RSS Feed
December 25th, 2011 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda WEDNESDAY, Dec. 21 (HealthDay News) — Jack Whelan first knew
something was wrong when it got harder and harder to walk from the train
station in Boston to the financial district where he worked.
He knew something was terribly wrong when he started getting nose
bleeds.
A consultation with an oncologist confirmed Whelan’s fears: He had
advanced Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia, a rare form of blood cancer that
affects only about 1,500 people in the United States each year.
Forty years ago, Whelan would have had five years to live — at the
outside — and who knows what his quality of life would have looked
like.
But today, five years after his diagnosis and almost 40 years to the
day that President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act declaring
“war” on cancer, Whelan, 63, is power-walking, raking leaves, shoveling
snow and back at work as a marketing executive.
Whelan is just one of the millions of Americans who have benefited from
continued advances in cancer research. He has participated in four
different clinical trials and is currently taking an experimental drug
called LBH589 which, Whelan said, makes him “feel like Popeye the sailor
after having spinach.”
Just this month, scientists at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in
Boston, where Whelan is being treated, discovered a single gene mutation
present in 90 percent of patients who have this rare type of cancer,
raising the hope that an even more targeted treatment will soon be able to
attack the disease.
Since Dec. 23, 1971, and the passage in Congress of the National Cancer
Act, research has made tremendous progress against what is still one of
the world’s foremost killers, experts say.
“Back at that time point, cancer essentially was a death sentence,”
said Dr. Raymond N. DuBois Jr., provost and executive vice president for
academic affairs at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
That’s no longer the case, however, thanks to advances in early
detection, improved therapies and a better understanding of the genetics
driving different forms of cancer, he said.
“Forty years ago, fewer than one-third of patients with a diagnosis of
cancer lived five years. Almost no children with a diagnosis of the most
common form of childhood cancer, acute leukemia, lived [that long],” said
Dana-Farber president Dr. Edward Benz Jr. “In 2011, nearly 90 percent of
children diagnosed with acute leukemia will be cured and nearly two-thirds
of all people diagnosed with cancer will live at least five years.”
Since 1991 alone, there’s been more than an 18 percent reduction in
deaths from cancer, added Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the
American Cancer Society.
An ounce of prevention
Much of this progress may have started with prevention.
Declines in smoking rates, helped by the landmark U.S. Surgeon
General’s Report in 1964 linking smoking to cancer, have continued over
the decades, preventing countless cases of lung malignancies and other
forms of cancer.
Colonoscopies to detect pre-cancerous polyps have not only reduced
mortality but prevented many cases of colorectal cancer outright.
The adoption of regular mammography screening for breast cancer is
another success story in its own right, as is screening for cervical
cancer.
Thanks to, first, the Pap smear (which looks for abnormal cells on the
cervix) and now the HPV test (which detects the human papillomavirus that
can cause cervical cancer), death rates from cervical cancer in the United
States plummeted more than 60 percent between 1955 and 1992, according to
the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
No doubt, incidence and mortality from cervical cancer will continue to
decline with the advent of another major weapon: newly approved vaccines
that prevent infection with the strains of HPV that cause most cases of
this type of cancer.
These vaccines (two have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration) have great potential to reduce head and neck cancers, as
well as anal cancer deaths, which can also be caused by HPV, Brawley said.
But advances in detection have been complemented by improvements in
treatment, the experts added. These include better surgical techniques.
For example, studies suggest that women who have a lumpectomy to conserve
their breast along with radiation typically have as good a prognosis as
women who undergo a full mastectomy.
Targeted radiation has also made treatment much less onerous for
prostate cancer patients, and new chemotherapies often arrive with
drastically fewer side effects than in decades past.
The age of “targeted therapies” or “personalized medicine” — an era
ushered in by anti-estrogen breast cancer therapies such as tamoxifen
(which debuted in the 1980s) — is here, Brawley said. Those highly
targeted medications were later joined by aromatase inhibitors as well as
Herceptin (trastuzumab) to attack a specific form of Her2neu-positive
breast cancer.
Scientists are also finding new targets for lung, colorectal and other
cancers. For example, studies show that Tarceva (erlotinib) can improve
the average survival of patients with non-small cell lung cancer by about
two months. That may not sound like much but, in lung cancer, it
represents a huge stride.
“Wonder drug” Gleevec, a medicine used to push certain blood cancers
into remission, is another targeted-therapy success story. In fact, a
colleague of Whelan’s was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia
while still in his 20s and subsequently died. Had he been diagnosed a few
years later, after the discovery of Gleevec, he would have lived, Whelan
believes.
Brawley agrees that “personalized medicine is the future,” and he
predicts many more advances in this area in the next five years.
Dubois added: “We are doing molecular fingerprinting of each individual
tumor and, although we’re not using that right now to direct cancer care,
the idea is once we have that information we will be able to use it to
figure out exactly which treatments a patient needs so they’re not being
given unnecessary treatment. And the treatment they do get is going to be
much more effective on the first round of therapy when it really makes the
biggest difference.”
Doctors now also know that “multi-modality” therapy — meaning the
combined use of surgery, radiation and drug therapy — “has given people
the best chance for good outcomes for particular kinds of cancer,” said
Benz.
Progress lacking on some fronts
But while there’s been undisputed progress, “it’s very incomplete
progress,” Benz and others acknowledged.
“If you look over the past 40 years, on some fronts we’ve actually been
winning and on some fronts we’re losing terribly,” said Brawley. “We are
our own worst enemy in terms of battling cancer with tobacco control, diet
and exercise and getting everybody adequate preventive screening and
treatment.
“In excess of 200,000 of the 500,000 lives that will be lost from
cancer this year could have been avoided if we simply adopted all the
cancer-control technologies that we’ve learned over the last 40 years,” he
added.
Although the smoking rate has declined dramatically since publication
of the U.S. Surgeon General’s 1964 report, it’s been stalled at about 20
percent for 10 years now, Brawley said.
There are also lingering disparities in both prevention and treatment
by race, socioeconomic status and urban versus rural locations, said
Brawley.
Cancer therapies are also becoming increasingly complicated and
expensive “at a time when the trend in health care and in support for
cancer research is going down,” added Benz. “I worry that we’re going to
see increasing disparities as cancer and personalized medicine becomes
more complicated and expensive. It will be harder and harder to offer it
to everybody who needs it.”
Clinical trials may also become more difficult and expensive to
conduct, as scientists recognize more and more subtypes of cancer. That
means fewer people fit each particular subtype, Benz said.
Nevertheless, the overall message is a positive one.
“It’s been a huge evolution since 1971,” said DuBois. “It’s just
incredible.”
More information
There’s more on the National Cancer Act at the U.S.
National Cancer Institute.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
