Image from packershalloffame.com

As indicated on its website, the center is one of only 41 comprehensive cancer centers in the nation, as designated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the only one in the Washington, DC, area. The center seeks to improve the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of cancer through innovative basic and clinical research, patient care, community education and outreach, and the training of cancer specialists of the future.

Let’s work together as a team to score a touchdown in the fight against breast cancer with our support of the Avon Foundation. Please consider a contribution to the Lombardi/CBCC Avon Walk Team as we work as individuals and team members to raise $100,000 by May 2013 for the Avon Walk DC. Click here to make your gift, or contact us at lombardicbccavon@gmail.com for instructions on mailing a check. As Vince Lombardi is quoted as saying, ‘Individual commitment to a group effort – that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.’

The rate of advanced breast cancer for U.S. women 25 to 39 years old nearly doubled from 1976 to 2009, a difference too great to be a matter of chance, a study finds.

Pint of American beer (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It’s not my intent to get up on a soapbox and tell everyone to quit drinking immediately.  Despite the known hazards of drinking alcohol, we each must make the decision whether or not to indulge.

HealthDay.com has a great article that might just convince you to moderate your alcohol intake, or better yet, keep you from starting a habit that can lead to addiction, and perhaps, death.

According to HealthDay reporter Steven Reinberg, a new report indicates that alcohol is to blame for one in every 30 cancer deaths each year in the United States. The report was published online in the American Journal of Public Health.

The report is also critical of moderation, stating that 30 percent of all alcohol-related cancer deaths are linked to drinking 1.5 drinks or less a day.

These are sobering statistics. The next time you visit your doctor, bring up your drinking habits. As awkward and difficult as this may be, your doctor may be able to offer advice that will  lead you to a healthier, happier life.

Physical Activity – The Prevention of Cancer and Quality of Life Improvement

When you have cancer, there is no doubt that there are numerous difficulties surrounding this disease. However, even with cancer, it is important to your spirits high and find ways to stay motivated. One way to help both physically and mentally is to stay physically active. Staying active has multiple benefits surrounding cancer patients at any stage from an initial diagnosis throughout the end of treatment.

Research has shown that regular exercise can reduce the risk of developing certain types of cancer, including breast and colon. Research has also shown to help reduce the many side effects of cancer treatments. So whether someone is battling mesothelioma or melanoma, exercise can play a pivotal role in having a successful battle.

In studies conducted by the National Cancer Institute, cancer patients who routinely exercised were found to have significantly more energy. This was true with and without active treatment. Balance in energy was also more noticeable; those who exercised regularly did not notice the “highs” and “lows” typically associated with chemotherapy and radiation.

Those who were physically active also had a higher chance of shaking all types of cancer permanently. Not only was the cancer in remission but it also was beat in less time than those who were not active on a regular basis.

Women with cancer, particularly those with hormone based cancers, were found to gain less than the amount of weight of women who were not active. The survival rate was much higher for active women than of sedentary.

Active cancer patients, both men and women, see an improved quality of life. With higher energy and a lower sickness rate associated with treatment, it is easier for these individuals to get out and do the activities they love. Spending time with loved ones also improves the overall quality of life.

No matter what stage of cancer you are facing, whether it be a first diagnosis, nearing the end of treatment, or a survivor, it is important to live an active lifestyle. Other health problems, such as diabetes and high blood pressure, are more likely to develop when you do not exercise regularly. Remember, there is not a one-size fits all exercise routine. Walking, running, lifting weights, and yoga are all great examples of activities however; it is imperative to speak with a physician to develop a plan specific to the person and diagnosis.

To know more about Melanie Bowen, check out: http://www.mesothelioma.com/blog/authors/melanie/bio.htm

Follow me on Twitter & Instagram@MissCasie86.

All of this great news points to one overarching factor:  research is the key to beating breast cancer.  Research, however, is not possible without the financial support necessary to conduct it.  It is said we prioritize the things that are important to us by the resources we allocate toward it.  When we fail to financially support the research of breast cancer, we show that beating the disease and the helping the women affected by it are not important.  The opposite is also true, and Middle Tennesseans have a significant role in that fight.

No community supports funding for the research of breast cancer and other cancer forms better than Middle Tennessee.  Our research facilities include the Frances Williams Preston Center at the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center located at Vanderbilt University. Since its inception in 1993, the VICC has come to be known as one of the most comprehensive cancer centers in the U.S. and ranks in the top ten of U.S. cancer research centers in the awarding of research grants from the National Cancer Institute.  This would not have been possible, however, without private donations paving the way.

Thanks to organizations like our locally supported T.J. Martell Foundation, millions of dollars have been raised through private donations to specifically fund for research.  The music industry supported foundation specifically raises funds in Nashville to support the Frances Williams Preston Center and has done so since its inception by former BMI CEO, Frances Preston, in 1993.  Preston led a virtual army of music industry professionals and community supporters to raise more than $15 million for cancer research over the past nineteen years.  This served as money to prime the financing well, which in turn leveraged more than $100 million of federal money from the National Cancer Institute.

This past June, Frances Preston passed away at the age of 83.  She was not only a pioneer in the music industry, but she also ensured the solvency of the T.J. Martell Foundation in Nashville.  Unfortunately, the T.J. Martell Foundation can only do so much and can only raise so much money.  As the economy continues to stagnate, federal funds have been greatly restricted.  This includes money for breast cancer research.

All of this underscores the importance of private donations to keep the momentum of cancer research going.  The good news about the progress made in the fight against cancer is only possible because of that research.  We cannot stop the fight just short of reaching our objective—finding a cure for cancer.

In 2012, country music singer Martina McBride created the Martin McBride Breast Cancer Research Initiative to further research efforts and raise more private money for the cause.  In its few short months of existence, McBride’s fans have helped her raise more than $30 thousand to donate to the VICC through the T.J. Martell Foundation.  This is just one way more private donations are making up for losses of federal grant money, but more needs to be done.

We Tennesseans have always volunteered in the fight to preserve life.  We value the first written inalienable right as the most important right.  We sacrifice everything we have to defend the lives of others as is evident by such heroes as Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. Alvin York, former U.S. President and hero of the War of 1812 Andrew Jackson, and Nashville native and philanthropist Frances Preston.  In honor of that tradition, we must continue to fight and volunteer even when times are tough.

We are about to begin our local fundraising efforts again not only through the T.J. Martell foundation but also through such organizations as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the American Cancer Society, and the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer.  There will be numerous opportunities for everyone in the community to help raise money, volunteer, or participate in fundraising initiatives to continue to finance breast cancer research.  In 2013, let us renew our commitment to life.  Let us remember all of the courageous women who have given life, raised, and nurtured all of us to achieve greatness.

Tennesseans, we have a daunting task in front of us, but the task is important and will benefit not only the women in our area but also women everywhere who fight breast cancer every day.  Are they important to you?  I know they are, so let us show them how important they are to us by raising the money to fund for the research that will stop breast cancer once and for all.

We’ve looked at the French for years to discover exactly why their high consumption of wine has led to lower rates of heart disease and cancer. Scientists discovered more than a decade ago that it had nothing to do with the alcohol and everything to do with resveratrol antioxidants in red grapes. The French are also more active and eat less processed foods with less toxic preservatives, which may protect them against many cancers. However, when it comes to alcohol consumption, the same is not true for westerners. Researchers from the Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM) and Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) have shown that alcohol is a major contributor to cancer and drinking even small amounts of alcohol, as little as one drink, can increase the risk of developing cancer, a new study has warned.

• Briefing contained updated data on economic impact of NIH funding.
• Research leaders and patients addressed cancer progress.
• High-resolution photos available to the media.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The American Association for Cancer Research hosted a briefing on Feb. 12 for members of Congress and their legislative staffs that highlighted progress in cancer research and treatment as well as challenges created by decreased levels of funding.

The briefing was held in the Rayburn Building on Capitol Hill as the threat of sequestration looms. Unless Congress acts before March 1, funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will decline by 5.1 percent, potentially resulting in a loss of more than 20,500 jobs and $3 billion in new economic activity, according to a report from United for Medical Research.

