Waging War on Lung Cancer

by Ellen BrownFive years ago, when Ken Giddes was vacationing with his wife in Vancouver, British Columbia, the 61-year-old resident of Atlanta began feeling short of breath. But since he was "running around quite a bit," Giddes chalked up his problem to being an overachieving tourist. When he returned home, though, his shortness of breath persisted. The cause--uncovered by an x-ray--was a collapsed lung.But it wasn't until he underwent surgery to repair his lung, that the cause of the collapse was clear: lung cancer had eaten a hole in the air sack of his lung. After surgeons removed his lung in an effort to contain the cancer, they checked Giddes for any traces of cancer every three months. Within a year there was more bad news: a CT scan revealed 13 spots on his remaining lung.Surgery revealed the cancer had spread throughout his remaining lung. Giddes recalled that he was given less than a 30 percent chance of living another two years. But he decided to battle the cancer "with all the energy, hope and positive attitude I could muster." After 30 weeks of chemotherapy, he was told his cancer was in remission.Today, he's glad he didn't give up because he's beaten the odds, surviving five years since his cancer was diagnosed. And as the head of the Caring Ambassador Program, sponsored by Republic Financial Corporation, he's helping other cancer survivors wage war on lung cancer, too.Survival and DetectionLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths among both men and women, according to the American Cancer Society. Since 1987, more women have died each year of lung cancer than of breast cancer.Detecting lung cancer in its early stages is difficult in some cases because the disease spreads very quickly and symptoms often don't appear until the disease is advanced. Only about 15 percent of lung cancers are found before the cells have spread to lymph nodes or distant organs.Still, the survival rate for the disease has improved over the years. The one-year survival rate for patients is about 40 percent today compared with 32 percent in 1973. And five-year survival is up from 8 percent in the 1960s to 14 percent today. Improvement in survival rates can be attributed, at least partially, to diagnostics and new drugs that the Food and Drug Administration has approved.Lung cancer can be diagnosed by:a chest x-ray or CT scan to check for spots on the lungsa microscopic analysis of phlegm cellsa bronchoscopy, which involves passing a lighted tube through the tubes that carry air to the lungs to see if tumors or blockages exist.If suspicious tissue or spots are detected, a needle biopsy is typically performed, so that a sample of the tumor can be obtained to confirm the diagnosis of lung cancer.There also are two other diagnostic tools that may be used in place of a biopsy.The Xillix LIFE-Lung Fluorescence Endoscopy System is a medical device FDA approved in 1996 for detecting bronchial tissue abnormalities in patients with previous, current or suspected lung cancer. A tube inserted through a patient's mouth into the bronchi (tubes leading from the trachea to the lungs) delivers a blue laser light to the bronchial tissue. The image the laser reveals is projected onto a video monitor. While normal tissue appears green, abnormal tissue will appear reddish brown. Suspicious areas can then be biopsied. The system was approved for use in conjunction with conventional white light bronchoscopy. While the illumination provided by the white light helps doctors identify tissue that looks abnormal, the new blue laser system detects more tissue changes than can be seen with the white light alone.The approval of this device is significant, says Harry Sauberman, chief of the ear, nose and throat devices branch in FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health. It can spot moderate to severe dysplasia (irregular tissue), "some of which may turn out to be malignant and you'll have a case of lung cancer," he explains. Patients with dysplasia can then be closely monitored, and if cancer appears, it can be treated in its earliest stages.The second diagnostic tool is an imaging agent called Nofetumomab (verluma). Approved by FDA in 1996, it can determine the extent of disease in patients already diagnosed with small cell lung cancer through a biopsy but who have not yet been treated. Nofetumomab is a fragment of a monoclonal (synthetic) antibody that, when tagged with a radioisotope, can detect a protein found on the surface of most small cell lung cancers. The antibody collects in tumor sites and other areas of the body where protein is detected and, using special cameras, doctors can see the areas as "hotspots." This information helps physicians see how far the cancer has spread without exploratory surgery or other diagnostic tests and allows them to develop a more effective treatment plan.According to Patricia Keegan, M.D., deputy director for the division of clinical trials design and analysis in FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the major advantage of using the imaging agent is that it allows doctors to do a full body scan of a patient. "The disadvantage is that it isn't as sensitive in any one area as other scans," she says. "It's not as good as a CT scan for picking up every liver metastasis. And it isn't as good as an MRI or CT scan of the head to pick up brain metastasis. But if all you want is a quick and dirty answer about whether the cancer is widely disseminated or not, it's a relatively simple test to do."TreatmentAbout 75 percent of lung cancer cases are categorized as non-small cell lung cancer, and the other 25 percent are small cell lung cancer. Lung cancer can multiply quickly and form large tumors, which sometimes spread to lymph nodes and other organs.Once lung cancer is detected, a treatment plan is developed based on the patient's physical health, whether the lung cancer is small cell or non-small cell and how extensively the cancer has spread. (See "Stages of Lung Cancer.") Treatment may include surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, or a combination of two or more of these therapies.FDA recently approved three therapies to treat non-small cell lung cancer: Photofrin (porfimer sodium), Taxol (paclitaxel) in combination with the commonly used cancer drug cisplatin, and Gemzar (gemcitabine hydrochloride) in combination with cisplatin.Photofrin, a light-activated drug, was approved in January 1998 for patients with early stage, non-small cell lung cancer who cannot undergo surgery or radiotherapy due to other medical conditions. Administered intravenously, Photofrin accumulates in the tumor cells. A laser, directed toward the cancerous tissue, then activates the drug. A significant