For years, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has asserted
that cancer incidence in the US is on the decline. But a
recent scientific study undercuts this claim. It turns out
that various flaws and delays in the way the data were
reported to the US government created a false impression
that progress was being made. In fact, American cancer rates
have been rising, not falling, for the most common kinds of
cancer.
The reversal of the NCI's erroneous statistics does not come
from the medical fringe. It appears in a recent issue of the
Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) itself,
written by scientists at the NCI's own Biometry Research
Group. It is a reversal with important political
implications for the struggling "war on cancer."
The Right Track?
In December 1971, President Nixon launched America's "war on
cancer," putting billions of dollars of resources behind a
fight to control this dread disease. One obvious measure of
progress has been the rate at which cancer afflicts the
general population. If the incidence of cancer is rising,
then something is obviously wrong with the strategy. If it
goes down, however, it implies that effective measures are
being implemented for cancer prevention.
In December 1971, President Nixon launched America's "war on
cancer," putting billions of dollars of resources behind a
fight to control this dread disease. One obvious measure of
progress has been the rate at which cancer afflicts the
general population. If the incidence of cancer is rising,
then something is obviously wrong with the strategy. If it
goes down, however, it implies that effective measures are
being implemented for cancer prevention.
For years the public has been in a peculiar situation. On
the one hand, most people with whom I speak express the
conviction that cancer is increasing in frequency among
their friends, families and neighbors. On the other hand,
almost all medical authorities have reassured us that cancer
incidence is in fact declining.
In March 1998, the NCI, American Cancer Society (ACS), and
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) united to
issue an unprecedented joint statement, the so-called
"Cancer Report Card." This stated:
"Cancer incidence and death rates for all cancers combined
and for most of the top 10 cancer sites declined between
1990 and 1995, reversing an almost 20-year trend of
increasing cancer cases and deaths in the United States."
The directors of the three agencies exulted in the seeming
progress. "These numbers are the best proof that we're on
the right track," said Richard Klausner, MD, then the
director of the NCI.
"We must seize the opportunity to build, and build
significantly, on this trend," added John R. Seffrin, PhD,
chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society.
The implications of these findings were vast. The downturn
in cancer incidence was taken as a complete vindication of
the government's approach, and, by some, as a refutation of
the claims of alternative medicine. After all, if the
conventional approach was working, some argued, who needs
alternatives?
Elizabeth Whelan, ScD, MPH, a frequent critic of alternative
medicine, wrote along these lines in an article on the
Quackwatch website. In her words:
"The false claim that cancer rates are rising is a favorite
of quackery promoters who want to undermine public trust in
food companies, drug companies, chemical manufacturers, and
the medical profession." Naturally, she drew on the 1998
"Cancer Report Card" as proof that "the incidence and
overall death rates from cancer have been declining in the
United States."
Not Winning the War
Yet according to an excellent recent article by Sharon
Begley of the Wall Street Journal, "America isn't winning
the war on cancer after all. Contrary to optimistic reports
from the National Cancer Institute showing the incidence of
several devastating cancers has leveled off or even declined
in recent years, rates for at least some of those cancers
have been rising, according to a new analysis by NCI
scientists."
Begley added, "More accurate information about cancer rates
presents a grimmer picture." She called the revised NCI
estimates "a dispiriting picture of the nation's progress in
preventing cancer."
Cancer on the Rise
In their reanalysis, the authors of the NCI study reviewed
delays and errors in reporting for five common types of
cancer. They found that rates of breast cancer among white
women, which we were told had remained stable since 1987,
actually have been rising by a substantial 0.6 percent per
year. The NCI scientists called for more research "to
explain the cause for the recent rise in breast cancer
incidence."
Lung cancer incidence in women was also purported to be
flat, but in actuality it too has been rising, by 1.2
percent a year, since 1996. Melanoma rates in white men were
said to be steady or even falling. But now we learn that
they have been increasing by a formidable 4.1 percent a year
since 1981. Similarly, prostate cancer rates in white men,
rather than falling, as we were previously assured, have
also been rising by 2.2 percent a year.
"For white men, 1998 prostate cancer rates are actually 12
percent higher than originally reported," wrote Begley,
while "for black men they are 14 percent higher." The rate
of colon and rectal cancer in white women has been rising
2.8 percent annually since 1996, rather than, as originally
calculated, less than 1 percent per year.