The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), a member of United for Medical Research, highlighted the report as part of its briefing. The report estimates that NIH funding currently supports more than 402,000 jobs and $57.8 billion in economic output nationwide.

“It is imperative that funding for medical research through the NIH be regarded as a priority investment for our nation,” said Jon Retzlaff, M.P.A., M.B.A., managing director of the Office of Science Policy and Government Affairs at the AACR. “The frustrating reality is that our ability to deliver on the promise of science to patients is in great jeopardy due to both a decade of stagnant budgets and the looming threat of sequestration. We have reached a crisis point.”

The briefing was part of an ongoing effort by the AACR, United for Medical Research and approximately 100 other organizations to draw attention to the funding crisis and its impact through the Rally for Medical Research. These groups will host the Rally that is expected to draw more than 10,000 people to the steps of the Carnegie Library in Washington, D.C., on April 8, 2013, at 11 a.m.

It is estimated that each year more than 1.6 million Americans receive a cancer diagnosis and more than 580,000 will die of the disease. Due to advances in research and treatment, however, there are now nearly 14 million cancer survivors in the United States.   

At Tuesday’s briefing, congressional staffers heard from Douglas Lowy, M.D., deputy director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a part of the NIH. Lowy highlighted statistics showing that cancer mortality rates have declined over the past 10 years for most cancers, but the decline has not been seen across all cancers and it has not been shared by all racial and ethnic groups or genders.

“Basic research supported by the NCI is the main engine of discovery that will lead to future breakthroughs in the fight against cancer,” said Lowy.

Unfortunately, while the budget for the NCI in fiscal year 2012 was approximately $5 billion, in any year most of that funding is already committed to ongoing projects and annual increases have not kept pace with inflation. According to Lowy, only around 15 percent of new grant applications receive funding.

“The key thing to remember about basic research is that only the public sector can really invest in it because the horizon line of the private sector is simply too short,” said Lowy.

Lowy cited the National Lung Screening Trial as an example of publicly funded research, which was conducted over approximately 10 years at a cost of more than $250 million. The trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2011, indicated that for current and former smokers, low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality by 20 percent.

Anna D. Barker, Ph.D., professor and director, Transformative Healthcare Networks, and co-director, Complex Adaptive Systems Research at Arizona State University, said one of the many examples of government-funded breakthroughs is The Cancer Genome Atlas.

“The data generated are helping researchers understand how these changes interact to drive different cancers, and they are laying the foundation for improving cancer prevention, early detection and treatment,” said Barker, a former deputy director of the NCI.

Barker was followed by Ken Anderson, M.D., director, Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Kraft Family professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Mass.

Anderson highlighted recent progress in blood cancers, which has made myeloma a “chronic disease for many patients,” Anderson said. According to Anderson, agents like bortezomib, the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide, carfilzomib and pomalidomide have resulted in demonstrable patient benefit.

“Without NIH/NCI funding, this amazing progress simply would never have happened,” said Anderson. “Importantly, the lessons of myeloma apply to other blood cancers. Indeed, the mechanisms of disease are common, allowing for fast-forwarding progress in the development of new, more effective treatments.”

Anderson’s presentation was followed by M. Robert Carr, a former United States Congressman from Michigan, who was treated by Anderson for multiple myeloma in 2007. Carr was treated with bortezomib, a newly approved drug at the time. He has been cancer-free since 2008.

“Cancer does not discriminate. It can strike anyone—no age, gender, race, ethnicity or even political affiliation makes you immune to developing cancer,” said Carr. “As a result of the dedicated work of cancer and biomedical researchers like our panelists today, the progress has been remarkable.”

Follow the AACR on Twitter: @aacr #aacr
Follow the AACR on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/aacr.org

About the American Association for Cancer Research
Founded in 1907, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) is the world’s first and largest professional organization dedicated to advancing cancer research and its mission to prevent and cure cancer. AACR membership includes more than 34,000 laboratory, translational and clinical researchers; population scientists; other health care professionals; and cancer advocates residing in more than 90 countries. The AACR marshals the full spectrum of expertise of the cancer community to accelerate progress in the prevention, biology, diagnosis and treatment of cancer by annually convening more than 20 conferences and educational workshops, the largest of which is the AACR Annual Meeting with more than 17,000 attendees. In addition, the AACR publishes eight peer-reviewed scientific journals and a magazine for cancer survivors, patients and their caregivers. The AACR funds meritorious research directly as well as in cooperation with numerous cancer organizations. As the scientific partner of Stand Up To Cancer, the AACR provides expert peer review, grants administration and scientific oversight of team science and individual grants in cancer research that have the potential for near-term patient benefit. The AACR actively communicates with legislators and policymakers about the value of cancer research and related biomedical science in saving lives from cancer. For more information about the AACR, visit www.AACR.org.

Media Contact:
Jeremy Moore
(215) 446-7109
Jeremy.Moore@aacr.org

Cancer Find Clinical Trials Nutritional Methods

Cancer is a term for diseases in which abnormal (i.e., deviant) cells divide without control and can invade nearby tissues. Cancer cells can also spread to other parts of the body (i.e., corpus) through the blood (i.e., haema) and lymph (i.e., lympha) systems. There are several main (i.e., hand) types of cancer. Carcinoma is a cancer that begins in the skin (i.e., cutis) or in tissues that line (i.e., linea) or cover internal (i.e., internus) organs. Sarcoma is a cancer that begins in bone (i.e., os), cartilage (i.e., cartilago, or chondrus), fat (i.e., adipose tissue), muscle (i.e., musculus, or see musculus), blood vessels, or other connective or supportive tissue. Leukemia (i.e., leukocytic sarcoma) is a cancer that starts in blood-forming tissue such as the bone marrow (i.e., medulla ossium), and causes large numbers of abnormal blood cells to be produced and enter the blood. Lymphoma and multiple myeloma (i.e., multiple myelomatosis, or myelomatosis multiplex) are cancers that begin in the cells of the immune system. Central nervous system (i.e., systema nervosum) cancers are cancers that begin in the tissues of the brain and spinal (i.e., rachial, or rachidial) cord (i.e., fasciculus, or funiculus). Also called malignancy. If we all take into account clinic, than we are able to state that trial, and find trials will be of higher relevance. The impact associated with trial in clinical, and find clinical is definitely substantial. Clinical, having to do with the examination and treatment of patients. If all of us think about cancer, than we can declare that patients, and treatment is of high relevance.

With regard to clinical trial we are able to determine the following typical information, observations, as well as entries:

1. One can determine, because of this, about six to eight percent of cancer patients receiving treatment at the Cancer Center are enrolled in clinical trials, which is above the national average.^[1]
2. It is obvious that, participants of a clinical trial have the chance to help others and improve cancer care.^[1]
3. You can conclude that, this means that cancer patients frequently must do their own research to find the clinical trials that may be right for them.^[2]
4. It seems to be, for an additional list of organizations that can help patients find clinical trials, please visit our webpage.^[2]
5. It might seem apparant that, volunteers in clinical trials play an essential (i.e., intrinsic) role in the ongoing quest to find a remedy for the disease.^[3]
6. It appears to be that, the purpose of a breast (i.e., mamma, or teat) malignant neoplastic disease clinical trial is to find new and improved methods of treating the disease.^[4] Breast, glandular (i.e., glandulous) organ located on the chest (i.e., pectus). The breast is made up of connective tissue (i.e., interstitial tissue, or supporting tissue), fat, and breast tissue that contains the glands that can make milk (i.e., strip, or lac). Also called mammary gland (i.e., glandula mammaria, or lactiferous gland).
7. It has been discovered that, additional data about clinical trials and ongoing inquiry can be obtained from the National Cancer Institutes` Web site (i.e., situs).^[5]
8. It seems that, through clinical trials we make progress in the conflict against cancer and patients receive `cutting edge (i.e., incisal margin)` therapy (i.e., therapeusis, or therapia).^[5] Therapy, treatment.
9. It would seem to be apparant that, if you are interested in finding clinical trials, the web sites below may help.^[5]
10. It seems that, these are generally done with another clinical tribulation and focus on how genetic makeup can affect detection, diagnosis or response to cancer treatment.^[6] Diagnosis is the process (i.e., processus) of identifying a disease, such as cancer, from its signs and symptoms. Genetic, inherited; having to do with information that is passed from parents to offspring through genes in sperm (i.e., sperm cell, or spermatozoon) and egg cells. Response is in medicine,
    an improvement related to treatment.
11. Evidently, in early detection clinical trials, the researchers want to determine the best method acting and frequency to screen a normal group of people.^[7]
12. It might seem apparant that, a malignant neoplastic disease treatment clinical trial is a study conducted with patients in order to evaluate a new therapy, diagnostic trial run or prevention method.^[8] Prevention is in medicine, action taken to decrease the chance of getting a disease or condition. For example, cancer prevention includes avoiding risk factors (such as smoking, obesity (i.e., adiposity, or corpulence), lack of exercise, and radiation (i.e., radiatio) exposure) and
    increasing protective factors (such as getting regular physical activity,
    staying at a healthy weight, and having a healthy diet).

