May 31, 2011
With today's press release from the International Agency for Research on Cancer-commonly known as IARC-the cell phone controversy is certain to heat up once again.
Unfortunately, drawing broad and sweeping conclusions based on a press release and a news conference leaves many of us wondering just what the evidence shows that led to the conclusion announced today that "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields" may be possibly cause cancer in people.
The quick translation of "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields"-or RMF-is huge, since this announcement is focused on the use of cell phones, which have been in widespread use by millions around the world for years.
So it is important to dissect the IARC statement for what it says-and what it doesn't say-and then try to interpret that information as it applies to our everyday lives. More...
May 26, 2011
Here comes the sun...
Summertime means--for many of us--more time outdoors in the sun, whether it be a vacation at the beach, walking along a country road, or working on our lawns and gardens. It also means thinking about skin cancer prevention-which is much more than using gobs of sunscreen to protect yourself from getting burned in the sun.
This Friday is "Don't Fry Day", sponsored by the National Council on Skin Cancer Prevention along with a number of collaborating organizations (including the American Cancer Society). "Don't Fry Day" is designed to remind people that it's ok to have fun in the sun, so long as you pay attention to your skin while enjoying the great outdoors.
Being sun-safe isn't all that difficult. It's really a matter of remembering a few simple rules, including the real role that sunscreen plays in sun-safe behavior: More...
May 24, 2011
An article in the current edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine highlights one of the fundamental shifts currently underway in medical care, namely the rapidly burgeoning use of patient navigators to improve health outcomes, particularly for people in need.
As I reflect on this topic, I am amazed how quickly this concept has taken root-especially in cancer treatment-only to realize that this is an overnight success story that took over 20 years to develop. More...
May 23, 2011
Sometimes you just have to connect the dots to understand the world around us. And sometimes the picture those dots paint isn't one that is particularly nice.
I am beyond amazed that otherwise normal, clear thinking people can turn a blind eye to the harms of tobacco when it is their turn to make some extra money.
The case in point is the attitude that Wall Street has about investing in tobacco companies as a good way to make a buck. In fact, tobacco stocks are right up there on the investment list when it comes to "widows and orphans" stocks. Those are the stocks you want to be invested in because they are safe, generally do well in recessionary times, and actually pay a dividend that is real money.
What has set me off this time is a brief commentary in a business journal called Barron's, where a columnist I read regularly (and respect) made some comments this week about the outstanding profitability of a tobacco company that is known for their commitment to menthol cigarettes. More...
May 12, 2011
I used that word once before back in January 2008 when I wrote a blog about the (then) new CEO of Philip Morris International (PMI). His name is Louis Camilleri, and he was the subject of an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal talking about the spin-off of PMI from Philip Morris US so they could more easily sell their toxic products worldwide.
I called him the next generation of a merchant of death, seeming to relish the opportunity to make big money marketing deadly cigarettes to then fertile markets around the globe.
Well, Mr. Camilleri has surfaced again-this time making the outrageous comment that "tobacco is not that hard to quit."
You have to be kidding. Cigarettes are incredibly addictive, and heavy smokers have a very difficult time quitting. Our statistics in this country show that for the most part our ability nationwide to reduce the number of chronic smokers has hit a roadblock. More...
May 03, 2011
I am sitting here wringing my hands that so much has been made of some studies reported yesterday at a major radiology conference which suggest that the impact of the breast cancer screening guidelines released by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in November 2009 has either been good or bad on doctor and patient behavior.
The reason I am doing the handwringing thing is because I don't think either study is particularly good at answering the question for which it was intended: have health professionals changed their screening recommendations to their patients as a result of those guidelines, or does it make a true difference in outcome for women between the ages of 40-49 who forgo screening mammograms?
Yet much is being made of these studies, as though they have some definitive answer to the questions they raised. In my opinion, they don't.
Now, be certain to note that I was very much in the midst of the discussion back then when these guidelines were released, which suggested that women between 40-49 should not have routine screening mammograms (yes, that was the wording they used) and should consult with their health professional to determine whether they wanted to be screened or not. For me, the operative language was "recommends against", and I made that point very clear. Many equally expert folks thought then and think today that the available data does support a recommendation for routine screening mammography in women between the ages of 40 and 49. So, we have a legitimate scientific disagreement and the discussions about that disagreement continue vigorously to this day.
But the key point to me is not who is right and who is wrong. It is whether new data gives us better insights into the issue, and helps resolve some of the questions. When studies that are not particularly informative take on a life of their own for the sole purpose of making a headline or allowing one side or the other to hammer home their point, then I believe someone should stand up and take those using such limited science to task. More...
May 02, 2011
I have always been amazed by the resilience of people with cancer, especially those receiving active treatment with chemotherapy. There is no getting around the fact that in many circumstances, chemotherapy is fraught with havoc and turmoil that can cause the best of us to test our faith in life itself.
But sometimes, as many of us know from our family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances, there are moments of insight that can be precious to experience, that teach all of us that even in our darkest and most difficult moments we can be incredibly positive, always knowing and hoping that tomorrow will be a better day.
A friend of mine reminded me of that just this past week when she sent out an email update to her many friends, letting them know about her cancer experience. And after reading her email ("3 down, 1 to go! What they don't tell you in Cancer School") I didn't know whether to cry or feel just a bit guilty because it made me laugh out loud.
With her permission, I want to share these words with you as an example of what we have always known: people with cancer can be very, very special. More...