Cancer Decisions - Free Newsletter

HERE AT THE MOSS REPORTS

In more than 30 years spent chronicling developments in the cancer field I have seen many drugs arrive on the market in a burst of optimistic publicity only to prove less than effective in clinical practice. But failure to live up to industry-generated expectations, however disappointing, is one thing; discovering that a highly promoted drug may actually directly contribute to the development of cancer is quite another.

For many years, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was urged on women not only as the key to perpetual youthfulness and femininity, but also as a powerful weapon against heart attacks and strokes. Indeed, an important multi-center study known as the Women's Health Initiative was set up by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) specifically to study the many assumed health benefits of HRT. However, in late 2002 this trial was abruptly halted when it was discovered that instead of benefiting from HRT, women taking these drugs had a 29 percent increase in heart attacks, a 22 percent increase in cardiovascular disease, and an alarming 26 percent increase in breast cancer risk. And just this week it was announced that HRT carries a significantly increased risk of uterine and ovarian cancer also.

Following the announcement of the risks of HRT, the number of prescriptions for these drugs plummeted. Between 2001 and 2003, HRT use fell by 68 percent. Very quickly thereafter, breast cancer incidence declined by almost 11 percent. While this unprecedented drop was widely thought to be connected to the sudden slump in HRT use, it was not possible to prove a firm causal link on the basis of only one year's figures. However, in a paper just published in the New England Journal of Medicine, it has been reported that the breast cancer incidence figures for 2004 again showed a marked decline, dropping by a further 6.7 percent (Ravdin 2007). This time it's clear: the continued drop in breast cancer incidence is no fluke, but closely mirrors the decline in HRT usage.

The revelation that HRT may actually have fueled tens of thousands of cases of breast cancer during its years on the market is particularly dismaying. Apart from anything else, it is a powerful illustration of the perils of consumer-directed advertising by the pharmaceutical industry. Drug manufacturers spent enormous sums of money in a spectacularly successful effort to persuade women - and their physicians - that menopause is not a normal part of aging, but a deficiency disease that requires medical management.

This is not the first time that a drug approved by the FDA as safe and effective has subsequently been found to contribute directly to disease and death, and sadly, it will very likely not be the last. But each time a disaster of this sort occurs, people become more wary, more alert to the possibility of hidden danger, and less easily persuaded that there is a pharmaceutical solution for all of life's problems.

ENCOURAGING HEALTHY SKEPTICISM

Empowering cancer patients and their families is the motivating philosophy behind everything we do here at the Moss Reports. People facing a diagnosis of cancer typically must make a series of crucial treatment decisions in very short order. It can be extremely hard to choose wisely at a time when one is under such intense pressure. The widely praised Moss Reports are an invaluable source of information on currently available conventional and alternative treatments. There are now well over 200 individual Moss Reports, each one focusing on a different type of cancer. These reports can be ordered and downloaded directly from our Web site, www.cancerdecisions.com. You can also order by phone. Simply call 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US).

For those who have already purchased a Moss Report on their specific cancer diagnosis, I also offer phone consultations. These consultations can be enormously helpful in narrowing down the options and arriving at a coherent treatment strategy.

A recent phone consultation client said:

"As a physician with both a personal and professional interest in cancer, I'm exposed to many "experts" in the field. Dr. Moss, however, stands out among all of them as a truly open-minded scientist with an encyclopedic knowledge of the latest and most relevant research. In addition, he's extremely personable and patient. It was truly a worthwhile experience to have this consult. I would recommend it highly to anyone who suffers from cancer, or who has a friend or relative with this diagnosis. I'd also recommend it without reservation to any open-minded professional who wishes to expand his or her knowledge." - R.M.L., MD

If you are a Moss Report client and would like to schedule a phone consultation, please call 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US), or send an email to Jacquie@cancerdecisions.com.

We look forward to helping you.

CURRENT TOPICS

We continue to add new reports to our Current Topics series on important aspects of cancer treatment and prevention. These reports can be purchased for $9.95 each and downloaded directly from our Web site, www.cancerdecisions.com. Currently available are the following:

Avastin: Your Money Or Your Life. (A clear-eyed look at the targeted drug Avastin)
On Guard - Gardasil (A critical evaluation of the new cervical cancer vaccine)
Do Antioxidants and Chemotherapy Conflict?
Mammography, Biopsy and the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
Herceptin or Deceptin? (An evaluation of the use of the targeted drug Herceptin in breast cancer)
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

AUDIO NEWSLETTER

To hear the audio version of the newsletter, please click or go to:
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/audio/CD050607.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

SETBACK FOR GARDASIL PROPONENTS

Checks and balances were not much in evidence in Texas back in February. At that time, Gov. Rick Perry, bypassed the state legislature and signed an executive order requiring all Texas schoolgirls entering sixth grade to be vaccinated with Gardasil. (Gardasil is the newly-approved vaccine against the sexually transmitted viruses that cause genital warts and cervical cancer.)

This past week, however, those checks and balances reasserted themselves triumphantly in an emphatic 135-to-2 vote in the Texas House of Representatives that overturned Perry's executive order and prevented legislative reconsideration of any such mandatory vaccination until 2011, at the very earliest. Because of the lopsided vote, the bill is considered veto-proof.

Some of those who voted to overturn the governor's order did so out of indignation at what they felt was a clear abuse of executive power. But others - perhaps the majority - were motivated by misgivings over the wisdom of rushing to mandate a new vaccine whose long term safety profile is still largely unknown, for a disease that cannot be spread by casual contact.

It is likely that these legislators will be condemned in some quarters as reactionaries who reject science and have a callous disregard for the well-being of women. I have seen blogs in which such legislators have been described as "right-wing Texas nut cases." Rep. Dennis H. Bonnen, who sponsored the legislation, has been called a "murderer" who "uses legislation as his weapon," and so forth. The Bill has also been widely - and wrongly - described as predominantly a Republican effort, which ignores the fact that Gov. Perry is himself a Republican and that all but two of the Democrats in the Texas House of Representatives who were present voted for it.

While few serious adverse effects were noticed in the immediate post-vaccination period, no one yet knows whether any long-term complications of vaccination will emerge, or whether such problems may be triggered by re-vaccination. In short, very little is really known about Gardasil, and it is heartening that the Texas House of Representatives has overridden Gov. Perry's imperious attempt to force this vaccine on that state's sixth graders.

Meanwhile, Merck, which had been aggressively lobbying state legislatures throughout the country in an attempt to push the mandatory vaccination agenda, appears to have retreated from that position. The company has announced that the legislative campaign has now been dropped.

We have written a report on Gardasil and the clinical trials that led to its approval. This report, another in our Current Topics series, contains a thorough discussion of the many objections to this vaccine, not from a sectarian or moralistic point of view, but with full consideration of the scientific evidence. We support solid public health measures. For instance, one of the key recommendations of our report is that the government should increase the provision of low-cost or free cervical cancer screening (Pap tests). As we point out in our report, Gardasil does not reduce the need for women to continue getting regular Pap tests. Yet regular Pap tests are remarkably effective at detecting precancerous conditions. Thus, this new vaccine is essentially redundant - and with unknown long-term health consequences besides.

It is deplorable that some people, on both sides of the political divide, have tried to make of Gardasil a sectarian issue. But playing on people's fears certainly inflames passions and makes a resolution of the issue much more difficult. We believe that the question of vaccination should be discussed calmly in the light of scientific evidence - and that is exactly the way we have tackled the subject in our report "On Guard - Gardasil." We believe that most readers - regardless of where they are coming from politically - will find our arguments illuminating.

To instantly order our Current Topics report on Gardasil please click or go to:

https://webssl.cancerdecisions.com/list/optin.php?form_id=24

--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

References:

Comments on Rep. Bonnen:
http://www.backupbrain.com/2007_04_22_archive.html#a005043

Ravdin PM, Cronin KA, Howlader NBerg CD, Chlebowski RT, Feuer EJ, Edwards BK, Berry DA. The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 19;356(16):1670-4.

**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.