In summary we could declare that Cancer Find Clinical Trials Nutritional Methods has an influence on patient cancer.

Terminology

Mammary gland

the potential and active compound, alveolar, mostly merocrine (with possible apocrine components) milk-secreting gland lying within the breast; it comprises 1524 lobes, each consisting of many lobules, separated by adipose tissue and fibrous septa; the parenchyma of the resting postpubertal female gland consists of ducts; the alveoli develop only during pregnancy and remain active until weaning; normally, the gland remains rudimentary (undistinguishable from its childhood state) in men

Lymph

A clear, transparent, sometimes faintly yellow and slightly opalescent fluid that is collected from the tissues throughout the body, flows in the lymphatic vessels (through the lymph nodes), and is eventually added to the venous blood circulation. Lymph consists of a clear liquid portion, varying numbers of white blood cells (chiefly lymphocytes), and a few red blood cells

Margin

A boundary, edge, or border, as of a surface or structure

Myelomatosis

A disease characterized by the occurrence of myeloma in various sites.

Spinal

1. Relating to any spine or spinous process.
2. Relating to the vertebral column

Nervous system

the entire nerve apparatus, composed of a central part (the brain and spinal cord) and a peripheral part (the cranial and spinal nerves, autonomic ganglia, plexuses and peripheral nerves)

Adipose

Denoting fat.

Leukocytic

Pertaining to or characterized by leukocytes

Conflict

Tension or stress experienced by an organism when satisfaction of a need, drive, motive, or wish is thwarted by the presence of other attractive or unattractive needs, drives, or motives.

Immune system

an intricate complex of interrelated cellular, molecular, and genetic components that provides a defense, the immune response, against foreign organisms or substances and aberrant native cells.

Glandular

Relating to a gland

Brain

That part of the central nervous system contained within the cranium.

Medulla

Any soft marrowlike structure, especially in the center of a part

Adiposity

Excessive accumulation of lipids in a site or organ

Cartilage

A connective tissue characterized by its nonvascularity and firm consistency; consists of cells (chondrocytes), an interstitial matrix of fibers (collagen), and ground substance (proteoglycans). There are three kinds of cartilage hyaline cartilage, elastic cartilage, and fibrocartilage. Nonvascular, resilient, flexible connective tissue found primarily in joints, the walls of the thorax, and tubular structures (larynx, air passages, and ears); makes up most of the skeleton in early fetal life, but is slowly replaced by bone. For a gross anatomic description, see cartilago and its subentries

Leukemia

Progressive proliferation of abnormal leukocytes found in hemopoietic tissues, other organs, and usually in the blood in increased numbers. Leukemia is classified by the dominant cell type, and by duration from onset to death. This occurs in acute leukemia within a few months in most cases, and is associated with acute symptoms including severe anemia, hemorrhages, and slight enlargement of lymph nodes or the spleen. The duration of chronic leukemia exceeds one year, with a gradual onset of symptoms of anemia or marked enlargement of spleen, liver, or lymph nodes

Myeloma

1. A tumor composed of cells derived from hemopoietic
   tissues of the bone marrow.
2. A plasma cell tumor.

Sperm

The male gamete or sex cell that contains the genetic information to be transmitted by the male, exhibits autokinesia, and is able to effect zygosis with an oocyte. The human sperm is composed of a head and a tail, the tail being divisible into a neck, a middle piece, a principal piece, and an end piece; the head, 4??????6 mcm in length, is a broadly oval, flattened body containing the nucleus; the tail is about 55 mcm in length

Neoplastic

Pertaining to or characterized by neoplasia, or containing a neoplasm.

Mammary

Relating to the breasts.

Bone marrow

the soft, pulpy tissue filling the medullary cavities of bones, having a stroma of reticular fibers and cells; it differs in consistency by age and location

Malignancy

The property or condition of being malignant.

Lymphoma

Any neoplasm of lymphoid or reticuloendothelial tissues; in general use, synonymous with malignant lymphoma; present as apparently solid tumors composed of cells that appear primitive or resemble lymphocytes, plasma cells, or histiocytes. Lymphomas appear most frequently in the lymph nodes, spleen, or other normal sites of lymphoreticular cells; may invade other organs or manifest as leukemia. Lymphomas are now classified by histology, immunophenotype, and cytogenetic analysis, according to cell of orgin (B or T cells) and degree of maturation. The current World Health Organization (WHO) classification of lymphoid neoplasms is based on the Revised European-American Lymphoma (REAL) classification and effectively replaces older schemes such as the Working Formulation and Rappaport classification, which were based solely on morphology.

Incisal

Cutting; relating to the cutting edges of the incisor and cuspid teeth.

Medicine

1. A drug.
2. The art of preventing or curing disease; the science
   concerned with disease in all its relations.
3. The study and treatment of general diseases or those
   affecting the internal parts of the body, especially those not usually
   requiring surgical intervention.

Cutting edge

1. the beveled, knifelike, sharpened working angle of a
   dental hand instrument;

2. Synonyms incisal
   margin

Radiation

radiophobia.

Malignant

1. occurring in severe form, and frequently fatal;
   tending to become worse and leading to an ingravescent course.
2. In reference to a neoplasm, having the property of
   locally invasive and destructive growth and metastasis.

Interstitial

1. Relating to spaces or interstices in any structure.
2. Relating to spaces within a tissue or organ, but
   excluding such spaces as body cavities or potential space.

Genetic

Pertaining to genetics; genetical.

Chondrus

The plant Chondrus crispus, Fucus crispus, or Gigartina mamillosa (family Gigartinaceae); a demulcent in chronic and intestinal disorders

Lac

Any whitish, milklike liquid

Focus

1. The point at which the light rays meet after passing
   through a convex lens.
2. The center, or the starting point, of a disease
   process.

Edge

A line at which a surface terminates.

Nervous

1. Relating to a nerve or the nerves.
2. Easily excited or agitated; suffering from mental or
   emotional instability; tense or anxious.
3. Formerly, denoting a temperament characterized by
   excessive mental and physical alertness, rapid pulse, excitability, often
   volubility, but not always fixity of purpose.

Lactiferous

Yielding milk.

Connective tissue

the physical or functional supporting tissue of the animal body, a major constituent of which (in addition to various kinds of cells) is an extracellular matrix of ground substance, protein fibers, and structural glycoproteins; it is derived from the mesenchyme, which in turn is derived mainly from mesoderm; the many kinds of connective tissue may be classified according to cell-matrix proportion (loose vs. dense), arrangement of fibers (regular dense vs. irregular dense), fiber type (collagenous, elastic), embedded cell type (adipose, lymphoid, hemopoietic), degree of differentiation (mesenchymal, mucous), location (subcutaneous, periosteal, perichondrial), appearance (areolar, granulation), or nature of matrix (cartilaginous, osseous, or, in the cases of blood and lymph, liquid)

Sarcoma

A connective tissue neoplasm, usually highly malignant, formed by proliferation of mesodermal cells.