Muted Response
When the 1998 "Cancer Report Card" was issued, it was
publicized throughout the world by a compliant media. Yet in
contrast to the universal hoopla that greeted the release of
the 1998 findings, the response to this astonishing new
study has been muted.
"Maybe we were a little too eager to declare the
effectiveness of our intervention and prevention programs,"
said the NCI's Brenda Edwards.
"This tells us something we didn't know about whether our
intervention and prevention programs are working," said a
spokesperson for the American Cancer Society. True: it tells
us that the interventions are not working!
Two weeks after the study was published in JNCI, I can still
find no mention of it at cancer.gov, the NCI's website. Nor
could I find any mention of this publication at the websites
of Reuters, ABC News, the New York Times, or even
Google.com, which monitors 4,000 separate news sources. I
find it galling that the Pollyanna-like optimism of 1998 was
swallowed whole by the media, while the corrective dose of
realism has gone unmentioned. Why do I get the feeling that
"the powers that be" like it that way?
Status of CLT Educational Programs
Things continue to develop favorably at the Cytoluminescent
Therapy (CLT) program at East Clinic in Ireland. Patients
have begun arriving from abroad for treatment there. In two
weeks, I will return to Ireland to study recent data on this
unique form of light therapy and also to lead educational
seminars for international patients. The first two such
programs, scheduled for November and December, are already
completely booked. I have agreed to lead more such seminars
starting in early January 2003. If you are interested in
receiving CLT and also in participating in this weeklong
educational event with other patients, please contact the
clinic directly via email: cancerclt@eircom.net
Chemotherapy and Supplements
The big debate over whether or not antioxidant supplements
conflict with chemotherapy continues. In a recent study,
scientists at the National University of Singapore showed
that the activity of the common cancer drug Adriamycin
(doxorubicin) was affected by supplements of vitamin E or
fish oil in an animal population.
Life span and heart damage were recorded in tumor-bearing
mice treated with doxorubicin at three different doses and
fed a standard diet containing either canola oil, fish oil,
canola oil and vitamin E, or fish oil and vitamin E. At a
treatment dose of 6.0 or 9.0 milligrams doxorubicin per
kilogram, the chemotherapy drug extended life span, and the
addition of either fish oil or vitamin E enhanced the drug's
beneficial effects. However, an opposite trend was seen when
a higher dose of doxorubicin (12.0 milligrams per kilogram)
was used. This dose caused severe heart damage in test
animals, and the addition of fish oil or vitamin E to the
regimen actually aggravated the drug's harmful effects.
Doxorubicin can cause heart damage in human patients as
well, but whether fish oil or vitamin E would exacerbate the
drug's effects is unknown. Human clinical trials to test the
impact of various nutritional supplements on the
effectiveness and toxicity of chemotherapy drugs are sorely
needed. Such studies would help clear up the many vexing
questions associated with these combinations.
I mentioned earlier that on November 16, I will be receiving
an award from the National Foundation for Alternative
Medicine (NFAM). Among the other recipients are Rep. Berkley
Bedell; Larry Dossey, MD; Bernie Siegel, MD; and actress
Diane Ladd. Details of this award are now available online
at http://www.nfam.org/new/november_event_awardees.html
--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
References:
Begley S. New statistics show increase in cancer rates. The
Wall Street Journal, October 16, 2002, p. B1.
Clegg LX et al. Impact of reporting delay and reporting
error on cancer incidence rates and trends. J Natl Cancer
Inst 2002;94:1537-45.
Howe HL et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of
cancer (1973 through 1998), featuring cancers with recent
increasing trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:824-42.
New report on declining cancer incidence and death rates;
report shows progress in controlling cancer. [March 12, 1998
joint statement] http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar98/nci-12.htm
New report on declining cancer incidence and death rates;
report shows progress in controlling cancer. [March 12, 1998
joint statement] http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar98/nci-12.htm
Chemotherapy and Supplements
Liu QY and Tan BK. Dietary fish oil and vitamin E enhance
doxorubicin effects in P388 tumor-bearing mice.
Lipids 2002;37:549-56.
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.
|