side effect is extreme photosensitivity, making it necessary for patients to stay out of the sun "almost completely for about a month," says Grant Williams, M.D., a medical team leader in the division of oncology drug products in FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.Williams admits that the number of patients with early stage lung cancer who will be helped by Photofrin will be quite limited. "We're talking about a very small number of patients compared to the number of lung cancer patients who have extensive cancers that can't be operated on," he says.Williams notes, however, that Photofrin may also be able to relieve symptoms in some patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. He explains that Photofrin has been demonstrated to be helpful in relieving breathing difficulties caused by tumors that are obstructing the flow of air through patients' bronchial tubes. Approval for this use was recommended by an FDA advisory committee in September 1998. Final FDA action is pending.Taxol (paclitaxel), already approved to treat other cancers, was approved last year for use in combination with cisplatin for the first-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in patients who are not candidates for surgery or radiation therapy.Gemzar (gemcitabine hydrochloride), another already approved cancer drug, received an additional approval in August for use in combination with cisplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Although results of some studies have shown that new treatments may only give patients an additional month or two to live, "there are not a lot of effective treatments for advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer," says Isagani Chico, M.D., a medical officer in FDA's division of oncology drug products.Because small cell lung cancer has typically spread by the time it's detected, it generally cannot be cured by surgery. Treatment usually begins with a combination of two or more drugs to kill cancer cells throughout the body. Later, treatment with more drugs combined with radiation therapy or radiation alone, is often prescribed. Chemotherapy (drugs) and radiation therapy shrink tumors in most patients, and sometimes the disease goes into remission. But in many cases the cancer begins to grow again when it becomes resistant to treatment.The Road AheadThe future and course of lung cancer research seems to vary tremendously depending on who you talk to. Some experts believe prevention and early detection are the best bet. Others insist that improved treatments and gene therapy will be the answer. Paul Bunn Jr., M.D., believes that more research needs to be conducted to see if it's feasible to use x-rays to screen cigarette smokers and people exposed to asbestos, who are at highest risk of developing the disease. Bunn, the director of the University of Colorado Cancer Center and past chairman of FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, believes that the increased use of tobacco among teenagers and adults must be curtailed and that one of the best weapons against lung cancer is prevention.As for lung cancer patient Ron Norgord, he's banking on a drug that's intended to cut off the blood supply to tumors using molecular technology. The 63-year-old resident of Pasadena, Calif., who has been on a variety of chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments since he was diagnosed about a year and a half ago, was accepted in September into a clinical trial of a drug that inhibits the growth of tumor blood vessels at UCLA's Cancer Center. "I'm quite encouraged by the results so far," Norgord says. "It's too early to see yet, but I see some positive things coming out of the treatment." One positive sign came after his first treatment, when his chances for fighting infections improved because his white blood cell count finally came up into the normal range.Researchers are currently studying a variety of drugs and drug combinations designed to extend patients' lives and improve their quality of life. They are also studying various aspects of the disease in the hope of someday developing more effective treatments. Here are just a few of the recent findings, studies and developments related to lung cancer:Researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston have identified six factors that place patients with early-stage lung cancer at risk for recurrence. These factors include: large tumor size, a specific tumor subtype of adenocarcinoma (a type of lung cancer), evidence that the cancer has entered the channels of the lymph system, and the presence of certain proteins commonly associated with cancers. Patients with two or more of these risk factors have an increased chance of their cancers recurring. This knowledge may help doctors decide which patients would benefit most from chemotherapy after surgery.The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, a federally funded cancer clinical trials cooperative group, which carries out multi-disciplinary research nationwide, recently began a randomized clinical trial that will evaluate whether amifostine, a radio-protective agent, can effectively reduce some side effects in certain lung cancer patients treated with combined radiation therapy and chemotherapy. The trial, which will study patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer, is important because lung cancer patients who are treated with radiation and chemotherapy sometimes develop inflammation of the esophagus, making it difficult for them to swallow.At an American Association for Cancer research meeting in March, E. Premkumar Reddy, Ph.D., director of the Fels Institute for Cancer Research at Temple University School of Medicine in Philadelphia, reported that discovery of a new pathway for tumor growth may help researchers develop new types of diagnostic tests and anti-cancer agents. The new pathway, Src-Stat-3, is believed to play a critical role in the proliferation of cancer cells in the lung, breast, prostate, and ovary.Meanwhile, lung cancer survivor Ken Giddes, who is also a voting patient representative on FDA's Oncology Drug Advisory Committee, continues to spread a message of hope to people throughout the country. "I want people to know that the diagnosis of cancer is not an automatic death sentence and to inform people of the many options available to them," he says. "I also want people to know that just because they have lung cancer they shouldn't be written off or forgotten. People try to make you feel bad, especially if you smoked, like it's your own fault. But I see plenty of people who have lung cancer and haven't smoked. And even if they did smoke, they didn't plan to get lung cancer."Ellen Brown is a writer in Lakewood, Ohio.