Related Material

1. Clinical Trials
   
2. How to Find a Clinical Trial
   
3. Learn About Clinical Trials
   
4. Metairie LA Oncologist Doctors – Breast cancer clinical trials on MedicineNet.com
   
5. Cancer Types – Clinical Trials For Prostate Cancer, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ, 08903
   
6. OVARIAN CANCER: Clinical Trials

7. Clinical Trials | Cancer Center
   
8. Types of Clinical Trials

Even tho this article is dated 2008, it’s a well balanced look into the work of Dr Burzynski, who recently won a 15+ year battle with the FDA.

He’s treated thousands of people from all over the world, so why can’t he get FDA approval?

If you were writing the story of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, he’d probably want you to start with him leaving Poland for America with $15 and a dream. He’d want it to end with him curing cancer.

Photos by Daniel Kramer

Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski has battled the Food and Drug Administration

for 30 years trying to get its approval for his cancer treatment.

Courtesy of Timothy Gorski M.D.

Dr. Timothy Gorski says Burzynski is “selling hope at a high price.”

The events in between would describe a man leaving behind an oppressive regime for what he thought was a sanctuary for medical research — only to discover that U.S. authorities were even worse than the Communists. Page after page would show authorities trying to shut him down, trying to put him in jail. But he would persevere, bolstered by the testimonies of patients who come to his Houston clinic from all around the globe. Husbands, wives, sons, daughters — condemned to death by conventional medicine, but saved by ­Burzynski.

The preferred ending — the one where the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves his treatment — would be about vindication after 30 years of fighting the system. It would show how closed-minded bureaucrats with a grudge cost thousands upon thousands of lives.

He wouldn’t want you to suggest there’s plenty of blame to go around. He wouldn’t want you to stand that scenario on its head, to where it’s Burzynski, not the government, refusing to share his treatment with the world unless he was able to do it his way, and his way only. Then, all the money he’s made from patients who mortgaged homes and held fund-raisers in order to see him might not seem so justified.

But what he really wouldn’t want is an alternate ending. One where, when you swap testimony for science, his treatment isn’t effective after all. Because then people might pin those thousands of lost lives on him.
_____________________

Last December, the FDA granted orphan drug status to Burzynski for the treatment of gliomas, a group of brain tumors that are hard to treat and quick to kill.

Generally, orphan status provides extra benefits — such as extended patent protection — to drug developers targeting diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people­.

It’s the latest highlight of a saga that began in 1967, when a 24-year-old Burzynski identified certain peptides — chains of amino acids — in blood and urine. He found that people suffering with cancer typically had lower levels of these peptides, and he hypothesized that these agents might be the foundation of a nontoxic cancer treatment.

He called the peptides “antineoplastons,” and the more he researched, the more optimistic he became. He continually drew his own blood, and that of his extremely accommodating family members, to the point where the volume couldn’t keep up with his research needs. So he collected urine samples, at one point taking them from public restrooms, until he figured out a way to synthesize the antineoplastons. (Some critics laugh at this pee-based research; one wonders if, in another age, they would have snickered at the scientist who became oddly enamored of the ­bacteria-fighting ability he supposedly found in some mold in a petri dish he forgot to clean).

In 1970, three years after graduating from the Medical Academy of Lublin, Burzynski emigrated to the United States and took a position as researcher and associate professor at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. With the help of a grant from the National Cancer Institute, Burzynski continued his antineoplaston research. But when a grant renewal was denied in 1976, Burzynski decided that if he wanted to see his theory through to the end, he would have to do it on his own.

But first he had to find out if it was even legal to manufacture, sell and administer antineoplastons in Texas. As a later court order would detail, Burzynski asked officials at the Texas Department of State Health Services if he could legally treat patients with ­antineoplastons.

The court order, which included a history of the steps he took in opening the clinic, states that the officials gave him a verbal green light, but never gave written ­consent.

Based on what the officials told him, he opened a private practice and research lab in a business park near the Westchase area. His work was not exactly inconspicuous; urine was delivered to a warehouse via tank trailer, dumped into an outdoor 3,500-­gallon container, then filtered and transferred to an uncovered 450-gallon mixing tank. From there, it went through a more complex synthesization process. At another facility in Stafford, the stuff went through additional testing before it was bottled.

In 1978, two FDA officials visited Burzynski and told him he was breaking federal law: The agency believed that antineoplastons could only be administered via Phase I clinical trials, which measure a drug’s safety. Neither party realized it, but that visit was the beginning of a convoluted 20-year legal battle that would be fought in state and federal courts.

After the 1978 warning, Burzynski took an unexpected course for a man under FDA scrutiny. As, for example, appearing on 20/20 with Geraldo Rivera. And then, in 1983, upgrading the Stafford facility, which was rebranded the Burzynski Research Institute, Inc.

Besides allowing the write-off of certain expenses, the Institute provided employment for his wife Barbara, a fellow Medical Academy of Lublin graduate and former research assistant in Baylor’s pediatrics department. Husband and wife became co-directors.

Burzynski also recruited his brother Tadeusz, a construction supervisor with degrees from Poland’s Academy of Mining and Metallurgy and Brazil’s Federal University. His job title: Director and Vice President in Charge of Technical Operations. The fourth original director was then-Harris County Attorney Mike Driscoll.

By 1983, FDA officials were convinced Burzynski was engaged in nose-­thumbing of the highest order. The agency sought an injunction in federal court banning the use of antineoplastons. In a motion for summary judgment that might be described as part extortion, part chutzpah, the prosecutor warned the judge, “If the court declines to grant this injunctive relief sought by the government, thus permitting continued manufacture and distribution of antineoplastons, the government would then be obliged to pursue other less efficient remedies, such as actions for seizure and condemnation of the drugs or criminal prosecution of individuals.”

Hell, yeah: The FDA wasn’t going to put up with anyone trying to cure cancer without its say-so.

But the FDA walked away with only a partial victory. While the judge ruled that Burzynski could not ship antineoplastons across state lines, the ruling did not prevent intrastate distribution. Later, in 1985, acting on the belief that he was still shipping antineoplastons outside Texas, FDA officials made good on their threat and raided Burzynski’s office. They took whatever documents they could — including patient files — and dragged patients into grand jury hearings. Instead of securing indictments, the FDA only succeeded in making thousands of people feel their privacy had been violated.

The FDA wouldn’t wrangle an indictment until 1995 — and that was a doozy: Seventy-five counts, mostly for mail fraud and shipping an unapproved drug across state lines, that would’ve put Burzynski behind bars for nearly 300 years.

Bizarrely enough, as a part of Burzynski’s bond agreement, federal judge Sim Lake ordered Burzynski and the FDA to agree on protocols for Phase II trials of antineoplastons — trials to measure the drug’s efficacy. So while the FDA, via a federal prosecutor, was trying to imprison Burzynski, it was also monitoring his clinical trials.

When the trial began in 1997, the jury deadlocked, and Lake declared a mistrial. He then tossed the 34 mail fraud counts, citing lack of evidence. For its part, the FDA dropped 40 counts, leaving — 12 years after the raid and seizure of patient records — only one count of contempt. Burzynski was promptly acquitted.

Throughout the process, Burzynski’s patients picketed outside the courthouse and testified before Congress. As far as they were concerned, the FDA was persecuting a noble man who merely wanted to offer a nontoxic alternative to radiation and chemotherapy.

This network of supporters grew even more outraged when, in the years after the trial, several sets of parents were told by the FDA that they could not take their dying children to Burzynski. The rationale was this: The treatment had never been properly tested, so it might be unsafe. No, the FDA said, it’s better to take that kid with the walnut-sized brain tumor to a doctor who will zap him like Hiroshima, or pump him with drugs that might turn him into a bald, anemic wraith with just enough energy to handle the incessant vomiting.

If FDA officials wanted to send a message to people about the potential dangers of antineoplastons, it would be hard to imagine how they could have done a worse job. Instead of making Burzynski a criminal, they made him a hero.
_____________________

The whole saga might have been more spectacular if there were any compelling evidence that antineoplastons actually worked.

