Cancer In America: The Latest Numbers And The Challenges Of Funding Research
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-09/cancer-america-latest-numbers-and-challenges-funding-research
A new report shows overall cancer rates are on the decline. Diane discusses the latest on cancer in America and the challenges of funding breakthrough research with Dr. Harold Varmus, director of the NIH's National Cancer Institute.
Guests
Dr. Harold Varmus
director, National Cancer Institute
Trends in Human Papillomavirus (HPV)–Associated Cancers and HPV Vaccination Coverage Levels
Three-dose human pappilomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage among girls (aged 13 to 17 years), by state, in the United States, 2010. Source: National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen) 2010, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011. Girls in the 2010 NIS-Teen were born during the period from January 1992 to February 1998 and received either quadrivalent or bivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (some girls received more than three doses). Image source: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
We need to direct or money and focus on the CAUSE of cancer - not the cure. Without knowing the cause, we will never find the cure, the cure that works without killing people. Please Diane, I would love to know what your panel has to say about this.
As I see it, cancer education should focus on prevention via better nutrition, exercise and staying away from known carcinogens (over exposure to plastics as a key one) rather than "screenings" which only detect the problem once it's there.
Also, as far as sex ed, could the guest speak as to whether HPV is included in the list of potential sexually-transmitted diseases in sex ed classes these days? I know it wasn't mentioned when I grew up in the 80's or 90's - the focus was on HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, herpes, etc.
oops - duplicate
talk about leukemia. There hasn't been much progress in that type (for adults as opposed to children) -- has there?
I know many people who got leukemia past age 60. No one - over 60 - that I know has survived it for more than 5 years. They go through an awful treatment process -- even bone marrow transplants - and still die of it in a short time frame.
Aren't these older people given "false hope" -- especially if they have acute leukemia over age 60?
I've had a lot of experiences with the medical profession in my 60+ years. What impresses me most is the idea I have developed that the more the medical profession learns, the more they seem to have to learn. Since the medical profession is still struggling with things like the common cold and warts, I really don't have much confidence in them to solve the riddle of cancer. The fact is I have had several bad experiences with doctors; apparently the result of indifference and/ or incompetence. The worst one almost led to my death.
The longest-lived problem I have is some type of balance disorder, which I've had off and on for almost 40 years now. It took about 35 years to get an initial diagnosis. Not surprisingly, there is no consensus of opinion (in my case) on whether or not the diagnosis is correct. Indeed, after consulting a number of well-known doctors in greatly-admired medical centers, they have essentially given up trying.
So if I sound somewhat skeptical about the medical profession, then I believe my skepticism is justfied.
Can Dr. Varmus discuss what tests we should regularly expect and ask for as a means of screening for cancers (particularly the ones with the highest mortality rate and time to diagnosis) as we get older?
Your guest talked about the vaccine being a tool to prevent HPV from causing cervical caner; however, why isn't the Pap smear being talked about as the most effective tool used to prevent cervical cancer? I am a cytotechnologist, and a large portion of my job is to screen Pap smears. I have noticed that most of the women that are diagnosed with cervical cancer are women who have never had a Pap smear. This is an even cheaper tool than the vaccine and has been shown to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. I have also noticed that many women who have had the shot are still being diagnosed with cervical dysplasia. I think the shot is a wonderful idea, but I think it may lead women thinking that it is all they need, and that they shouldn't be getting a Pap smear.
Drugs drugs drugs. Our drugged non food is what breeds cancer. Lack of nutrient exacerbates the threat of cancer. Basic biological process are affected by what we eat. Fund diet reform rather than new drugs. Oh, but not profitable.
I find it very frustrating and disheartening that the holistic approach to cancer is so stifled and frowned upon by mainstream media and most modern medicine practitioners. I understand that it does not bring as much profit to pharmaceutical companies or medical establishments, but I think the well being of humanity is much more important than financial gain. I have read and witnessed many stories of people overcoming their cancer through a change in lifestyle and diet. Many times people don't want to attempt these sorts of methods (such as The Gerson Therapy) because it is so much of a lifestyle change and is inconvenient to their comfortable lifestyles. However, maybe it is time that we seriously look at our lives and re-evaluate the way we are living. Obviously there is too much disease happening at younger and younger ages. Why is this holistic, lifestyle approach being shoved aside if we are really trying to help people? I would think NPR of all news sources would be most open to discussing these methods.
fascinating topic and great speaker.
Does the physician have any thoughts on Tamoxiflin? generally, this is an cancer preventative prescription relating to breast cancer. It does have side effects, which makes it a concern. Thank you.
An article appeared in our local paper just before my husband was diagnosed with colon cancer which described how a new piece of diagnostic equipment worked. It said that the patient drank a radioactive sugar solution before the hi-res image because cancer cells took up sugar at seven times the rate of a normal cell! The food in the hospital was pretty much the standard american diet, very high in refined carbs, which he tried to avoid. The very kind young nutritionist was disturbed that she knew nothing of this idea, but was happy to be as helpful as possible. There has since been more studies that implicated Insulin Growth Factor and spikes in blood sugar in the growth of cancer cells, yet friends undergoing treatment for cancer say their oncologists encourage them to keep their weight up with Ensure, whose main ingredient is some form of sugar, and high sugar foods. Is this not widely known or simply not supported by some members of the scientific community? Patients may choose not to give up their Twinkies, but shouldn't they at least be told that spikes in blood sugar may affect their outcome?
