Fighting wrong enemy in cancer 'war'

[Up2Late]

(Great author interview regarding the new book "The Secret History of the War on Cancer"

This book is bound to be "controversial" for the truths it tells about some very large corporations. I'd suspected this was the case for years, especially since I found out a few years ago that from age 4 to 9 I lives less than a mile from one of THREE EPA "Superfund" sites in my hometown in Indiana where all our short lived Cats died of cancerous stomach tumors.)

Fighting wrong enemy in cancer 'war'

Author Devra Davis says in her new book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, we're going about it the wrong way -- treating the disease, while all but ignoring the lifestyle and environmental factors that lead to a greater risk of getting cancer in the first place.
<http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/09/27/fighting_wrong_enemy_in_war_on_cancer>

More reviews at these links:

<http://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-War-Cancer/dp/0465015662/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-9349456-3105249?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191142456&sr=8-1>

Book Description
From the National Book Award finalist, author of When Smoke Ran Like Water, a searing, haunting and deeply personal account of the War on Cancer.
The War on Cancer set out to find, treat, and cure a disease. Left untouched were many of the things known to cause cancer, including tobacco, the workplace, radiation, or the global environment. Proof of how the world in which we live and work affects whether we get cancer was either overlooked or suppressed.

This has been no accident.

The War on Cancer was run by leaders of industries that made cancer-causing products, and sometimes also profited from drugs and technologies for finding and treating the disease. Filled with compelling personalities and never-before-revealed information, The Secret History of the War on Cancer

shows how we began fighting the wrong war, with the wrong weapons, against the wrong enemies--a legacy that persists to this day.

This is the gripping story of a major public health effort diverted and distorted for private gain.

A portion of the profits from this book will go to support research on cancer prevention.

About the Author
Devra Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H., is the Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. She was appointed by President Clinton to the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard

Investigation Board in 1994 and also served as Scholar in Residence at the National Academy of Science. She lives in Pittsburgh.

<http://www.nyas.org/events/eventDetail.asp?eventID=10355&date=11/16/2007%206:30:00%20PM>

<http://www.environmentaloncology.org/secrethistorycancer2.htm>

<http://www.upmc.com/Communications/MediaRelations/NewsReleaseArchives/2007/September/DDBookLaunch.htm>

<http://www.enviroblog.org/2007/09/history-of-the-war-on-cancer-n.htm>

[OzarkDem]

1. Very little funding for research into cancer & environment

NBCC has been trying to get a bill through Congress since early 2000 or so to fund a national research initiative into links between environment and breast cancer. In spite of overwhelming sponsorship in the House & Senate, the bill gets killed in committee every year.

One of the most controversial parts of the bill is that it requires the funding of research grants and results of studies be made available to the public. It also requires the research program to allow members of local communities to participate in developing environmental research programs relevant to their area.

[driver8]

2. My father has cancer -- lung cancer.

He lives in upstate, NY -- near the Canadian border. (Not near Love Canal.) When he was diagnosed, the doctor told him that they get a lot of cancer cases from the area he lives in. He said that the doctor called it a "cluster."

[Celebration]

11. lung cancer

Clusters of lung cancer can sometimes be caused by radon (which is from the environment, but natural). Has that been checked?

I'm sure sorry about your father's lung cancer. That is very tough.

[Kutjara]

3. K&R. This book and the new one by Naomi Klein are...

...at the top of my reading pile. I'll be starting this one as soon as I finish what I'm reading now.

[emilyg]

4. Thank you.

My tumor had traces of pesticide in it. You bet it's environmental.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Which pesticide?

What concentration?

[emilyg]

9. No idea. Just remember my oncologist telling me.

[Forkboy]

5. K&R and thanks.

:kick:

[TahitiNut]

7. How would you react to a snippet like this ...?

Fighting wrong enemy in AIDS 'war'

Author Dumb Dora says in her new book, The Secret History of the War on AIDS, we're going about it the wrong way -- treating the disease, while all but ignoring the lifestyle and environmental factors that lead to a greater risk of getting AIDS in the first place.

Funny how just a little change in the disease makes such a big difference, isn't it?

:eyes:

Or... don't you see any difference?

[TahitiNut]

8. {crickets}

:eyes:

[pitohui]

10. i guess i don't get it ? just an awkward turn of phrase don't you think?

prevention is a BIG deal with hiv/aids, such things as IDing the virus, screening blood supply for the virus, promoting safer sex practices, promoting needle exchanges, etc are very important

of course "cancer" is a lot of different diseases, not just one, and as people have discovered, you can follow all the rules and not smoke, and still get lung cancer, thanks to environmental factors like asbestos in the workplace (dana reeves comes to mind)

some cancers there seems to be little or no effort to address the real causes, which are highly likely to be environmental, for breast cancer all the "lifestyle" effort goes toward blaming women for not having kids or for claiming the risk is higher if you have a drink or an abortion, with relatively little proof of the claim, since most women who get breast cancer don't have known risk factors -- in this case, ignoring what pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers are doing to our ground water is probably killing women who can't change their "lifestyle" because they can't choose not to drink water or eat food

i believe in many cases, cancer, hiv/aids, whatever -- if the "cause" of the disease can be placed on the individual, there are research dollars available, educational dollars available -- but if the "cause" of the disease is corporate (such as asbestos), suddenly it is not investigated for decades and people are denied help or made to feel they did something wrong when it was completely beyond their control

we have a society that blames the individual for being ill in my opinion -- why? because it's politically unpopular for politicians to look at the corporate donors, it's politically unpopular for scientists and doctors to look too hard at the corporate donors who give out grants

so our system seems more willing to look at small things the individual can do to cut her risk but refuses to look at the big things that society can do, to cut the risk to all

is that your point? or am i completely off the mark here? (wouldn't be the first time i suppose)

maybe the quote was poorly phrased but i don't think we should let it turn us off to the big issue that environmental causes of cancer, in my opinion most especially industrial pollutants, are not sufficiently investigated