The only person who seems able to publish studies showing the treatment’s positive results is Burzynski, the only person with a financial interest in the drug. The one time Burzynski agreed to an independent study under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute, it ended in acrimony. Between 1991 and 1995, the NCI spent nearly $1 million funding Phase II trials of patients treated by doctors at the Mayo Clinic and Memorial Sloan-­Kettering. Because of slow patient accrual, the doctors decided to expand the agreed-upon parameters of the protocol, ultimately allowing two patients with brain tumors larger than originally called for. Then, after several of the patients experienced side effects, including seizures, edema, confusion and drowsiness, the doctors responded by lowering the patients’ dosages. Convinced the doctors were deliberately sabotaging the trials, Burzynski pulled the plug.

A 1995 Phase I trial by Japanese researchers showed promise, but Phase II trials were never initiated.

None of this lack of outside support has prevented Burzynski from publishing studies (mostly in obscure journals) and presenting abstracts at medical conferences worldwide. Yet after all these presentations, and after decades of research, Burzynski seems to have amassed exactly zero outspoken allies in conventional medicine. (While outspoken critics aren’t hard to find, some oncologists don’t seem interested in discussing him at all. The Houston Press‘s request to speak with experts at M.D. Anderson fell on deaf ears.)

In 1998, Paul Goldberg, editor of The Cancer Letter, a D.C.-based newsletter covering cancer research and drug approval, investigated Burzynski’s claims up to that point. He asked three renowned and independent researchers to examine Burzynski’s scientific protocols — all three said they could not make sense of the data, saying it did not resemble any commonly accepted models. Ten years later, Goldberg and two of those doctors don’t feel any differently.

“This is taking a long time,” Goldberg told the Press in an e-mail. “Sure, drug approval is a technical, time-consuming and costly process. Nonetheless, thousands of anticancer compounds have been shown to be effective — or dismissed as ineffective — over the decades since Dr. Burzynski initiated his experiments.”

Henry Friedman, a neuro-oncologist at the Duke University Medical Center, was one of the independent doctors who reviewed the data for Goldberg. He doesn’t say that antineoplastons don’t work — only that Burzynski has failed to prove ­otherwise.

“Despite thousands of patients treated with the antineoplastons, no one has yet shown in a convincing fashion, [through] the rigorous requirements for peer review, that the therapy works,” he says, adding later, “You have to understand how incredible that is. Because normally, you can do a cancer study of as few as 30 [or] 40 patients…and begin to get an idea of whether there is activity or not. And then you can do larger studies, and you can really prove the merits or the lack of merit of the therapeutic ­strategy.”

When asked why, if Burzynski’s protocols were so lacking, he received orphan status from the FDA, Friedman says, “It is a Grand Canyon‘s distance between somebody getting orphan disease status and getting approval for the drug.”

Moreover, he says, Burzynski “has been making a fortune…on patients he’s treated with antineoplastons. I find that of questionable ethics.”

Howard Ozer, an oncologist and hematologist at the University of Oklahoma‘s Health Science Center, is the other surviving doctor who reviewed Burzynski’s claims for Goldberg.

“If there were something there, it would be fairly easy to prove,” he says. “And you don’t have to do it in any unique way other than a routine, careful Phase II trial, or, with thousands of patients, he could have done a randomized study.”

Tim Gorski, an OB-GYN and president of the Dallas/Fort Worth Council Against Health Fraud, is a bit less diplomatic.

“He’s selling hope at a high price,” Gorski says.

But what about all those patients who credit Burzynski with saving their lives? Don’t they count for anything?

“How many people are there who feel like [televangelist] Benny Hinn saved their lives?” he says, adding that “People who are dead do not get up and say, ‘Burzynski did nothing for me.’”

Also, Gorski says, bold and unproven claims are “a problem for cancer in particular, because as soon as you get cancer, you’ve got a big target on your back [for] quacks to come and get you.”

So while mainstream oncologists might believe that Burzynski orbits the quackosphere, he has achieved near-­messiah status among journalists, pseudoscientists and armchair oncologists who believe in an omnipotent Cancer Industry determined to quash any treatments that threaten the standard regimens of surgery, radiation or chemo. Often, the cornerstone of their belief is that every oncologist in the country is absolutely fine with children dying gruesome deaths because they are somehow making money off standard treatments.

And while Burzynski’s patients say the antineoplastons worked where other treatment failed, these patients — or their surviving family members — often operate under the belief that any success is attributable to antineoplastons alone, and any deaths are strictly the fault of previous chemo or ­radiation.

While speaking with these family members, or reading their testimonies, is often heartbreaking, Burzynski has not been able to translate these anecdotes into sound ­science.

This may be because Burzynski doesn’t seem interested in persuading colleagues, only patients. And on that level, he’s wildly successful.

Patient testimonies almost always contain the phrase “treated like family.” His warm bedside manner, and that of his staff, is often in stark contrast to patients’ experiences in mainstream hospitals. Also, his CV is long, and, depending on what you consider relevant to the practice of medicine, contains the vital information that Burzynski is a “hereditary count” and the fact that he holds hundreds of patents in dozens of countries. (According to the U.S. Patent Office, these include a patent for a cancer-fighting toothpaste, as well as antineoplaston treatments for patients with AIDS, Parkinson’s disease and neurofibromatosis. The 1991 patent for AIDS treatment describes remarkable results achieved with three patients, but Burzynski doesn’t appear to have continued this research.)

Burzynski can also point to the hundreds of articles he’s published, which also reassures patients and makes them comfortable enough to write big checks. Some of these articles are interesting reading, such as the 2004 one titled “Antineoplastons in Dairy Products,” which revealed the dramatic finding that the level of antineoplastons in whey is greater than that found in feta cheese. (Caveat, per the study: “The analysis of feta cheese was more difficult to perform due to the high content of fat.”)

This feta cheese revelation unfortunately occurred after the publication of the Burzynski bible, i.e., The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It, but there’s no telling if it will make future editions. But the book’s author, syndicated columnist Thomas Elias, remains convinced that the FDA persecuted Burzynski because he threatened the livelihood of the doctors on the agency’s review boards.

“These are the very people who stand to lose the most if Burzynski’s drug is proved,” he says. “These are the people who radiate kids’ brains at St. Jude‘s regularly…These are the people who are the enemies of this drug, because they have the most to lose from it…If this drug is approved, it will basically say that what they’ve been doing for all these decades is junk, and wasting money and lives.”

Elias says that he did not set out with the intent of writing a book hailing Burzynski, but the more he researched, the more the data pointed to one conclusion. He says he randomly selected patients throughout the country to interview and follow up on. Most of those who followed the treatment plan were alive and improving, he says. “But the ones who gave up on the treatment, they were dead. Without exception.”

While Elias believes Burzynski tried from the beginning to work within the system, Gorski believes otherwise: “The guy’s like Leona Helmsley,” he says. “Medical research and doing things by the book and having evidence and facts and so on, that’s for the little people. Burzynski can do as he pleases.”

And, Gorski says, claims of a drug’s potential ring hollow without scientific support.

“Let’s put it this way,” he says. “Until it’s really thoroughly tested, there’s potential that when you take an antibiotic, if you jump up and down when you’re taking it and say, ‘ollie-ollie-oxen-free,’ then it’ll work better than if you don’t do that, right?”

Gorski believes that, at this point, Burzynski is so convinced in his treatment’s infallibility that “he is no more going to stop using his antineoplastons than the Pope is going to convert to Islam…It’s an ideological commitment that has got nothing to do with facts and reason.”

Generally, Burzynski’s patients pay a $6,000 deposit before beginning treatment. Technically, the drug itself is free because it’s only used under Phase II trials, but patients pay for incidentals, including consultations, supplies and classes on how to administer the drug. This runs about $7,500-$9,000 a month — out of pocket. Ostensibly, after paying salaries, this money goes straight into more research.

But in recent years, the Burzynski train appears to have gone off the tracks. Namely, he has taken it upon himself to rescue patients afflicted with the other Big C: Crow’s-feet.

