Cancer Decisions - Free Newsletter

HERE AT THE MOSS REPORTS

INothing is more vital to a person facing a diagnosis of cancer than to have a reliable, accessible and trustworthy source of information on the disease. For more than thirty years I have been studying and writing about controversies and dilemmas in the constantly evolving world of cancer and its treatment. My goal throughout my long career in this field has been to provide my readers with exactly the kind of objective, accurate and current information that I myself would wish for if I or someone I love were diagnosed with cancer.

The Moss Reports is a comprehensive series of detailed individual reports on more than 200 different kinds of cancer. Each of these reports analyzes the current available treatments, both conventional and alternative, and offers the cancer patient a clear-eyed, truthful assessment of the available options. A client who recently purchased a Moss Report wrote:

"Having no control over a situation is a very scary thing. When you or someone you love has cancer you find yourself shedding a lot of tears, having a lot of nightmares, and second-guessing every decision you make. I honestly don't know what we would've done without Dr. Moss's report. I know for a fact it helped us focus on the problem at hand, instead of being consumed by panic and fear. In a place where you feel powerless, it helped us feel empowered. You can't really put a price on that." — M.M.

If you would like to order a Moss Report for yourself or someone you love, you can do so from our website, www.cancerdecisions.com, or by calling 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US).

To those who have already purchased a Moss Report I also offer phone consultations. A phone consultation can be enormously helpful in drawing up an effective treatment strategy and getting one's options clearly prioritized. A recent phone consultation client wrote:

"The consultation with Dr. Moss made me see clearer the various options I had, at a time when my mind was just too foggy. He helped me walk out of the maze as though I had a map in my hand." — E.V.

To schedule an appointment, please call 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US).

In addition to the diagnosis-specific Moss Reports, we offer the following monographs in our Current Topics series on important cancer-related subjects:

Do Antioxidants and Chemotherapy Conflict?
Mammography, Biopsy and the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
Herceptin or Deceptin? (An evaluation of the use of Herceptin in breast cancer)
Avastin: Your Money Or Your Life. (A clear-eyed look at the 'targeted' drug Avastin)
The Politics of Hope: Andrew von Eschenbach and the Decline of the National Cancer Institute
The Mexican Cancer Clinics in the Era of Evidence-Based Medicine

These reports can be purchased and downloaded directly from our website at a cost of $9.95 each.

We look forward to helping you.

IN MEMORIAM

On New Year's Eve 2006, Björn E. W. Nordenström, MD, Professor Emeritus of Radiology at Sweden's esteemed Karolinska Institute, and former president of the Nobel Laureate Nominating Committee for Physiology and Medicine, passed peacefully from this life, ending a distinguished career that spanned more than five decades.

Prof. Nordenström was among the first to suggest the use of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of metastatic cancer, and was in the vanguard of developing this technique in clinical practice. He was also one of the originators of the widely-used balloon catheter, and developed a technique of biopsying suspicious lesions that not only delivers intact sections of tissue but also minimizes the danger of tumor 'seeding' during the withdrawal of the biopsy instrument.

However, it is perhaps for his theory of biologically closed electrical circuits (BCEC), and the application of this theory to the development of an electrochemical treatment (EChT) for cancer, that Nordenström will be most widely remembered. Nordenström discovered that many tumors have a distinct, measurable electrical charge; by applying low voltage electrical currents to tumors he was able to demonstrate tumor regression and fibrosis in a significant proportion of patients. EChT is now a standard treatment in many parts of the world, including China and much of Europe. For example, in 2002 alone, more than 13,000 Chinese patients were treated using EChT, and Nordenström was awarded the International Scientific and Technological Cooperation Award by the government of the People's Republic of China in recognition of his vital contribution to China's national development.

Prof. Nordenström's legacy - his numerous discoveries, his original research in the field of cancer and interventional radiology, and his generous scientific mentorship - will undoubtedly continue to influence the world of medicine positively for many decades to come. We extend our condolences to his family.

THOUGHTS ON BREAST CANCER AND HRT, PART TWO

(Last week we began a discussion of the probable role of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in the development of breast cancer. We conclude the discussion, with references, this week.)

As early as 1987, a study published by a group of British physicians showed that breast cancer incidence increased by 59 percent among women who took HRT, and that these women also had an increased risk of endometrial (uterine) cancer. These researchers clearly stated that ovarian hormones, such as those present in HRT, "increase the risk of breast cancer: it is likely that this is because they stimulate breast cell division" (Key 1988). So, a strong association between HRT and breast cancer should come as no surprise today.

But until a few years ago doctors in general took the opposite position, enthusiastically endorsing HRT as an effective means of preventing both breast cancer and heart disease (Bengtsson 1989). Moreover, we were told, even if it did cause an increase in breast cancer, it would at least prevent other fatal illnesses. This came home to me with force when my own wife went through menopause and had a memorable encounter with a prominent New York City gynecologist. This physician told my wife that while there was a slightly increased risk of breast cancer associated with HRT, this was "no biggie," and that my wife was far more likely to die of heart disease, which HRT would effectively prevent. "I don't want you to leave this office unless you agree to start HRT without delay," she told my wife. When my wife balked, the gynecologist loaded her up with free samples of Prempro. These samples sat gathering dust on my wife's dresser top for a few months, until we finally swept them into the garbage.

The recent revelation that HRT does nothing whatever to prevent heart disease undercut this often-heard but clearly fallacious argument.

If it is confirmed that the sudden drop in breast cancer incidence in 2002-2003 was indeed caused by the decline in HRT use, I believe the medical profession will have much soul-searching to do. The most effective measure taken in decades to reduce breast cancer incidence will have turned out not to be a new wonder drug, but the informed refusal of thousands of women like my wife, who rightly turned their backs on a medication that was pushed on them by doctors whose prescribing decisions relied more heavily on drug company promotional materials than on science.

The news concerning the possible role of HRT in breast cancer cannot fail to raise the question of whether other pharmaceutical agents might possibly also be contributing to our high rates of cancer. The drug industry is increasingly a mainstay of the economy of all developed nations. Pharmaceuticals now represent a worldwide market of $602 billion, according to IMS health, an information and consulting company. And this fabulous figure increases by about 7 percent each year. While there is no doubt that many of today's medications are useful and have contributed appreciably to improving the lives of those who genuinely need them, the use of any drug, whether "natural" or synthetic, always involves a trade-off between putative benefits and unanticipated and possibly highly undesirable side effects.

(We saw recently, for instance, that the popular heartburn drugs, the class of drugs known as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), had unexpected dangers. Certainly PPIs have brought much-needed relief to thousands of individuals who previously had to endure painful heartburn. But these drugs have now been shown to be associated with a 44 percent increase in the risk of hip fracture. The longer patients take PPIs, the higher their risk. Such agents include Prilosec, Prevacid and Nexium, and the global market for them tops $12 billion.)

At the same time, there has been some harsh criticism of the dietary supplement industry in recent years. To judge from some of the alarmist prose that has appeared on this subject in the popular media, one could be forgiven for concluding that herbs, dietary supplements and antioxidants represent a far greater threat to human health than any prescription drug. To redress the balance somewhat, I would suggest that in future, natural agents be studied in direct contrast to competing synthetic pharmaceutical drugs. That way we will find out how the supposed dangers of natural agents compare to the harm that is sometimes done by synthetic pharmaceuticals.

In the US, an enormous amount of money is spent each year by the pharmaceutical industry in order to promote consumer demand for drugs via the mainstream media. (For example, according to CBS News, the advertising budget for Prilosec alone in 2000 has been estimated at over $108 million.) The net effect of this consumer-directed advertising is to create a feel-good atmosphere, with lovely cartoon images and heart-warming stories. Individually, of course, each ad aims to push one particular product. But as a genre, these ads function as a kind of broad-scale propaganda campaign, especially aimed at senior citizens, promoting the desirability of drug-based medicine.

With such a huge proportion of their revenue derived from pharmaceutical advertising, the mainstream media are understandably reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them, and for this reason are perhaps less inclined to publish hard-hitting exposés on the undesirable costs and side effects of drugs. Establishing the link between HRT and breast cancer, as the media did in late 2006, may seem to be an exception to this tendency. But the latest revelations will turn out to cost the pharmaceutical industry little, since the bottom had already fallen out of the $3.5 billion market for synthetic HRT products after the 2002 Women's Health Initiative revelations.

As we search for the causes of cancer we should not leave out the potential contribution of pharmaceutical agents themselves. No matter how good the intentions of those who prescribe them, the lesson of the recent decline in breast cancer incidence is that sometimes these drugs may do more harm than good - a piece of conventional wisdom that has often been drowned out by the relentless drumbeat of media advertising.

IN THE MAILBAG

This week we received an interesting letter from a reader concerning an article we ran recently on some of the virtues (and some of the drawbacks) of green tea:

"I wanted to let you know that a very short warning in your short article on green tea was very helpful to me. I have a DVT [deep venous thrombosis, ed.] and have been on Warfarin plus green tea but neither the allopath or naturopath knew of the relationship of green tea with vitamin K. They kept raising the amount of warfarin I was taking without knowing what was causing the low INR [international normalized ratio - a standardized measure of blood clotting time, ed.]. After discontinuing it has allowed me to lower the dose of warfarin. Thanks for the careful presentation of green tea and its drug interactions." — G.M.

--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

References:

Bengtsson C. Aspects of hormone replacement therapy in the post-menopause.
Maturitas. 1989 Mar;11(1):35-41. Review.

Hunt K, Vessey M, McPherson K, Coleman M. Long-term surveillance of
mortality and cancer incidence in women receiving hormone replacement
therapy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987 Jul;94(7):620-35.

Key TJ, Pike MC. The role of oestrogens and progestagens in the epidemiology
and prevention of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1988
Jan;24(1):29-43. Review.

Collapse of HRT market:
http://www.pharmafocus.com/cda/focusH/1,2109,22-0-0-NOV_2003
-focus_feature_detail-0-77317,00.html

Size of drug market:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,70508-0.html

Spending on Prilosec available from:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/13/health/main329293.shtml

**NOTE** To view this page in a more printable format, please CLICK HERE.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

The news and other items in this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only. Nothing in this newsletter is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice.