Yes, cancer costs in the U.S. have doubled in the past 20 years from $25 billion to $48 billion according to a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Surprisingly it's not due to all of those expensive new cancer drugs and treatments but instead by the increase in the number of cancer patients.
Perhaps modern medicine should be investigating cancer prevention instead of expensive treatments? Oh, sorry, that would be a complete paradigm shift in the medical industry in this country.
Prevention is one of the key features of complementary and alternative therapies. Never getting sick is a lot cheaper in the long run than treating an illness or disease!
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Cancer Treatment Changes Aren't Always Better
A Dutch study has shown the danger in new cancer treatments. Doctors tried combining Erbitux and Avastin, two new cancer-fighting drugs, because lab tests and an earlier small study had shown promising results.
"This will stand out as a warning," said Cornelis Punt, the study's leader. "You have to do the randomized studies to see what really happens." The study shows that instead of treating the cancer better, it actually made the cancer worse.
The new research was done at hospitals throughout the Netherlands involving 755 patients who had colon cancer that had spread. In the U.S. colorectal cancer was expected to kill almost 50,000 Americans last year but rates have been dropping due to better screening and treatments.
"This will stand out as a warning," said Cornelis Punt, the study's leader. "You have to do the randomized studies to see what really happens." The study shows that instead of treating the cancer better, it actually made the cancer worse.
The new research was done at hospitals throughout the Netherlands involving 755 patients who had colon cancer that had spread. In the U.S. colorectal cancer was expected to kill almost 50,000 Americans last year but rates have been dropping due to better screening and treatments.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Medicare's Cancer Drug Expansion
Last November Medicare expanded "off label" drug uses to treat cancer by expanding from one to four guides that can be used to authorize coverage. Critics say the drug guides aren't always supported by research and could be influenced by ties to the companies manufacturing the drugs.
As an example, one of the four designated guides is published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, a group of hospitals. The guide relies on panels of experts to review drugs, half of whom have financial ties with a cancer drug maker.
While it's compassionate to try and help cancer patients afford drug treatments the profit motive of the drug companies would seem to be the real reason behind this change and yet the latest illustration of their influence in Washington.
As an example, one of the four designated guides is published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, a group of hospitals. The guide relies on panels of experts to review drugs, half of whom have financial ties with a cancer drug maker.
While it's compassionate to try and help cancer patients afford drug treatments the profit motive of the drug companies would seem to be the real reason behind this change and yet the latest illustration of their influence in Washington.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Cancer and Mind-Body Medicine
A study in the journal Cancer says that reducing stress in breast cancer patients can reduce their risk of dying from the disease by 50%. The study also found that psychological interventions reduced the risk that tumors would come back by 45%.
The researchers focused on stress reduction as a primary reason why patients appeared to benefit from group counseling sessions.
As usual modern medicine is looking for a direct cause-and-effect relationship involving some chemical rather than recognizing the power of energy (thought, feelings) and its impact on epigenetics.
The researchers focused on stress reduction as a primary reason why patients appeared to benefit from group counseling sessions.
As usual modern medicine is looking for a direct cause-and-effect relationship involving some chemical rather than recognizing the power of energy (thought, feelings) and its impact on epigenetics.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Vytorin Cancer Risk
Editors at the New England Journal of Medicine have warned that it's impossible to rule out a link between the cholesterol-lowering drug Vytorin and cancer. The connection came to light in July from 3 studies which were looking at whether the drug prevents deaths from heart attacks and strokes. The data revealed that patients taking Vytorin appear to have at least a 40% higher risk of dying from cancer than those taking a placebo.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Medicare Progress
Recently, Medicare agreed to provide coverage for the Ornish Program, the only medically-proven therapy to reverse heart disease without drugs or surgery. This is the first time that Medicare has covered a program of comprehensive lifestyle changes, something insurance companies aren't even doing yet.
Way To Go Medicare!
It's good to see government health care leading the way, especially when it involves saving money and avoiding drugs and surgery. Dr. Ornish and his colleagues are now training and licensing health professionals from around the world in his program for reversing heart disease for free in an open source model ... a radical new trend in medicine.
You may have read about Dr. Dean Ornish in the news lately. Dr. Ornish has expanded his research and recently directed the first randomized controlled trial demonstrating that comprehensive lifestyle changes may stop or perhaps even reverse the progression of prostate cancer. The initial results demonstrated that 500+ genes were modified by lifestyle in only 3 months, basically turning on more cancer-fighting genes and turning off genes that support cancer growth. For those of you familiar with Bruce Lipton's work or UnBreak Your Health you recognize this is the new science of Epigenetics.
Way To Go Medicare!
It's good to see government health care leading the way, especially when it involves saving money and avoiding drugs and surgery. Dr. Ornish and his colleagues are now training and licensing health professionals from around the world in his program for reversing heart disease for free in an open source model ... a radical new trend in medicine.
You may have read about Dr. Dean Ornish in the news lately. Dr. Ornish has expanded his research and recently directed the first randomized controlled trial demonstrating that comprehensive lifestyle changes may stop or perhaps even reverse the progression of prostate cancer. The initial results demonstrated that 500+ genes were modified by lifestyle in only 3 months, basically turning on more cancer-fighting genes and turning off genes that support cancer growth. For those of you familiar with Bruce Lipton's work or UnBreak Your Health you recognize this is the new science of Epigenetics.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Must Be Nice
I must admit right upfront that this blog is all about jealousy and envy. As a new author with a small publisher I am very jealous of all the media coverage given to big companies with their expensive PR agencies. It really rubs me the wrong way when it's a pharmaceutical company pushing more drugs down the throats of Americans.
Latest case in point: Erbitux. You have to have heard about this new cancer fighter because it was reported on all major TV news networks yesterday. It was also reported on several of the local TV news programs here in Dallas. It was even in today's Dallas Morning News newspaper. Judging from all of this media coverage you'd think this was a major innovation, but you'd be wrong, it's just more of the usual.
Dr. Roy Herbst, lung cancer specialist at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston had it right when he said "It's a very small benefit. No one should try to make any more of it than that." I would add it's based on an extremely small study so it's very premature too.
There were only 1,125 people in the new study and the drug appears to only extend the average survival from 10 months with standard chemotherapy to 11 months with Erbitux and chemo. Not exactly a huge improvement but from all of the media hype you'd think this was the cure for cancer.
Like I said, I admit I'm envious of all the media coverage! I've been trying for nearly a year to get some coverage, any coverage, about complementary and alternative medicine ... with no success. My book, UnBreak Your Health, can certainly reduce pain and suffering as well as this new drug but without the money to pay a big PR firm for media attention, nobody knows about it. The hundreds of therapies in my book can help millions of people, not just the thousands impacted by the type of cancer involved with this new drug, but the media ignores it.
Welcome to the Golden Rule, pharmaceutical style.
Latest case in point: Erbitux. You have to have heard about this new cancer fighter because it was reported on all major TV news networks yesterday. It was also reported on several of the local TV news programs here in Dallas. It was even in today's Dallas Morning News newspaper. Judging from all of this media coverage you'd think this was a major innovation, but you'd be wrong, it's just more of the usual.
Dr. Roy Herbst, lung cancer specialist at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston had it right when he said "It's a very small benefit. No one should try to make any more of it than that." I would add it's based on an extremely small study so it's very premature too.
There were only 1,125 people in the new study and the drug appears to only extend the average survival from 10 months with standard chemotherapy to 11 months with Erbitux and chemo. Not exactly a huge improvement but from all of the media hype you'd think this was the cure for cancer.
Like I said, I admit I'm envious of all the media coverage! I've been trying for nearly a year to get some coverage, any coverage, about complementary and alternative medicine ... with no success. My book, UnBreak Your Health, can certainly reduce pain and suffering as well as this new drug but without the money to pay a big PR firm for media attention, nobody knows about it. The hundreds of therapies in my book can help millions of people, not just the thousands impacted by the type of cancer involved with this new drug, but the media ignores it.
Welcome to the Golden Rule, pharmaceutical style.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Cancer Profit
Sales of cancer drugs are predicted to grow at nearly twice the rate of the world's other pharmaceuticals, possibly reaching $80 billion by 2012 according to IMS Health. Sales this year are expected to reach $48 billion.
Why would you want to find a cure for cancer when treatments are so profitable? Isn't it curious that cancer has received more research money than any other health problem and yet apparently we've made so little progress in curing or even preventing the disease over so many decades?
If it isn't about the money is it possible that the current limitations of medical science prevent a cure from being found? Perhaps they simply can't look outside their small little box of preconceived attitudes to find solutions? One of my favorites was a doctor at the NIH saying that nutrition has nothing to do with cancer. If not, then why do they use a sugar-based radioactive solution to find cancer? Because the tumors consume the formula at a higher rate than normal cells making them light up like a Christmas tree ... but nutrition has nothing to do with cancer.
Many people turn to complementary and alternative medicine for more holistic, more natural and in many cases very effective cancer treatments. The more you research your options, the more you'll understand why.
Why would you want to find a cure for cancer when treatments are so profitable? Isn't it curious that cancer has received more research money than any other health problem and yet apparently we've made so little progress in curing or even preventing the disease over so many decades?
If it isn't about the money is it possible that the current limitations of medical science prevent a cure from being found? Perhaps they simply can't look outside their small little box of preconceived attitudes to find solutions? One of my favorites was a doctor at the NIH saying that nutrition has nothing to do with cancer. If not, then why do they use a sugar-based radioactive solution to find cancer? Because the tumors consume the formula at a higher rate than normal cells making them light up like a Christmas tree ... but nutrition has nothing to do with cancer.