Burzynski has launched a line of creams and capsules under the brand name Aminocare, which is described as “The Genetic Solution for Anti-Aging.” Aminocare Cream has allegedly been subjected to rigorous clinical trials, although the resulting publication looks a bit different from his cancer articles. For one, it contains photographs of smiling middle-aged couples, basking in the glow of their new-found freedom from wrinkles. The study indicates that Aminocare showed a reduction of “complexity,” “wrinkle depth” and “wrinkle volume.”

The study was commissioned by Aminocare, and Burzynski settled on an unexpected choice in the scientists he trusted: researchers at the University Victor Segalen in Bordeaux, France. It appears to have been led by the university’s Alain Jacquet, whose title is listed as “toxicologist.” However, according to Jacquet’s CV, he is what in Europe is called a “stomatologist” and in the U.S. is called a “dentist.” (Jacquet later blessed another antiaging miracle drug, manufactured by Inversion Femme, that involves using shark cartilage to “combat the excess of free radicals.”)

Burzynski presents his fountain-of-youth breakthroughs at worldwide conferences held by the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. The Chicago-based organization was founded by Ronald Klatz and Robert Goldman, who received their medical degrees in Belize but are not legally allowed to identify themselves as “M.D.s” in Illinois, per orders by that state’s Department of Professional ­Regulation.

While Goldman may not be able to call himself an M.D. in Illinois, his credentials are still impressive. According to the academy Web site, he is a Chinese weapons expert with the ability to perform “13,500 consecutive sit-ups and 321 consecutive handstand pushups.” For proof of the latter, Goldman has included photos of himself standing on his hands, clad in a snug stars-and-stripes-patterned swimsuit.

As for Klatz, he is the developer of the “Model of Practical Immortality,” in which he predicts that by 2029, people will have lifespans of at least 150 years.

While Burzynski told the Press that Aminocare does not sponsor these conferences, the company is listed as a sponsor on the academy’s Web site.

And it’s best not to push the subject. In speaking with Burzynski, you need to understand some basics: If you in any way question his methods, remark on his affiliation with dubious doctors or try to understand why, after 30 years, antineoplastons are not accepted by mainstream medicine, you’re in for trouble.
_____________________

In his first interview, Burzynski is cordial and accommodating.

After a brief wait in his clinic lobby, lined with photographs of celebrities who were never Burzynski’s patients, such as Mel Brooks and Gregory Peck, the Press follows an assistant to the doctor’s well-appointed office. Burzynski may not be tall, but his white doctor’s coat and impeccably managed dark brown hair and mustache lend a presence of authority. He speaks softly, in a thick accent, often punctuating sentences with a smile.

Ever an optimist, Burzynski has been excited about nearing the end of Phase II trials. Phase III should be right around the corner, a remarkable achievement for a cancer drug. Asked to explain why the FDA seems less antagonistic these days, he says, “It’s like a bully on the block. You beat him, and he could become your friend.”

He’s used to the first round of questions — he’s answered these for decades — so his answers are quick, if not altogether sensible. History is replete with renegades who were first ridiculed, then hailed. He says that respected publications were so resistant to Einstein’s early groundbreaking theories that he was forced to take out ads in The New York Times, a statement unsupported by historical evidence.

“Everyone who discovers something [meets] resistance,” he says. “Why should I be any different?”

Take, for example, that mid-1990s NCI study — the one in which doctors administered doses lower than Burzynski approved of — that was just another “cover-up.”

“They’re lucky they’re not behind the bars,” Burzynski says.

But a second interview does not go as smoothly.

When asked if showing three-­dimensional topographies of crow’s-feet in places like Dubai took time away from that whole cancer thing, Burzynski bristles at what he considers to be an irrelevant question, responding in somewhat broken English.

“I have the right to do whatever research I want, okay?” he says, followed closely by, “I spent 42 years practicing medicine, doing research, and you are little man for asking such question, okay? Maybe in three years I get Nobel Prize, and you’ll look like a shit, okay, asking me such stupid questions, okay?”

The Press explains that the reasoning behind the questions is this: Is Burzynski convinced that he’s done everything possible to get antineoplastons federally approved, and thus covered by insurance, thus giving a chance to those dying children whose parents can’t afford the steep payments? But when pressed as to why — even after the prolonged litigation with the FDA — he still hasn’t been able to prove his treatment’s efficacy, he is equally offended.

“You know why?” he says. “Because I came to this country with $15 in my pocket, okay? Because I didn’t speak English when I came to this country. I learned it by myself. And in order for me to do what I am doing now, I needed to establish a pharmaceutical company. I needed to establish the research institute, okay, from the scratch, okay? And I need to do all of this from my own money, which I am, okay? How many years it would take for you to do it if you come to the country [from] like, say, Afghanistan?”

The Press also asks why, if one of the biggest barriers to sharing a promising cancer treatment with the rest of the world is his language skills, he hasn’t enlisted the help of English-speaking scientists.

Burzynski laughs that one off. “Listen your little brain to this thing: I came to this country with $15, okay? How can you enlist somebody, paying him $5 [out of] $15, okay?”

Which leads to one of the most troubling aspects of the Burzynski saga: Why have no credible oncologists stood up for him? Why don’t oncologists regularly refer their patients to his clinic? Why aren’t the greatest minds in medicine calling for the swift approval of antineoplastons?

If they are out there, the Press needs to hear from them. Burzynski obliges as best he can, throwing out the name of perhaps his biggest ally in medicine (using that term loosely). That is Julian Whitaker, an alternative medicine practitioner who claims to be “board-certified in antiaging medicine.” That could be true — it’s just a question of which board he’s talking about. One thing is for sure: It’s not the American Board of Medical Specialties, which is what most doctors are talking about when they say “board-­certified.” The ABMS does not recognize “anti­-aging” as a medical specialty. When asked for the names of supporting doctors who don’t have Web sites featuring “Rollback Savings!” on their lines of nutritional supplements, Burzynski eventually comes up with Bruce Cohen, a brain tumor specialist at the Cleveland Clinic. Cohen did not return calls.

“Certainly, some doctors don’t like me, because they would like to do whatever I did, okay?” Burzynski says. “Everybody would like to establish his own pharmaceutical company…They are begging for scraps from the government. They are living on grants. I did it [by] myself.”

And that appears to be the other side of the story, the one that Burzynski would probably say wouldn’t belong in his biography. The story of how, as objectionable as the bureaucracy behind drug approval can be, it is the only way of getting lifesaving medicine to those in need. A doctor who plays outside the system — no matter how righteously — risks losing his right to practice medicine altogether.

So, for Burzynski, the real story does not appear to be the system, or necessarily medicine itself. It appears to be a story of independence and financial success. Of not relying on the help of other people to achieve your dream. To Burzynski, it’s a powerful story.

“Why are you not enthused?” he asks. Here’s the real story, he says: “‘That’s the poor guy who came from Poland without any money, who was able to build his own company. He was able to move all the way to the approval process, and with a little luck, he can get the approval of FDA’…It’s a great American story, okay? And then you are talking to the guys who are old cronies, who hate me guts because they would dream to do whatever I do, but…they never had the guts to do it.”

He’s right. It’s one hell of a story.

craig.malisow@houstonpress.com

http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-01/news/cancer-doctor-stanislaw-burzynski-sees-himself-as-a-crusading-researcher-not-a-quack/full/

POSTED ON FEBRUARY 4, 2013

This morning, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) hosted the two-hour event “Advancing Healthy Housing – A Strategy for Action” in Washington, D.C. (purpose of event here, read press release here). The event began at 9:30 a.m. HUD started the hash tags #StrategyforAction and #HealthyHomes in the Twitter-sphere which were used by other federal agencies throughout the event.

While most relaters, mortgage loaners and others involved in the housing industry were mostly Re-tweeting updates from the event and quotable moments, The National Center for Healthy Housing was the first to Tweet about radon and how it can affect a household when undetected.

Radon in homes is estimated to cause 21,000 lung cancer deaths annually #HealthyHomes
#StrategyforAction—
HUD News (@HUDNews) February 04, 2013

@HUDNews Secretary Donovan endorses principles of #HealthyHousing testing 100,000 #multifamily housing units for #radon #StrategyForAction—
  (@NCHH) February 04, 2013

The hash tag #radon caught on briefly after this Tweet and more news about radon detection was Tweeted alongside the hash tags #StrategyforAction and #HealthyHomes.

The Children’s Environmental Health Network then Tweeted about the correlation between radon and lung cancer.

88% of Americans do not know #radon is a health issue to be aware of. #HealthyHomes #LungCancer—
  (@CEHN) February 04, 2013

The hash tag #LungCancer has been spread around the Twitter-sphere today alongside #WorldCancerDay which falls on February 4. “Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States,” according to the National Cancer Institute website.

It’s interesting that radon detection was mentioned on World Cancer Day. established by the Union for International Cancer Control, as a way to make all homes and housing units  in the United States healthier.

Here’s WHY thousands of people every month are SWITCHING STORES…read this and let me know if you’d like to switch where you do your shopping.  I have an alternative you will love.

Environmental Protection Agency
studies have shown that indoor air pollutants are
3 to 70 times higher than outdoors.

The following information came from a conference call with Kay Heizer, Director of “Healthy Choices” (a non-profit organization comprised of doctors, nurses, environmental scientists and educators committed to teaching the public about the hazards of chemicals in our home and how we can avoid or minimize the risks):

50% of all illness is due to poor indoor air quality[Source: 1989 State of Massachusetts Study]

Since 1950, at least 70,000 new chemical compounds have been invented and dispersed into our environment. Only a fraction of these have been tested for human toxicity. We are, by default, conducting a massive clinical toxicology trial, and our children and their children are the experimental animals. [Source: Herbert L. Needleman, M.D., Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., Raising Children Toxic Free]

150 chemicals found in the home are connected to allergies, birth defects, cancer and psychological disorders.      [Source: Consumer Protection Agency (CPA)]

The United States of America Federal Code of Regulations exempts manufacturers from full labeling of products if used for personal, family or household care.  [Source USA FCR: Section 1910.1200C, Title 29, Section 1500.82 2Q1A]

3 groups of people are primarily affected by indoor chemical concentrations because they spend more time indoors and their immune systems are weaker. The 3 groups are: Infants and Toddlers, Chronically ill and the elderly. [Source: 1988 EPA, 5-year study]

In 1901, cancer was rare: 1 out of 8,000. Since the Industrial Revolution, the cancer rate today has risen to 1 in 3 and by the year 2002, it will be 1 in 2.[Source: The American Cancer Society]

The top 6 cancer-causing products in the average home include the following:

1. Johnson and Johnson Baby Powder w/talc,
2. Crest tartar Control Toothpaste
3. V05 Hair Conditioner
4. Clairol Nice-n-Easy Hair Color
5. Ajax Cleanser
6. Lysol Disinfectant

[Source: The National Cancer Prevention Coalition]

Liquid dish soap is the leading cause of poisonings in the home for children under the age of six (over 2.1 million accidental poisonings per year). Most brands of liquid dish soap contain formaldehyde and ammonia

Of the chemicals found in personal care products: 884 are toxic, 146 cause tumors, 218 cause reproductive complications, 778 cause acute toxicity, 314 cause biological mutations, 376 cause skin and eye irritations  [Source: United States House of Representatives Report, 1989]

Out of 2,435 pesticide poisonings in a one-year period, over 40% were due to exposure to disinfectants and similar cleaning products in the home.           [Source: State of California Study]

Just by reducing (not eliminating) environmental carcinogens alone, we would save at least 50,000 lives taken by cancer annually.          [Source: Dr. Lee Davis, former advisor to the Secretary of Health]

Most laundry detergent contains a form of NTA. NTA is a substance we may reasonably anticipate to be a carcinogen [Source: The Merck Index]

Household bleaches which claim to disinfect are classified as pesticides under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Inadvertently mixing bleach with other cleaners that contain ammonia produces a toxic chloramines gas. These toxic gases can cause coughing, loss of voice, a feeling of burning or suffocation, and even death. Chlorine bleach has been banned in Germany.  [Source: Guide to Hazardous Products Around the Home, Household Hazardous Waste Project, 1989]

Women who work in the home have a 54% higher death rate from cancer than women who work outside of the home [Source: 17- year EPA study]

150 chemicals found in the home have been connected to allergies, birth defects, cancer and psychological disorders. [Source: The Consumer Protection Agency)

As more toxic chemicals have been introduced to our everyday environment in greater amounts over the last 20 to 30 years, the level of toxins stored in adipose tissues (fat cells) of our bodies have risen. Bioaccumulation studies have shown that some toxins store in our bodies for life. Greater and greater amounts are being stored at younger ages. One study showed that in the fat of 100% of the people tested was 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, a chemical found in most household deodorizers and room fresheners.

Diseases that used to occur later in life are now appearing at younger ages. Diseases that used to be rare are more frequent. For example:

There has been a 28% increase in childhood cancer since the addition of pesticides into household products.

- Cancer is now the #2 killer of children – second only to accidental poisonings. Since 1977 the rate of cancer among American children has been steadily rising at a rate of nearly 1% each year.          [Source: National Cancer Institute]

- There is an increased risk for leukemia in children where parents have used pesticides in the home or garden before the child’s birth.        [Source: Journal of the National Cancer Institute]

Some products release contaminants into the air right away, others do so gradually over a period of time. Some stay in the air up to a year. These contaminants, found in many household and personal care products can cause dizziness, nausea, allergic reactions, eye/skin/respiratory tract irritations and some cause cancer.[American Lung Association]

Asthma was once a very rare disease. Now the condition is extremely common – the asthma rate has tripled in the last 20 years with nearly 30 million Americans currently afflicted. [Source: Consumer Federation of America, 1997]

In one decade, there has been a 42% increase in asthma (29% for men, 82% for women). The higher rate for women is believed to be due to women’s longer exposure times to household chemicals. [Source: Center for Disease Control]

Childhood asthma has increased by more than 40% since 1980. [Source: Environmental Health Perspectives, June 1997; 105 (6)]

Asthma death in children and young people increased by a dramatic 118% between 1980 and 1993.[Source: Environmental Health Threats to Children, Environmental Protection Agency 175-F-96-001, September 1996]

The average child visits the doctor 23 times in the 1^st 4 years of life, with the most common complaint being respiratory ailment.[Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 1997]

Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) in adults and children is also rising – in 1993, 4.5 million children took the drug Ritalin so they could sit still long enough to learn. By 1998, 11.4 million children were being drugged with this powerful Class-2 narcotic.[Source: Your Children and Ritalin, The Detroit news (March 8. 1998)]

Even small doses of neurotoxins, which would be harmless to an adult, can alter a child’s nervous system development. [Source: Environmental Health Perspectives 106 Supplement 3:787-794 (June 1998)]

Developing cells in children’s bodies are more susceptible to damage than adult cells that have completed development, especially for the central nervous system. During the development of a child, from conception through adolescence, there are particular windows of vulnerability to environmental hazards. Most disturbing – until a child is approximately 13 months of age, they are virtually no ability to fight the biological and neurological effects of toxic chemicals.       [Source: Herbert L. Needleman, M.D., Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., Raising Children Toxic Free]

Today, children have chemical exposures from birth that their parents didn’t have until they were adults. Because children are exposed to toxics at an earlier age than adults, they have more time to develop environmentally triggered diseases, with long latency periods, such as cancer. [Source: Environmental Policy and Children’s Health, Future of Children, Summer/Fall 1995; 5(2): 34-52]

Formaldehyde is a highly toxic substance. It is a known cancer-causing agent. It damages the neurological connectors in the body. It is an irritant to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs and may cause:

Skin reactions, ear infections, headaches, depression asthma, joint pain, dizziness, mental confusion, nausea, disorientation, phlebitis, fatigue, vomiting, sleep disturbances and laryngitis.