asbestos attorney cancer mesothelioma settlement

Asbestos Settlement - A Pertinent Issue By Kirsten Hawkins, Fri Dec 9thAsbestos settlement facilitates the victim of an asbestosrelated disease to recover compensation for his lost income,lost earning capacity, medical expenses and other psychologicalsufferings. Asbestos is a group of naturally occurring minerals.Its use was at peak in the year 1890 to 1970 in building andinsulation materials fireproofing, cement, pipe covering,refractory materials, gaskets and floor tiles.Inhalation or ingestion of suspended particles of asbestos inthe air can cause many asbestos related diseases includingmesothelioma cancer. Asbestos settlement allows the victims ofasbestos diseases to recover compensation from the owners of thecompanies that are responsible for the exposure to asbestosparticles.Legal Limits of Asbestos Exposure in a Work Place The governmentregulations place a limit on the amount of asbestos exposure. Itsays that permissible limit for the exposure of asbestos that aworker can be exposed to in a work place is 0.1 fibers per cubiccentimeter during an eight-hour workday. In any thirty minutestime- period, it should be less then 1.0 fiber per cubiccentimeter. Many other health protection measures are alsomandatory.Asbestos settlement process puts the onus of compensating thevictim of asbestos related diseases on the employer. Iftheorganization fails to meet the statutory regulations andconsequently if any of its workmen develop asbestos relateddiseases they are bound to pay asbestos settlement money ascompensation to the victim.Hire a Qualified Asbestos AttorneyIf you are a victim of asbestos related disease and seeking anasbestos settlement, you should consult a qualified asbestosattorney. File the asbestos lawsuit within the stipulated timelimit as per statutes of limitations. Victim has to prove mainlyfollowing points during an asbestos settlement case:1. Asbestos exposure is the cause of the developed asbestosrelated disease.2. Negligence of defendant was responsible for the exposure toasbestos that in turn was responsible for the asbestos relateddisease.3. Damages caused by the asbestos related disease such as lostincome, lost earning capacity, medical expenses and otherpsychological and physical sufferings.Here a qualified asbestos attorney can prove to be of greathelp. How skillfully the attorney proves the aforementionedpoints, determines the amount of compensation in an asbestossettlement case. Sometimes the defendant's insurance agency mayalso negotiate the asbestos settlement.About the author:Kirsten Hawkins is a asbestos anddocument.write(" mesothelioma");specialist fromNashville, TN. Visit http://www.asbestosblog.org/ forinformation on asbestos reform,document.write(" mesothelioma");lawsuit news, andmore.We strive to provide only quality articles, so if there is a specific topic related to mesothelioma that you would like us to cover, please contact us at any time.

information mesothelioma

All You Wanted To Know About Asbestos Legislation By Kirsten Hawkins, Fri Dec 9thIt is necessary for all the Americans to have an understandingof Asbestos legislation. Asbestos legislation refers to the USgovernment's attitude towards the asbestos Victims. Asbestos waswidely used in the industry for a considerable amount of time.However, asbestos is harmful contaminant and causes harmfuldiseases such as asbestosis and a fatal cancer known asmesothelioma. It is important for our government to understandthe plight of Asbestos victims, and streamline asbestoslegislation for providing due compensation to asbestos victims.Bail out bill:In spite of the serious nature of Asbestos health hazards,government is taking it very lightly. The last version of thebail out bill of the Asbestos Legislation has provisions thatinadequately compensate asbestos victims. The amount proposed inthe proposed legislation is not sufficient to take into accountthe plight of millions of workers, their dependents, reducedlife expectancy, and massive medical bills. The companies thathave been using Asbestos, in spite of being aware of its illeffects, should be asked to compensate for the lives and healthof hapless asbestos workers.Over the next20 years, chances are that every year more than10,000 Americans will die of Asbestos related disease. More than2,500 Americans are being diagnosed fordocument.write(" mesothelioma");each year.In spite of these alarming figures, the federal government hasnot invested in early detection and cure of these diseases. ThisAsbestos legislation ignores the vital need of funds requiredfor compensation to asbestos victims and research for asbestosrelated disease. To add to the woes of asbestos victims,mesothelioma patients as termed as 'beyond help'.This proposed Asbestos legislation puts the law obeyingcompanies at a disadvantage. According to the proposed bill, thecompanies responsible for causing asbestos exposure are goingScott free. A public opinion drive is going on wherein all thepersons are requested to write to the senators to put some moresense in the forthcoming asbestos bill. This is importantbecause the people who have been wronged should get their duecompensation. Moreover, asbestos legislation should containprovisions for stringent measures to curb the use of thisharmful contaminant.

New Treatments for Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer--cancer of the colon or rectum--is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths, behind lung cancer, in the United States.In February 2004, the Food and Drug Administration approved Avastin (bevacizumab) and Erbitux (cetuximab) to treat colorectal cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. Both drugs are genetically engineered versions of antibodies, which are proteins produced by the immune system to fight foreign substances. The antibodies can be produced in a laboratory to target a very specific portion of foreign substances. Because of its precision, treatment with the antibodies can be more effective with fewer side effects.AvastinAvastin is the first FDA-approved treatment for colorectal cancer that is thought to work by preventing the formation of new blood vessels needed by malignant tumors to grow. In a clinical trial of more than 800 people with colorectal cancer, roughly half of them received Avastin intravenously as a combination treatment with the "Salz regimen," also known as IFL, which is a standard chemotherapy for colon cancer. The other half received only IFL. IFL treatment includes irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and leucovorin.Overall, those given Avastin in combination with IFL survived about five months longer. Also, the average time before tumors started regrowing or new tumors appeared was four months longer than in those receiving IFL alone.Serious but uncommon side effects of Avastin include a condition marked by the formation of holes in the colon called gastrointestinal perforation. The condition generally requires surgery and sometimes leads to abdominal infections.Two distinct patterns of bleeding have been seen in people treated with Avastin. Minor hemorrhages, particularly nosebleeds, have been commonly seen. More serious bleeding from the lungs has also occurred in people with lung cancer who received the drug. Avastin is not approved as a treatment for lung cancer.Other severe and life-threatening side effects that occurred in more people receiving Avastin alone, compared with those receiving chemotherapy alone, include abdominal pain, high blood pressure, tiredness, blood clots, fainting, diarrhea, constipation, and a decreased number of white blood cells. Headache, appetite loss, mouth sores, hemorrhoidal bleeding, and shortness of breath also occurred more commonly in people receiving Avastin plus chemotherapy when compared to those receiving chemotherapy alone.Avastin is manufactured by Genentech Inc. of South San Francisco, Calif.ErbituxThe FDA approved Erbitux as a combination treatment to be given intravenously with irinotecan, another drug approved to treat colorectal cancer. Erbitux can also be used alone for people who cannot tolerate irinotecan.Erbitux was approved under the FDA's accelerated approval program, which allows the agency to approve products for cancer and other serious or life-threatening diseases based on early evidence of effectiveness. Though treatment with Erbitux has not been shown to extend people's lives, it was shown to shrink tumors in some people and delay tumor growth, especially when used as a combination treatment.Erbitux was studied in a controlled trial with 329 people and also in combination with irinotecan in 138 people. It was further evaluated as a single agent in a clinical trial with 57 people, and safety data from an additional 111 patients treated only with Erbitux were also evaluated.The manufacturer of Erbitux, ImClone Systems Inc. of Branchburg, N.J., submitted its original request for approval in several sections between June and October 2001. The FDA determined at that time that the application could not be reviewed because about half of the patients studied had not failed treatment with irinotecan--a condition of the study. Also, important information about the safety and effectiveness of Erbitux in a portion of the remaining patients was missing.In a new request for approval in August 2003, ImClone submitted results of a well-run trial that included 329 patients, as well as revisions to the original results from the earlier studies.Two studies involving about 2,000 people are currently underway to assess the ability of Erbitux to stop the progression of colorectal cancer and to extend the amount of time patients survive with the disease.Erbitux can cause serious side effects, usually during the administration of the first treatment. Side effects may include difficulty breathing and low blood pressure. Other more common side effects of Erbitux include acne-like rash, dry skin, tiredness or weakness, fever, constipation, and abdominal pain.Erbitux is distributed and marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. of Princeton, N.J.