Many people turn to complementary and alternative medicine for more holistic, more natural and in many cases very effective cancer treatments. The more you research your options, the more you'll understand why.
Friday, May 16, 2008
What Does It Take?
I often wonder what it takes to get people to take responsibility for their own health. I view this as the first step before they'll even consider the world of hope called complementary and alternative medicine. I have to admit that in my case, it took running out of medical options, although I hope others are much smarter.
A recent report on cancer survivors following minimal recommendations has me shaking my head and wondering what it takes to get people involved in their own health. You'd think that surviving cancer would do it, wouldn't you? But you'd be wrong.
The American Cancer Society issued three fundamental recommendations in 2006 on healthy lifestyle behaviors: get at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-strenuous exercise, or an hour of strenuous physical activity every week; eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables daily; and quit smoking. These are recommendations that every type of complementary and alternative therapy can agree on with mainstream medicine so that should give you an idea of how basic these suggestions are for maintaining good health.
Today we know that only 5% were meeting all three requirements. Pretty sad, isn't it? At the same time just over 12% were meeting none and fewer than 10% of cancer survivors of any of the six cancer types in the study were meeting two or more recommendations.
Once again I pose the question: What in the world does it take???
A recent report on cancer survivors following minimal recommendations has me shaking my head and wondering what it takes to get people involved in their own health. You'd think that surviving cancer would do it, wouldn't you? But you'd be wrong.
The American Cancer Society issued three fundamental recommendations in 2006 on healthy lifestyle behaviors: get at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-strenuous exercise, or an hour of strenuous physical activity every week; eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables daily; and quit smoking. These are recommendations that every type of complementary and alternative therapy can agree on with mainstream medicine so that should give you an idea of how basic these suggestions are for maintaining good health.
Today we know that only 5% were meeting all three requirements. Pretty sad, isn't it? At the same time just over 12% were meeting none and fewer than 10% of cancer survivors of any of the six cancer types in the study were meeting two or more recommendations.
Once again I pose the question: What in the world does it take???
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Medical Risks
How often have we heard 20-20 medical hindsight after deaths raise an issue to a headline story? The latest example of "those risks were completely unanticipated" comes from the first follow-up study of hormone use after menopause. While heart problems linked to the pills appear to fade after stopping the medication new cancer risks appear.
You may remember this study was halted six years ago due to heart risks and breast cancer. Now we find out years later that lung tumors and other cancers become a problem. Those who'd taken hormones but stopped were 24% more likely to develop any kind of cancer.
As usual doctors are trying to play down the problem saying it only affects 3 women out of 1,000 on the hormone pills. Try telling the 3 women with cancer that it isn't a big deal. Better yet, try BEING one of the 3 women with cancer and see how you feel.
You may remember this study was halted six years ago due to heart risks and breast cancer. Now we find out years later that lung tumors and other cancers become a problem. Those who'd taken hormones but stopped were 24% more likely to develop any kind of cancer.
As usual doctors are trying to play down the problem saying it only affects 3 women out of 1,000 on the hormone pills. Try telling the 3 women with cancer that it isn't a big deal. Better yet, try BEING one of the 3 women with cancer and see how you feel.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Medical Hindsight
Isn't it amazing how the folks who don't want you to have access to complementary and alternative medicine are the same ones making mistakes that kill people? Today's example is from the wonderful world of medical hindsight, which is always 20-20.
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine predicts that in a few decades up to 2% of all cancers in the U.S. may be caused by radiation from CT scans given today. That's because millions of Americans are needlessly getting dangerous radiation that raises the risk of cancer. Children, the study warns, are especially at risk.
The problem is the increasing popularity of CT scans. There were 62 million scans done last year compared with 3 million in 1980. Since previous studies suggest that 1/3 of all diagnostic tests are unnecessary there are millions of people being put at risk.
Only 1/3 of the facilities doing CT scans are accredited by the College of Radiology and even those that are checked frequently neglect to reset equipment from adult to child to minimize exposure and risk.
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine predicts that in a few decades up to 2% of all cancers in the U.S. may be caused by radiation from CT scans given today. That's because millions of Americans are needlessly getting dangerous radiation that raises the risk of cancer. Children, the study warns, are especially at risk.
The problem is the increasing popularity of CT scans. There were 62 million scans done last year compared with 3 million in 1980. Since previous studies suggest that 1/3 of all diagnostic tests are unnecessary there are millions of people being put at risk.
Only 1/3 of the facilities doing CT scans are accredited by the College of Radiology and even those that are checked frequently neglect to reset equipment from adult to child to minimize exposure and risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