One in five people are sensitive to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is commonly found in:

drugs, mouthwash, hairspray, cosmetics, cleaning products, perfumes, waxes, hair setting lotions, shampoo, air fresheners, fungicides, fingernail polish, floor polishes, dry cleaning solvents, toothpaste, laundry starch spray and antiperspirants……just to name a few

DO YOU STILL WANT TO USE PRODUCTS IN YOUR HOME THAT CONTAIN FORMALDEHYDE?

Due to the increase in toxic buildup in our bodies, including the toxic buildup of formaldehyde, dead bodies are not decomposing as fast as they used to.

Bodies now start to decompose within 7 to 10 days after death.

During the Vietnam War, Vietnamese bodies started to decompose within 24 to 48 hours. However, Americans didn’t start to decompose for 4 to 5 days.

Twice as much formaldehyde was needed to embalm a person 20 years ago compared to today.

How many of these names would you have recognized as formaldehyde?

Formalin, Methanal, Methyl Aldehyde, Methylene Oxide, Oxymethylene, Bfv, Fannoform, Formol, Fyde, Karsan, Methaldehyde, Formalith, Methylene Glycol, Ivalon, Oxomethane, Formalin 40, Formalin, Formic Aldehyde, Hoch, Paraform, Lysoform, Morbocid, Trioxane, Polyoxmethylene.

The following products are just a few that are so toxic that they should be disposed of in a toxic waste dump:

Floor care products, furniture polish, window cleaners, bug spray and nail polish remover. [Source: Water Pollution Control Federation]

Warning labels on containers refer only to toxic hazards from ingestion; however, only 10% of health problems from chemicals are caused by ingestion. 90% are caused by the inhalation of vapors and absorption of particles.

Government regulations require that only the most EXTREMELY toxic substances must contain a warning label. Labels that say the following should be removed from your house immediately:

“Do not induce vomiting”

“Corrosive – rinse from skin immediately”

“Harmful or fatal if swallowed”

“Call physician immediately”

“Warning!” (may mean that as little as 1 teaspoon of product can harm or kill adult)

“Danger!” (means that as little as 5 drops can harm or kill an adult)

Phenol is an extremely caustic chemical that burns the skin. Absorption of phenol through the lungs or skin can cause:

central nervous system damage, pneumonia, respiratory tract infection, heart rate irregularities, skin irritation, kidney and liver damage, numbness, vomiting and can be fatal.

Phenol is a very common chemical and is regularly found in the following common products:

air fresheners, aftershave, bronchial mists, chloroseptic throat spray, deodorants, feminine powders and sprays, hair spray, decongestants, mouthwash, aspirin, solvents, acne medications, antiseptics, calamine lotions, detergents, furniture polish, lice shampoo, polishes, cold capsules, all purpose cleaners, aerosol disinfectants, anti-itching lotions, cosmetics, disinfectant cleaners, hand lotions, lip balms, sunscreen and lotions, insecticides, cough syrups                    … just to name a few

DO YOU STILL WANT TO USE PRODUCTS IN YOUR HOME THAT CONTAIN PHENOL?

So, there you have it.  A lot of information, but I honestly believe it’s critical information.  Like the article says, we have more disease now than we’ve ever had. 

If you’re interested in finding out more about alternatives, let me know and I’d be more than happy to share with you what I’ve found. 

Luv and huggss,

Yvonne 

(AP) – A new study shows how important it is for men to carefully consider treatments for early-stage prostate cancer. Fifteen years after surgery or radiation treatment, nearly all of the older men in the study had some problems having sex.

About one-fifth had bladder or bowel trouble, researchers found.

The study doesn’t compare these men — who were 70 to 89 at the end of the study — to others who did not treat their cancers or to older men without the disease. At least one study suggests that half that age group has sexual problems even when healthy.

The study isn’t a rigorous test of surgery and radiation, but it is the longest follow-up of some men who chose those treatments.

Since early prostate cancers usually don’t prove fatal but there are no good ways to tell which ones really need treatment, men must be realistic about side effects they might suffer, said one study leader, Dr. David Penson of Vanderbilt University.

“They need to look at these findings and say, ‘Oh my gosh, no matter what I choose, I’m going to have some quality-of-life effect and it’s probably greater than my doctor is telling me,’” he said.

The study appears in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men. In the United States alone, there were about 240,000 new cases and 28,000 deaths from the disease last year. Radiation or surgery to remove the prostate are common treatments when the disease is confined to the gland.

Men usually live a long time after treatment — 14 years on average — so it’s important to see how they fare, said another study leader, Vanderbilt’s Dr. Matthew Resnick.

The study involved 1,655 men diagnosed in 1994 or 1995, when they were ages 55 to 74. About two-thirds of them had surgery and the rest, radiation. They were surveyed two, five and 15 years later. By that time, 569 had died.

Men who had surgery had more problems in the first few years after their treatments than those given radiation, but by the end of the study, there was no big difference.

After 15 years, 18 percent of the surgery group and 9 percent of the radiation group reported urinary incontinence, and 5 percent of the surgery group and 16 percent of the radiation group said they were bothered by bowel problems. But the differences between the two groups could have occurred by chance alone once researchers took other factors such as age and the size of the men’s tumors into account.

Impotence was “near universal” at 15 years, the authors write — 94 percent of the radiation group and 87 percent of the surgery group. But the difference between the groups also was considered possibly due to chance. Also, less than half of men said they were bothered by their sexual problems.

“These men do get some help from pills like Viagra, Cialis, Levitra,” but it may not be as much as they would like and most men would rather not need those pills, Penson said.

The National Cancer Institute paid for the study. Two authors have consulted for several makers of prostate cancer treatment drugs.

No study is perfect and this one has many limitations, said Dr. Timothy Wilson, urology chief at City of Hope, a cancer center in Duarte, Calif. Men who are having problems are more likely to complete follow-up surveys because they’re angry, so that could skew results, he noted.

Still, “it’s a high percentage” with side effects, said Wilson, who has been a paid speaker for two makers of surgery equipment.

“There’s no question we overtreat” many cases of early prostate cancer, yet the disease is still the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in men. “We need to better sort out who really needs treatment,” he said.

January 28, 2013

In 1999 the American Heart Association (AHA) published a set of guidelines for heart disease prevention in women and revised them in 2011.  What follows are the newer guidelines are based on clinical trials that examined the protective efficacy of lifestyle measures and drugs:

1.  Control your weight.  If your weight is gradually creeping up, cut calories and develop good exercise habits.  Losing and then sustaining weight loss may require more than the recommended 30 minutes of exercise most days.

2.  Consider low-dose aspirin.  In persons under 65, aspirin is more effective at reducing heart attacks in men and more effective at reducing strokes in women.  Women over 65 with other coronary risk factors, should consider low-dose aspirin therapy only if you have or are at high risk for cardiovascular disease—and only if you’ve consulted with your health care providers for potential side effects.

3.  Consider statin drugs if lifestyle changed don’t improve your cholesterol numbers enough.

4.  If you drink alcohol, do so in moderation, one drink per day.  Alcohol increases the risk of breast cancer and other cancers, so consider those risks along with the benefits of alcohol.  The National Cancer Institute considers any amount of alcohol too much for women.

5.  Ignore previous advice to take hormones to prevent heart attacks.  In 2002 the Women’s Health Initiative found that such hormone therapy actually increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, blood clots and breast cancer in older women, average age 63.

6.  Treat depression and reduce stress.  It’s not normal to feel unhappy most of the time.  Seek professional help.   Getting regular exercise is also helpful.

If a demanding job or life causes stress, you must find ways to reduce the stress.

7.  Know your family history.  A history of premature cardiovascular disease in your immediate family substantially raises your risks.  Though you can’t change family history, you can address your other risk factors and treat them aggressively.

You may want to assess your 10-year risk of having a heart attack based on your age, gender, cholesterol levels and blood pressure at the government’s National Cholesterol Education Program at  http://www.tinyurl.com/risktool

SOURCE:  University of CA, Berkeley Wellness Letter, Special Winter Issue, 2012    American Heart Association