Diane, please ask the Dr.: Is it effective for older people to be vaccinated for HPV? For instance, how about a 30 year-old woman who has been married, divorced, and is dating? Thanks.
Here is something to just consider, along side of fact that the Health and Human services is one of our biggest budget expense with a lot of it going to research. (I am just using sugar figuratively.) What if one day research traced all cancers back to the use of sugar. They look and notice that as we have increase sugar use in our culture, so has cancer rates. They found out definitively that that is causing the genes to mutate and the experiment can be repeated every time. What kind of acceptance of this realty would the people with money and power have in this fight. Imaging that the sugar lobby is one of the biggest in congress. Then consider the hundreds of billions of dollars made off treatment of cancer each year. Our society id driven morally by the highest bidder. What chance have we at ever finding cures in this "capitalistic" approach and environment. Diane, I BEG you to consider extending an offer to appear on the show to Dr. Ben Goldacre or Atul Gawande. Thanks
As long as you’re getting regular PAP smears, cervical cancer can be caught in its early, and easily treatable, stages.
So, the question begs to be asked: WHY is the HPV vaccine being pushed so vigorously when:
1. it prevents a type of cancer that is very rare to begin with
2. it protects against a virus that, 98 percent of the time, is not the cause of cervical cancer
3. it prevents a type of cancer that can be easily caught and treated by promoting regular gynecological exams
4. it offers less protection than what promotion of safe sex practices could accomplish
5. it is promoted to girls years before becoming sexually active, even though the vaccine may only offer about three years worth of protection
6. it prevents just 4 out of more than 100 strains of HPV; all of which your body can clear up on its own in 90 percent of all cases anyway
7. it has NOT been proven safe. No one knows if it can cause cancer or infertility, for example.
And why would the feds go so far as to add Gardasil to the list of vaccinations that all female immigrants ages 11 to 26 MUST get before they can obtain a green card? We’re not dealing with potential import of bubonic plague here…
According to a New England Journal of Medicine study, the use of condoms reduces the incidence of HPV by 70 percent, offering FAR better protection than Gardasil, for example.
The HPV vaccine is a total head-scratcher of a mystery as far as what its ultimate purpose is, because “curing the rampant health disaster of cervical cancer” is certainly NOT it.
And since when do we have to be vaccinated against cancer in order to be let into a country?
The focus on treatment and detection is where the big money is, not cause. Cause of course, is diet, environmental carcinogens, of which FDA has approved thousands( all tested on poor rabbits, mice, monkeys, and other sentient beings we force to endure egregious agony for risk mitigation for law suits)and weaker genes from generations now, of eating non-food from science labs and dead animals.
If we want to CURE cancer, contrary to what the "doctor" who makes his entire living, as so many do, from it, perhaps Ms. Rehms would interview Dr. Max Gerson's daughter, Charolette, who runs the very clinic in Mexico that IS CURING PEOPLE OF CANCER with organic vegan nutrition, DETOX juice fasts, coffeee enemas( what this doctor said were unsafe)and getting our system alklized as cancer can't live in an alkaline system but thrives on acidity.
Considering our anatomy is that of herbivore right down to enzymes, intestine length, composition of teeth, jaw capability, acidity levels, and more, ( see Dr. Milton Mills on Anatomy Comparison of Herbivore /Carnivore and truth is we are really NOT anything but herbivores)it is no wonder our colons are taxed.
Carnivores have short intestines compared to our very long intestines. Meat, ALL meat, takes days to travel through them.
Please Diane, interview Dr. T. Colin Campbell or Dr. Michael Greger, both brilliant researchers and PREVENTIVE medical practitioners.
Our lives, children's health, and the future if this earth rely on shifting to plant strong nurtition.
Any doctor still practicing meat and animal product consumption, does not undertand the connection between this faulty and violent ( to OUR BODIES as well as animals)system and its affect.
Alisha - I agree with you that if it's not making the pharma money, then it's dismissed. HPV is a waste of money with a lot of side effects, including death! Check this link on a bunch of articles on HPV - http://hsionline.com/search/hpv
I just caught the last 10 minutes of this talk on HPV, and I was surprised and perplexed when I heard Dr. Varmus say that the vaccination is not recommended for people over 40--only for young people to prevent getting it. Ahhh...I think what I'm hearing is that those who make the decisions recommending who should receive the vaccine are assuming that people over 40 are not sexually active? Or not facing many years of sexual activity. I, for one, don't mind admitting that my 40s were my most sexully active period of my life. I would hate to think that people are denied a vaccine because science deems them "over the hill" sexually. Recently, I heard a study that said that HIV was rising in the elderly, because people were living in group settings arnd becoming sexually more active in later life. Hormones, healthy lifestyles and happy attitudes are giving us a new lease on the mojo. Please let's all have access to what keeps us healthy.
cancer