[Celebration]

12. bras!

There need to be studies on women wearing tight bras and breast cancer. Bras cut off the flow of lymph fluid. There are some strong suggestions of correlation between wearing bras and breast cancer, but no gold standard studies. I would love to see some formal studies done with all the controls, etc.

[pitohui]

17. i'm glad you're entertained by our pain

what the heck is the matter with people?

just read your vicky's secret catalog if you want to look at bras, crap!

[Celebration]

26. hardly entertained

just interested in health

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1954127&mesg_id=1957881

[OzarkDem]

18. There would be "gold standard" studies if

preliminary evidence indicated there was a reason to follow up with them. There is none.

Flow of lymph fluid doesn't have a connection with cancer. Lymph fluid in and of itself doesn't have any kind of oncogenic properties. There's no there there.

[Celebration]

23. lymph fluid

Lymph fluid movement flushes toxins out. We are talking about toxins causing breast cancer. That's the link.

http://www.007b.com/bras_breast_cancer.php

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymphatic_system

Unlike the blood system, the lymphatic system is not closed and has no central pump. Lymph movement occurs slowly with low pressure due to peristalsis, valves, and the milking action of skeletal muscles. Like veins, lymph travels through vessels in one way only, due to semilunar valves. This depends mainly on the movement of skeletal muscles to squeeze fluid through them, especially near the joints. Rhythmic contraction of the vessel walls through movements may also help draw fluid into the smallest lymphatic vessels, capillaries. Tight clothing can restrict this, thus reducing the removal of wastes and allowing them to accumulate.

If environmental toxins are a cause of breast cancer, inhibiting their removal by blocking the lymph system intuitively does not sound like a good idea to me, particularly given the preliminary evidence that there may be a connection.

[Up2Late]

16. Sorry, I was watching "The War" again tonight, but I completely agree with...

...what pitohui said in his/her reply.

On a different subject, how did you make the background light blue in the box in your post?

[TahitiNut]

27. code

[div style="margin:10pt; padding:5pt; background:#eeffff;
border:solid blue 1px;"] Quote Here [/div]

[jpgray]

24. No difference there. Encouraging people to practice safe sex is somehow eye-roll worthy?

Whose lifestyle does that put a serious hindrance on? Or are you assuming the analogy to this would be to "discourage" homosexuality based on unfair associations of "HIV-risky" with all gays? Again, let's not go reductio ad absurdum without a reason to.

[Fading Captain]

13. Can anyone point me to a web source?

That lists cancer rates, by city?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. by county and state?

http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/

[OzarkDem]

19. SEER database

provides data down to regional and county level

http://seer.cancer.gov/

Trying to determine cancer statistics at a smaller level (like a city) results in very unreliable data.

You can also check your state's cancer registry, usually available through you state health department.

[flashl]

14. Is chemotherapy the wrong weapon? n/t

[Raine]

20. But if they study enviromental and lifestyle

and why they cause cancer it might actually be all but irradicated and the drug companies wouldn't have much business. Healthy people who don't get sick don't spend money on drug treatments. And YES, I'm very cynical. My mother put up a losing battle against cancer. :cry: It was cancer that she was sure she got from pesticides sprayed by cropdusters next to the school yard while her and her schoolmates were out there playing. :mad:

[OzarkDem]

21. That's the plan

eradicate it, so no one ever has to worry about getting it again.

The bigger concern about blocking environmental research isn't pharma companies as much as it is the companies who are polluting the environment and would be required to change practices or be held accountable. They fight very hard to stop this research or keep the results from being made public.

[Up2Late]

22. Speaking of "...pesticides sprayed by cropdusters next to the school yard..."

...did you see Bill Moyers Journal a few weeks ago when he did a show remembering the author of "Silent Spring"???

He showed some incredible video footage of the DDT spraying the local governments were doing back in the 1950s and 1960s! In one shot, they are spraying big clouds of DDT directly on kids in a swimming pool!

Amazing!

Here are some links:
<http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09212007/profile.html>

There are clips though out this video, but the most shocking video clips are at about one minute (1:00) and at about three minutes (3:00) in part 2 at this link: <http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09212007/watch2.html>

[The2ndWheel]

25. I wouldn't worry too much about lack of business after we eradicate something

That whole evolution thing. After we get rid of cancer, there will be more people, so the next disease/virus/whatever will have to be that much stronger in order to survive. Then there is always simple death that we have to cure. There will always be a market for business.

[Up2Late]

28. kick n/t

:kick: