
Lastly, each organ represents a different emotion - i.e. lungs=grief. Therefore, it's possible that someone who has never smoked could develop lung cancer due to extreme grief (Dana Reeves comes to mind for this example.) It is only once we are able to embrace a - dare I say it? - holistic viewpoint about cancer will we be able to treat it without harsh mustard gas, aka chemotherapy, and use kinder and perhaps more effective treatments which do, in fact, exist today.
Libragal, out of curiosity what exactly would you consider to be the baseline numbers for effective treatment? I ask this because I am a survivor due to the "mustard gas" treatment for which you so clearly hold a high level of disdain. My stage IIb testicular cancer was treated with three rounds of BEP which is the standard protocol for the non-seminoma form of testicular cancer. The only reason I bring this up is that prior to the initiation of the BEP protocol testicular cancer carried a close to 95% mortality rate, and the overall survival rate for testicular cancer today is now 95%. The 180 degree shift in treatment outcomes is entirely due to the establishment of a highly effective "mustard gas" treatment protocol. Not surprisingly, those few who choose to take the holistic or eastern medicine approach to treating their testicular cancer share one concrete result, they all die from the disease. Holistic care is wonderful for promoting overall well-being, but until I begin to see peer-reviewed work for both the action mechanisms and the treatment outcomes you could not pay me to treat existing cancer with holistics.
Libragal
So how did the diet and exercise treatment work out for Steve Jobs? He delayed conventional treatment for 8 months.
If you ever contract cancer, please update us on your treatment selection.
If others BLAME THE VICTIM when someone gets cancer they are engaging in a kind of sympathetic magic so they can pretend that we do not know what causes cancer, and we can barely increase survival times for some cancers (and cure very few, though it does happen) and THEY will somehow beat the odds.
Since many people who get lung cancer never smoked, since many people who are obese never get cancer, and many skinny people do, blaming the victim is very mean, cruel and nasty. Don't do it.
Thank you for phrasing that so eloquently.
There are so many cancers, not one cure will take care of all. Some are so very rare and strange. You can everything right in your life and still get cancer. Not all cancers have to do with smoking or too much sun, or some other act we do. Cancers are little bombs inside our cells and they can't even figure what sets many of them off. I have a friend who has pseudo mixoma peritonei, a rare cancer that attaches as a gel to all the internal organs. That friend had to be opened up from breastbone to pelvis, cleaned out piece by piece over every organ, stomach, etc., be on chemo, and still the odds are that the life expectancy is about 3 years. We seem to think that we all have control over our physical being and that is not the case. We have become a nation of people who believe they are not vulnerable to anything and that they want to blame other human beings for getting sick. If we don't smoke, or don't drink, or don't go in the sun, or don't do risky things, we think we are in control. So how do you account for all the childhood cancers? How do you account for those who have lived exemplary healthy lives, and still get sick? We're just human beings, not saints, not immortal. I find it so very sad that people who get sick are so maligned, because like it or not, we will all get sick and die from something, cancer or something else. What would help us in our journey is to know that when needed good health care would be available and not just for the lucky ones.
My husband lost a job during the downturn. He was 61. He also had had prostate cancer. He still cannot find a job and probably will not, as he has been looking now for 2 years. His COBRA lasted for 18 months. After that, he cannot find affordable insurance. Now they (I'm not sure who all is in that they, but new guidelines are being pushed) want men to have prostate testing every 5 years. Now they (same) want women to have breast exams every 5 years instead of annually. What happens to men and women who get it year one after an exam and are now being exhorted to wait 4 more years before being examined again. Guess what, they will die. We should all be on Medicare or single payer, get the private for-profit insurance out of our lives and take care of all who get sick and need healthcare. Why not raise the salary caps for these services and also for Social Security? There are ways to take care of people rather than more tax breaks for the rich.
It strikes me that it is hard for a paper reporting negative results to make it through the peer review process.
Asprin as a cancer cure? OK Obamacare.
The problem with cancer research is that it's become a career path for too many. I can't help but suspect a cure is the last thing many grant recipiants want to find.... that would end the $$$$ rolling in. Publishing half hearted or un verified findings justs keeps the money coming.... Dr's are human and have the same weaknesses as the rest of us.... including greed and dishonesty.
Bob, your assertion is certainly interesting, but the argument collapses under a central flaw. In order for a cure to be effective it must still be administered to the cancer patients, this cure would still need to be produced by the pharmaceutical industry, and the companies would, thus, still make money. Additionally, the one thing further cancer research has absolutely shown is that, at least with our current understanding and technology, there is not a magic bullet that can be administered across the board for all cancers. So, even if a cure has been discovered it is highly unlikely it would cover all, or even most, cancers. Additionally, the increasing survival rates for most cancers indicate that the research is making tangible progress.
Throw a bone or two and the masses will stay calm. If the cure was readily available, from thousands of sources, and the cost was pennies per day, how many researchers are going to line up behind THAT? NONE!
MrKnowItAll, the idea of "tossing a bone or two" to the public at large does not hold water for a variety of reasons. First, the dramatic increase in survival rates over the years shows much greater advancement than what would be seen by tossing out a few new compounds occasionally to keep everyone quiet. Second, the price for the cure could be priced at exorbitant prices by whichever company discovered the compound for roughly the first decade after the discovery. Given the current cost of cancer treatment, the curative treatment could literally be priced at $100,000 per dose and still be cheaper than the cost of traditional treatment. The providing company would see unheard of profits for a decade, and that kind of financial windfall is absolutely of interest to researchers and companies. Third, in assuming the cures are being withheld you are saying that all medical researchers are collaborating together to maximize profits over a lifetime. This would make sense if all cancer researchers worked in the private industry or under private industry sponsored grants. In reality, cancer researchers can be found in the private, academic and government sectors, and are located in labs and universities around the world. So, you are basically saying that all the research around the globe is a sham operated by the thousands of researchers, the hundreds of governments, and the many pharmaceutical companies with stakes in this area of study. The Manhattan Project involved fewer people in a time before fast and reliable world-wide communication, and even that secret could not be kept within the tight circle. Only a fool would believe such a conspiracy is even feasible in the modern world.
there is a lot of disinformation intentional and unintentional given out. and the HMMO and PPOs are always watching their little ledgers. how much money is the HMMOs and PPOs giving to the AMGENs or is that backwards. if anyone hidding stuff its the AMGENs about the harm their products do.
So... It looks as though the American Cancer Society and the Komen For The Cure are just shooting blanks while the brass of these corporations are getting a sweet deal with hugh salaries. With tens of billions spent...where is the cure? Empty promises are offered and packaged for the contributors. Disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, yeah, you definitely figured out the scam of all these groups furthering cancer research.... We'll just throw out the leaps and bounds seen in cancer treatment and survival over the last few decades. I hate to burst your bubble, but the cancer Panacea you are demanding is simply not a reality. So, rather than shoot for this imaginary magic pill, the medical community has tasked itself with creating more potent and focused treatments in order to increase survival rates and decrease long-term physiological damage. Now this may seem shocking, but the emphasis on better, more effective, treatments has actually resulted in substantially improved outlooks for cancer patients diagnosed today. Oddly, this improved treatment appears to be the direct result of the funding and research. But, let's not let facts cloud our judgement here, it makes much more sense to make outlandish claims in the absence of any evidence based on an article from MSNBC.
The same argument goes for global warming as for cancer research. But because the later is a "belief", all objections to globar warming research are derided as flat earth positions.
In any field, good science is good science.
Ive given up on the medical establishment. I research my own holistic health solutions and research my own preventative measures. It completely turned my health around. Dont believe 90 percent of what you hear from the "experts"
Perhaps forcing insurance to cover obesity in a meaningful way would help. Currently the sum of what they will do is deny you coverage for being fat, but not pay to help you overcome one of the most difficult conditions to treat, if you do have insurance. Even something as simple as a stress test to determine VO2max (the number needed to effectively use a heart-rate monitor while exercising), nutrition and exercise advice, or a proven program such as Weight Watchers is not covered on most plans.
Quote: fraud plays little or no role in the bad science
Then the article goes on to explain how Big Pharma uses fraudulent means to promote their drugs. The bottom line is pharmaceutical companies cannot be trusted to report negative findings of their own drugs.
Obesity is responsible for 20% of cancer deaths? That's absurd. No one with cancer dies of obesity - [such idiocy] - people with cancer die of CANCER, or maybe they die from all these faulty cancer treatments Big Pharma is lying to us about.