The Risks of Smoking

You have undoubtedly heard the warnings: if you smoke cigarettes, stop now, and if you don't smoke, don't start. Why? Because cigarette smoke is made up of over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known to cause cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, tobacco use accounts for 30 percent of all cancer deaths in the United States, and smoking is responsible for 90 percent of lung cancers in men and more then 70 percent in women. The ACS estimates that 28 percent of men, 23 percent of women, and about 30 percent of adolescents smoke.According to the American Lung Association, the more you smoke and the longer you smoke, the more likely you are to develop lung cancer. But the ACS contends that if you quit smoking when precancerous signs are found, the damaged lung tissue often may return to normal, oftentimes within five years.There has been some debate, however, on this subject. In 1997, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute concluded after a preliminary study, that just because people quit smoking doesn't mean they won't develop lung cancer at some point in their lives. The study, which was published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, determined that 77 percent of the people who smoked at least a pack of cigarettes a day for 25 years had irregularities in their lung cells even if they weren't smoking at the time the lung tissue was examined. While those who smoked fewer cigarettes weren't home free, they were less likely to develop abnormal lung cells. Only about 15 percent of the people who smoked for less than 25 years showed similar cellular changes.More research still needs to be conducted on this topic, and most doctors still recommend that people stop smoking, no matter how long they've been keeping up the habit. This is especially true for people who have been diagnosed with lung cancer. "People with lung cancer who stop smoking live longer and have higher cure rates and lower rates of second cancers, which is a major problem for these patients," says Paul Bunn Jr., M.D., director of the University of Colorado Cancer Center and past president of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. "They also have lowered risk of death from other problems such as heart disease." Bunn says it's a myth that most lung cancer patients don't quit smoking; in fact, they have a much higher quit rate, he says.For more information on how to quit smoking, see "It's Quittin' Time" in the November-December 1997 FDA Consumer.

Choline in meat, dairy products linked to colon cancer risk in women

Researchers may have discovered a relationship between the risk of colorectal cancer in women and their consumption of choline, which has until now been thought to be an essential nutrient. The link was reported in a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.Choline is a nutrient found in eggs, meat (especially liver) and dairy products. It plays an important role in the functioning of cells and the distribution of nutrients through the body, including a process called one-carbon metabolism. Prior studies have shown that people with a high dietary intake of other nutrients involved in one-carbon metabolism, such as folate, have a decreased risk for colorectal polyps.Colorectal polyps are often-benign tumors that develop in the colon and can eventually lead to cancer. In the first study to examine the issue, researchers expected to find that consumption of choline, like folate, decreased a person's risk of developing colorectal polyps.To their surprise, researchers found the opposite. In a survey of 39,246 women, researchers used food-frequency questionnaires to estimate the choline contents of participants' diets. All the women had no cancer or polyps when the study began, and had at least one endoscopy between 1984 and 2002. Increased consumption of choline was found to be correlated with a higher risk of colorectal polyps."Clearly, one-carbon metabolism and its role in [cancer development] is more complicated than originally anticipated, and our understanding of the underlying mechanisms is probably incomplete," wrote Regina Ziegler and Unhee Lim, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, in an accompanying editorial.While a correlation does not necessarily mean that choline is to blame for the increased colon cancer risk, the authors speculated that it may indeed play a role."Once a tumor is initiated, growth into a detectable [polyp] depends in part on choline availability, because choline is needed to make membranes in all rapidly growing cells," they wrote.Prior studies have linked choline deficiency to fatty liver and muscle damage.

Canadian Cancer Society announces national program to prevent cancer using vitamin D

Canada has done what the U.S. refuses to do: Protect the health of its people through a national program of encouraging vitamin D supplementation. While U.S. cancer groups like the American Cancer Society stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the benefits of vitamin D supplements in cancer prevention, the Canadian Cancer Society is launching a program to make sure every Canadian citizen receives a level of vitamin D sufficient to prevent most cancers, including breast cancer.The U.S., in contrast, has no interest in preventing cancer... even when a simple, virtually free substance like vitamin D could drop national cancer rates by more than 75 percent.New research published this month shows that vitamin D supplementation produces an astonishing 77 percent reduction in all cancers in women, making it the single most effective medicine for preventing cancer that has ever been discovered by modern medical science. The American Cancer Society, however, seems stuck in the nutritional dogma of the 1950's and continues to claim that only drugs, radiation and surgery can treat cancer, and that nutritional supplements have no role to play whatsoever in cancer prevention. This view is so out of date that it belongs in a museum of medicine, not on the agenda of an advanced nation. (Stating that vitamin D has no useful role in preventing cancer is as hopelessly outdated as claiming the Earth is flat.)The politics of cancer: Keep 'em sick!As usual, America's abandonment of the world's best natural anti-cancer medicine has nothing at all to do with science, but everything to do with politics and profits. If vitamin D were a cancer drug made by Pfizer, the American Cancer Society would likely be pushing it as the next "miracle" drug and calling for everyone to be put on the drug. But since it's a nutrient that cannot be patented, and can actually be manufactured for free by exposing your skin to natural sunlight, the entire U.S. cancer industry now laughingly pretends that vitamin D supplementation offers no benefits.Each day that the American Cancer Society, the AMA, the FDA and others in conventional medicine refuse to acknowledge the benefits of vitamin D supplements for preventing cancer, they lose yet more credibility and slip one step closer towards global humiliation and irrelevance. It is difficult to imagine how anyone from conventional medicine can show up at a health event and say, with a straight face, that they're doing everything they can to fight cancer when in reality they are willfully ignoring a prevention medicine that really works: Vitamin D. It's simple, safe and virtually free, and it has no negative side effects, requires no patent royalties, and is available right now to everyone.If there were ever a cancer prevention strategy to get behind, this is it! The people in the cancer industry, if they had any sense, should be leaping out of their chairs, fumbling over each other in a mad rush to the press conference podium to announce their support for vitamin D. And yet what do we hear in the United States? Complete apathy. It's as if these people somehow believe that a vitamin manufactured by the human body itself has no role in human nutrition. The depth of blind ignorance at work here is mind boggling. Someone should actually start a psychological study of the people in the cancer industry to figure out how their minds can work that way. It should be called, "The Madness of Crowds and the Illusion of Cancer Treatments in Western Medicine."To not get behind vitamin D is to miss the cancer prevention opportunity of a lifetime. Imagine: For every 100 women that will someday get breast cancer, more than 75 of them could entirely avoid breast cancer through the use of vitamin D. That's 75 women out of 100 who could have their health (and their lives) given back to them through a nutrient that is essentially free. (Add in green tea and some rainforest herbs, and this number leaps to around 90 percent, by the way.) Why wouldn't everyone in the cancer industry want to save 75% of these women from breast cancer?I'll tell you why, and you won't like the answer. It's because the cancer industry depends on all 100 of those women being diagnosed with cancer and treated with profitable cancer "management" protocols like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Preventing cancer in 75 percent of women (or more) would deny the cancer industry three-fourths of its revenue. It would shrink the industry, reduce funding, and result in a mass exodus of cancer jobs. Donations would dry up and cancer non-profits (which thrive on the continuation of cancer) would lose big. This is why they won't support cancer prevention that really works. Preventing cancer is simply not in the self interest of the cancer industry. Prevention is bad for business.When will America show interest in cancer prevention?Canada, not surprisingly, is a little quicker to catch on to the enormous benefits of vitamin D in preventing cancer. "We are monitoring the evidence and believe there is a real role for vitamin D to reduce our risk for cancer and so far there are very few side effects," the Cancer Society's Heather Logan said in a CTV News report. Actually, there are side effects: Reduced risk of diabetes, obesity, depression, mental disorders and all sorts of cancers. Vitamin D is the miracle medicine the cancer industry claims it's searching for when it asks you to donate for those "run for the cure" events. But the cure already exists, and it's available for free.When it comes to the cancer industry, Canada is the first western nation to stand up and say, "The Emperor has no clothes!" It makes you wonder how long it's going to take before America will finally stop supporting the cancer industry at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives each year and, instead, start getting serious about cancer prevention. How many Americans have to die before the criminally-operated U.S. cancer industry will be forced to let go of its stranglehold over the American public and finally acknowledge that we can slash national cancer rates by nearly 80% right now by urging people to get more sunlight and vitamin D?Corporations and governments, of course, view lives as expendable. Encouraging sickness, disease and cancer is a high priority to those who profit from such sickness. And if a few hundred thousand Americans have to die in order to meet next quarter's corporate profits, then so be it. Americans are expendable. Lives are cheap. They're so cheap, in fact, that most of the people living in America today take no steps to protect themselves against cancer. I guess some corporations figure, hey, if the people are willingly giving themselves cancer through their foods, cigarettes, toxic cosmetics and chemical exposures, then why should we stop them?Screening and treatment = Recruiting and profit-takingThe more cancer there is, the richer the drug companies and radiological equipment manufacturers become. More cancer means more profit, and more profit means more influence in Washington. And that explains why nobody in Washington seems to express any interest whatsoever in actually preventing cancer in this country. (Trying to get lawmakers to pass a cancer prevention bill is about as useless as trying to get them to pay off the national debt and balance the federal budget.)With the cancer industry, the entire focus is on "screening" and "treatment." Those terms can be more accurately translated into "recruiting" and "profit-taking." Screening is simply a way to recruit patients into a highly profitable assembly line of cancer treatments which offer no cures and no prevention, only the "management" of the disease so that the maximum profits can be extracted from the patient without actually eliminating their disease. It's quite a clever scam, and it explains why screening is so often offered for free: It's just like a crack dealer offering a free hit, but only once. After you're hooked, you gotta pay.The cancer industry tries to promote this "recruiting & profit-taking" propaganda through lies like, "Early detection saves lives." Oh really? Actually, early detection generates more profits, since 9 out of 10 "early detection" positives are, in fact, completely bogus. The cancer detection technology today is so incredibly advanced that it can even detect cancers that aren't there! (And then the patient is urged to undergo chemotherapy "just in case.")Prevention is the only real solutionThe only way out of this cancer madness is through prevention. As Dr. Cedric Garland, professor at University of California, San Diego, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine and Moores Cancer Center said about Canada's decision, "I think this is an important and historic step in the right direction. I think it will offer leadership in the world... as Canada will be the first country in the world to adopt this public health recommendation... Over time, this finding has the potential of eliminating a quarter of a million cases of cancer in North America annually and about 100,000 deaths from cancer annually."The U.S., of course, will likely be the last modern nation to reluctantly admit that cancer can be prevented with vitamin D. That's because the U.S. is "profit central" for the disease industry that preys upon cancer victims and, in fact, encourages cancer by actively preventing cancer prevention. To learn more, click here to see my previous article on the cancer industry and vitamin D.The U.S. government has no interested in protecting its citizens from disease. Rather, the government actually conspires with pharmaceutical companies and non-profit disease groups to keep the American public in a state of chronic disease through nutritional deficiencies, exposure to toxic chemicals and side effects of pharmaceuticals. And it's working! The U.S. is the most diseased nation in the world, sporting higher rates of degenerative disease (cancer, diabetes, heart disease, depression and obesity, combined) than any other nation. On top of that -- get this -- we pay the highest health care costs in the world!All that money apparently isn't doing any good. Meanwhile, free cures for cancer are available right now in the form of natural sunlight. Nearly-free prevention methods are well documented and include nutritional supplementation with vitamin D. We know how to prevent cancer, it's just that the corrupt politicians and dirty non-profits in charge of this country won't allow the disease to be prevented at all. There's too much money to be made in treating cancer, and there's no incentive whatsoever to teach the public how to prevent cancer and avoid becoming cancer patients.The curtain is closing on America's futureAmerica is a public health disaster. And it's going to pay the ultimate price: As I've stated before, I believe that health care costs and the mass poisoning of the American people will ultimately cause this nation to self destruct. The "America experiment" is nearly over, and when the whole giant mass of disease and debt collapses, we're going to be left with a nation of mutant humans hopped up on pharmaceuticals... infertile, mentally impaired, emotionally imbalanced and nutritionally devastated.We have very nearly lost the battle for the future of this country. The next generation of Americans is already being raised on junk foods, dosed on Ritalin, injected with mercury vaccines, coated in toxic sunscreen chemicals and taught a lifestyle of debt, over-consumption and use of natural resources that simply cannot be sustained for even one more generation. When reality hits the fan, these kids are going to be shocked beyond belief. They have no clue of the tidal wave of poverty, misery and destruction headed their way, courtesy of the extremely corrupt political leaders who have sold out the future of this country in order to win their next election.Cancer is one area where the science clearly and inarguably shows how we could save trillions of dollars and millions of lives over the next century. Here's a segment repeated from my previous story on vitamin D. It's important. Soak this in:Did you know that reducing the cancer death rate by just 1% would be worth almost $500 billion to the U.S. economy over the next hundred years or so? (Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) Drop the cancer rate by 10% and it's worth $5 trillion dollars to the economy. These gains are due to increased productivity and life spans of working, contributing people.We know right now that vitamin D and calcium can slash cancer rates by 77 percent. Do the math on that, and you realize that sunlight and calcium could result in a $38.5 trillion boost to the U.S. economy over the next century.That's enough economic productivity to pay off our entire national debt, build new schools in every town and city in the country, provide free college educations to all young people who wish to go to college, invest billions in new energy technologies and even fund massive health education campaigns to keep our population healthy. With that kind of increased abundance, we could build a whole new society of health, wealth and education.That's the future being denied by the cancer industry today. They have sold out our future in a desperate grab for next quarter's profits. They're not interested in the future of America, or the health of future generations or even the pain and suffering of people battling cancer right now. They're only interested in one thing: Power. Power over people and money. And the more cancer that exists in the world, the more power they have. Cancer prevention is a threat to the cancer industry, pure and simple. And yet, at the same time, the cancer industry is a threat to America's future. We cannot save this nation from self destruction if half our population is dying from cancer. (That statement should seem obvious, but it's way over the head of just about every politician in Washington these days.)Action itemsHere's what you do:1) Get natural sunlight on your skin as often as you can. The darker your skin, the more sunlight you need. Read our free report on sunlight and vitamin D for more detailed tips.2) Never, ever submit to chemotherapy or radiation. These procedures cause severe harm and can ultimately kill you. Seek naturopathic cancer therapies only. Don't submit to mammograms, either, since they actually cause cancer!3) Don't ever give financial support to prominent cancer non-profits, which are almost universally allied with drug companies and radiology equipment manufacturers.4) Don't get suckered into visiting an oncologist. Using fear, intimidation and authority, they will lure you into an extremely harmful system of treatments that are dangerous to human health. Instead, visit naturopathic physicians only (N.D.).5) Prevent cancer in your own life by getting sunlight, eating lots of raw, fresh produce, taking superfood supplements (like spirulina, green tea and rainforest herbs) and engaging in regular exercise. Two of the best anti-cancer supplements I know of are Blood Support from www.BaselineNutritionals.com and Arcozon from the Amazon Herb Company: www.amazondreams.amazonherb.net (Note: I have absolutely no financial interest in any products mentioned in this article)6) Avoid all cancer-causing food ingredients (like sodium nitrite), cosmetics (all popular brands), personal care products, home cleaning products, cigarettes, etc. Nearly everyone who has cancer gave it to themselves! You can avoid that by avoiding the things that promote cancer (like hair coloring chemicals, nail polish, chlorine pools, etc.)7) Educate yourself. The more ignorant you remain of cancer, the more easily the cancer industry can manipulate you and seduce you into their system of harmful treatments. By teaching yourself the truth about cancer prevention, you'll avoid being exploited by an oncologist.Finally, I'd like you to know that among the well informed natural health practitioners, cancer is considered as easily curable disease in stages 1 - 3. (Only late-stage cancer is challenging.) One alternative cancer doc I know of describes cancer as, "More easily curable than the common cold." He has helped thousands cure cancer. Curing cancer is incredibly easy when you use natural medicine and make radical changes to your diet and lifestyle. Conventional medicine, however, is clueless, and conventional therapies like chemotherapy actually make the patient weaker and more susceptible to cancer. Once you undergo chemotherapy, all bets are off. Your immune system is severely compromised. So in my opinion, avoiding chemotherapy is essential to curing cancer.And don't think you can "play it safe" and do both chemotherapy and natural medicine. You have to make a choice: Death or life. If you want death, go with chemotherapy. It's known as "legalized euthanasia" in medical circles. But if you want to live, go with natural medicine.There's really no such thing as "cancer"Remember this: I've had cancer a thousand times in my life already. So have you. We beat it automatically, unknowingly, routinely... with a functioning immune system and a little help from nature's medicines (found in foods and botanicals). Every person gets cancerous cells in their body, no exceptions. So don't be scared by talk that you've "GOT cancer." There is actually no such thing as a "cancer" disease. It's simply a name that doctors have given to observable symptoms that they can make money treating. A cancer tumor is not a disease, it is a symptom of a severe metabolic or immunological imbalance. You can't cure cancer by removing the symptom, you can only cure it by rebalancing the body and activating the body's own natural anti-cancer defenses.Preventing cancer is child's play. It's so simple that it should be taught in the first grade. And yet the whole subject mystifies all the cancer doctors and researchers who remain stuck in the upside-down universe of chemical treatments and medical reductionism. It's amazing how people who are so smart can ultimately act so stupid. But it just goes to show you: Being book smart doesn't necessarily help you in the real world. I'd rather be "sun smart" and soak up some healthy rays while the pale-skinned genius cancer docs are choking down chemo drugs and trying to figure out why they're all so diseased.Some folks just don't get it. You won't find answers in that microscope, my friends. Back away from the technical gear and start to look at the big picture: The human experience, the planet, the universe... nature! This is where the answers are found, on the macroscopic scale, not the microscopic. Mark my words: Cancer will never be cured chemically. It can only be prevented and overcome holistically. The massive "search for a cure" was doomed to fail from the very start, because it could not (and still cannot) view a patient from a holistic perspective.