Cancer Decisions - Free Newsletter

HERE AT THE MOSS REPORTS

In the past twenty years medical research in this country has increasingly come to rely on the financial support of the pharmaceutical industry – to such an extent, in fact, that industry backing is now considerably larger than that provided by the National Institutes of Health.

Recently, a group of researchers at the University of North Carolina set out to determine whether, and to what extent, the financial involvement of the pharmaceutical industry influenced the outcome of clinical research. Published in the journal Cancer last week, their report, which focused specifically on the outcome of breast cancer trials, found that clinical studies backed by the drug industry were much more likely to report a favorable result (Peppercorn 2007). A full 84 percent of industry-backed studies reported positive results, as compared to only 54 percent of those which received no drug company support. And as previous research has repeatedly shown, clinical studies with a positive outcome are far more likely to be published in the medical literature than those with negative findings.

The result of the study comes as no surprise to the many commentators, including myself, who have repeatedly warned that the pharmaceutical industry exerts an unhealthy influence on the way clinical trials are designed, reported and published.

The worth of evidence-based medicine is severely undermined when the evidence on which it is based can be bought in this way. If the medical literature cannot be counted upon for objectivity, how can patients and their caregivers determine which treatments are likely to be of the most benefit? For the newly diagnosed cancer patient, who must quickly make vital decisions based on what is often only a very tenuous understanding of the disease and its treatment, having access to reliable and trustworthy information is of the utmost importance.

Here at the Moss Reports we are dedicated to helping cancer patients weigh the evidence carefully and critically. For more than 30 years I have studied the subject of cancer and its treatment, and have compiled a comprehensive series of more than 200 individual reports on different cancer diagnoses – The Moss Reports. Each of these reports offers an unbiased analysis of the scientific evidence for current treatment approaches, 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 securely 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).

CURRENT TOPICS

Last week we launched a new report in our Current Topics series – "On Guard – Gardasil" – focusing on the controversial new anti-cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil. This report, and the others in the Current Topics series (listed below), can be purchased for $9.95 each and downloaded directly from our Web site, www.cancerdecisions.com:

On Guard – Gardasil
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)
Do Antioxidants and Chemotherapy Conflict?
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

We look forward to helping you.

AUDIO NEWSLETTER

To hear the audio version of the newsletter, please click or go to:
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/audio/CD031107.mp3

SUSCRIBE TO OUR PODCAST

To hear the letter podcast on iTunes, please visit:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=215899747

If you do not have iTunes, you may also access our feed at:
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/mossreports.rss

BREAKING THE CAMEL'S BACK - PART ONE

Here is an outrage. In the face of an epidemic of deaths from lung cancer, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. has introduced a new cigarette aimed specifically at young women. Dubbed "Camel No. 9," this meticulously designed brand is meant to evoke the allure of women's fragrances like Chanel No. 19" - or even that old song about romance, "Love Potion No. 9."

Women consume half of all cigarettes, and R.J. Reynolds wants more of that lucrative market. Presently, women are more likely to buy brands such as Marlboro or Newport rather than Camel, which, until now, has been seen as a macho cigarette, with only 30 percent female customers. Reynolds wants in. So Camel No. 9 has been designed with romantic young women in mind, and is packaged in both hot-pink fuchsia and minty-green teal. Its slogan is "light and luscious," and flowers surround packs of the cigarette in forthcoming magazine ads.

"What we're about is giving adult smokers a choice," said a high-minded spokesperson for R.J. Reynolds, "with products we believe are more appealing than existing products." The introduction of Camel No. 9 is part of the company's plan to "focus on products that are ‘wow,' that add fun and excitement to the category," she added

Investors are sharing in this fun and excitement. The New York Times reported: "Wall Street analysts praise the introduction of Camel No. 9, in regular and menthol flavors, as a further step by the R.J. Reynolds Company, a unit of Reynolds American, toward a new marketing strategy." Their goal is "to refocus on the biggest, most popular - and most profitable - brands, which include Kool as well as Camel."

This isn't the first time that young women have been targeted by the tobacco industry. In the 1920s, the American Tobacco Company urged women to "reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet," playing on a widespread perception that cigarettes are slimming. The author of that historic campaign was none other than Albert Lasker, who - with his wife, Mary - later took over the American Cancer Society!

In 1929, Edward L. Bernays, the father of public relations (who also happened to be Sigmund Freud's nephew), informed newspapers that women would smoke in public during Fifth Avenue's Easter Day parade. (It was decidedly risqué for women to smoke in public in those days.) The goal, this clever fellow told reporters, was to promote equality of the sexes.

You can look this up in the New York Times archives, as I did. The headline reads: "Group of Girls Puff at Cigarettes as a Gesture of ‘Freedom'." The article states:

"A group of young women, who said they were smashing a tradition and not favoring any particular brand, strolled along the lane between the tiered skyscrapers and puffed cigarettes."

Mr. Bernays failed to inform readers that he was paid for this "torches of freedom" promotion by the makers of Lucky Strike cigarettes. The women themselves were probably paid as well. Bernays implied that smoking, far from being just a nasty habit, was in fact an act of women's empowerment. This notion took root, and culminated in the Virginia Slims ads of the 70s, with the memorable slogan: "You've come a long way, baby!" All too often, of course, that "long way" ended in the pulmonology clinic of a comprehensive cancer center.

It is astonishing, in hindsight, to what depths advertising campaigns were prepared to descend in their attempts to link smoking and sexuality. For example, in one magazine ad from the thirties, a lightly clad woman coos, "Blow some my way" to a man smoking a Chesterfield cigarette. Ironically, they are both perched on a rock overlooking a vast expanse of ocean. The air looks fresh and crisp - but she is asking for a lung full of his second-hand smoke.

The Flintstones

For decades, ads for Chesterfield, Camel, Lucky Strike and other popular brands featured female celebrities like Lucille Ball, Marlene Dietrich and Barbara Stanwyck. Under pressure, it is said, from tobacco producers, even Wilma Flintstone, the TV cartoon character, smoked. (Her co-creator, William Hanna, later suffered and died of smoking-related throat cancer.)

If you are unable to view the graphic on the right, please click or go to:
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/images/flintstones_image.jpg

Since lung cancer has a very long latency period, the drastic effect of smoking on women's health didn't become immediately apparent. At the time when those misguided hirelings of Lucky Strike marched, defiantly smoking, in Fifth Avenue's Easter Parade, lung cancer among women was virtually unknown. However, in the past few decades we have begun to see the results of the widespread adoption of the smoking habit, especially among women from the Virginia Slims era.

TO BE CONCLUDED NEXT WEEK.

--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

References:

Peppercorn J, Blood E, Winer E, et al. Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials. Cancer 2007, Feb 26 [Epub ahead of print].

**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.