Washington Post writer explains why our general fear of cancer is outdated — and is harmful

Has cancer-phobia become an outdated — and harmful — concept?

In an opinion piece by David Ropeik in editions of The Washington Post earlier this week, the writer maintains that "our cancer phobia [is] a fear that in some ways no longer matches the facts."

David Ropeik

His column explains that we now know "that tens of thousands of common breast, prostate, and thyroid cancers that are detected early never go on to do any harm." 

Still, he writes, people "'over-diagnosed' with these types of cancer are understandably frightened and usually choose more aggressive treatment than their clinical conditions require. Some 'fear-ectomies' cause great harm, leading to side effects that range from moderate to severe and include death itself."

The columnist goes on to say that "we spend an estimate $5.2 billion a year on…clinically unnecessary treatment, 3 percent of the total spent on all cancer care annually."

Ropeik, author of Curing Cancer-phobia: How Risk, Fear, and Worry Mislead Us, maintains that "a diagnosis of cancer is still thought to be a death sentence [despite the fact that] mortality in the United States is down 33 percent in the past three decades [and as] many as two-thirds of all cancers can now be treated as chronic conditions or cured outright."

There apparently are more than 200 types of cancer, which all told kill roughly 600,000 people each year.

Ropeik, a former environmental journalist and retired instructor in the environmental management program at Harvard University's School of Continuing Education, writes that we collectively "have feared cancer more than any other disease since it became the No. 2 cause of death in the United States in the 1920s (after heart disease)."

The writer's opinion piece asserts that although "a majority of people believe that most cancer is caused by environmental carcinogens…we now know that cancer is principally a natural disease of aging, which allows DNA mutations that cause uncontrolled cell growth to accumulate." 

Despite that information, he says, "governments spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year to reduce the risk from environmental carcinogens [and] we spend billions on organic foods, vitamins, and supplements, as well as many other products that promise to reduce our risk of cancer but don't." 

Ropeik concludes that even though "we cannot absolutely cure cancer, nor will we ever entirely erase our cancer-phobia…we need to understand and battle both the disease and our fear, because both are doing terrible harm."

More information about fear of diseases can be found in Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer, a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Bans on abortion are complicating access to drugs for cancer, arthritis, ulcers, other diseases

Some chronically ill women, because of legal bans on abortion, are facing questions about critical medications that could be used to end a pregnancy.

That conclusion is drawn in a story by Katie Shepherd and Frances Stead Sellers in yesterday's editions of The Washington Post.

"The sudden imposition of anti-abortion laws [after the reversal of Roe v. Wade] has left patients, doctors and pharmacists wading through a minefield of treatments and legal and ethical dilemmas related to women's health care — even in situations…that have nothing to do with pregnancy," Shepherd and Sellers write.

Medicines that treat conditions from cancer to autoimmune disease to ulcers, the piece notes, "can also end a pregnancy or cause birth defects and, as a result, "doctors and pharmacists in more than a dozen states with strict abortion restrictions must suddenly navigate whether and when to order such drugs because they could be held criminally liable and lose their licenses for prescribing some of them to pregnant women."

Even if they could show their patients suffer from conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, the Post story goes on, "some doctors worry they could be prosecuted for prescribing such drugs to a patient with an unintended pregnancy."

Such patients, Shepherd and Sellers continue, "are also at greater risk because they can no longer seek abortions in their home states should they accidentally become pregnant while taking such drugs — no matter how grievous the injuries to the developing fetus."

Dr. Traci Poole

The article quotes Dr. Traci Poole, faculty member at Belmont University College of Pharmacy in Nashville and a practicing pharmacist, as asking, "If you are of childbearing age, are you going to be denied medications that could potentially interfere with a pregnancy?"

The story also says that physicians and pharmacists acknowledge "being blindsided by the speed of changes to state laws," and say they're making change to their practices to protect themselves against liability.

CVS and Walgreens and other major drugstore chains are instructing employees to delay filling prescriptions until they can validate their use to ensure they'll not be used to terminate pregnancies.

The Shepherd-Sellers article also quotes Jack Resneck Jr., president of the American Medical Association, who told federal lawmakers last month that doctors "have been placed in an impossible situation — trying to meet their ethical duties to place patient health and well-being first, while attempting to comply with vague, restrictive, complex, and conflicting state laws that interfere in the practice of medicine and jeopardize the health of patients."

More information about laws and their unintended consequences is available in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

U.S. government cracking down on false Medicare claims by major health-care outfits

The Justice Department is continuing to investigate false Medicare claims that have apparently padded the pockets of major health-care organizations.

According to a story by Christopher Rowland in yesterday's editions of The Washington Post, the U.S. government maintains those organizations have likely been mining "patient records for outdated, irrelevant conditions to increase profits."

A major culprit, Sutter Health systems, which runs 24 hospitals in Northern California, settled a civil whistleblower lawsuit last year for $90 million that alleged it had submitted false risk codes to get higher Medicare Advantage payment. It did not, however, admit any wrongdoing or liability.

Sutter's aim, the Post story contends, "translated into millions of dollars in inflated bills to the federal Medicare Advantage insurance program." 

Dr. David Terry

Rowland's article quotes Dr. David Terry, a recently retired psychiatrist who worked with in large health organizations in Kansas that aren't part of the lawsuits, as saying that what's been done is "not ethical coding, it's how to code for more money. That pressure is there." 

A whistleblower, Kathy Ormsby, had testified that her work auditing medical case files uncovered the alleged scheme to defraud the government. Sutter supposedly paid her to scour health histories of thousands of elderly Medicare patients and then pressured physicians "to add false diagnoses it found [including cancer and stroke] to their current medical records."

According to Rowland's article, the action, aimed at making patients appear sicker than they were, was often done "without the knowledge of the patients themselves."

Ormsby, the piece continued, "discovered 90 percent of diagnoses for cancer were invalid, as were 96 percent for stroke and 66 percent for fractures."

The government suit against Sutter was filed in U.S. District Court in California as part of a broader government crackdown on abusive billing practices. Sutter is the parent company of Ormsby's former employer, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, which has 1,600 doctors.

The government still has a similar case against Kaiser Permanente pending — and, the article says, "lawsuits also are playing out in federal arts against UnitedHealth Group, Cigna and Anthem. The government's Office of Inspector General has audited Human and found it overfilled the government."

Kaiser and United Healthcare have denied any improper conduct; the others haven't commented.

Rowland's story talks about byproducts of the abuse. "Patients' medical records, padded with false diagnoses, are inaccurate. That could unnecessarily stigmatize patients who were improperly deemed obese, or malnourished, or mentally ill. It introduces potential phantom influences on treatment decisions, critics say."

More information on abuses in the medical system can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers." 

Medical risks expanding along with waistlines

Cancer dangers from obesity are growing exponentially, article in The Washington Post indicates

Obesity may overtake smoking as the No. 1 preventable cause of cancer.

According to a story by Laurie McKinley in The Washington Post a while back, the change is due to waistlines continuing "to expand while tobacco use plummets."

McKinley notes that Dr. Otis Brawley, ex-American Cancer Society (ACS) chief medical officer who's now a Johns Hopkins oncologist, says the switch may take five to 10 years.

Dr. Jennifer Ligibel

What's happening, she quotes Dr. Jennifer Ligibel, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, as saying, is that "a complex interplay of metabolism, inflammation and immunity…creates an environment that is more permissive for cancer."

The Post also quotes Dr. Jonathan Wright, a urologist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research, to the effect that "it does appear that the risk is greater the more obese you are."

Only about half the American public purportedly is aware of the link between excess weight and cancer. 

The deadly combo has long been known to increase the risk of heart disease and diabetes — and now is being associated, according to the Post, "with an increased risk of getting at least 13 types of cancer, including stomach, pancreatic, colorectal and liver malignancies, as well as postmenopausal breast cancer."

ACS researchers contend that "excess body weight is linked to about 8 percent of all cancers in the United States and about 7 percent of cancer deaths," McKinley reports.

She also writes that "compared with people of normal weight, obese patients are more likely to see their cancer come back and have a lower likelihood of survival. Perhaps more alarming, young people, who as a group are heavier than their parents, are developing weight-related malignancies, including colorectal cancer, at earlier ages than previous generations, experts say."

An article in JAMA Internal Medicine (the journal of the American Medical Association) several years ago maintained that "seven in 10 Americans are overweight or obese." But the obesity rate has been rising exponentially since that piece was published.

The type of cancer most associated with obesity, McKinley writes, "is endometrial, which develops in the lining of the uterus. Obese and overweight women are two to four times as likely to develop the disease as women of normal weight, and the risk rises with increased weight gain, according to the National Institutes of Health."

Statistics from that source also indicate that "people who are overweight or obese are twice as likely to develop liver and kidney cancer, and about 1.5 times as likely to develop pancreatic cancer than normal-weight people, according to NIH."

Several researchers, McKinley says, "are running clinical trials to prove what many already believe — that losing weight reduces the odds of developing cancer or having a recurrence." 

If studies show that to be true, she adds, "doctors could prescribe a weight-loss program as standard therapy for breast cancer patients — much as cardiac rehabilitation is urged for heart-attack patients. That could pave the way for insurance coverage."

More details on health risks can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Bayer/Monsanto trying to fix damaged image

Maker of Roundup herbicide planning to spend $5.6 billion on research to find a new weed-killer

Despite, or maybe because of, facing more than 5,000 lawsuits over its Roundup herbicide causing cancer, Bayer AG plans to spend $5.6 billion on researching a new weed-killer.

Bayer, parent company of agribusiness Monsanto, which recently lost three court cases that found the glyphosate-based weed-killer caused cancer, is desperately trying to wipe the tarnish from its image.

All three court cases are being appealed.

According to a recent story by Rachel Siegel in The Washington Post, though Bayer still insists that glyphosate is safe, it announced it's not only investing that $5.6 billion but it's pledging "to reduce the company's environmental footprint by 30 percent through 2030."

That promise, Siegel's story says, "signaled a change in tone for Bayer. On its website, along with a full-page ad in [the] Post, Bayer said, 'We listened. We learned.'"

The vow reportedly also added the following phrases: "As a new leader in agriculture, Bayer has a heightened responsibility and the unique potential to advance farming for the benefit of society and the planet. We are committed to living up to this responsibility."

Ken Cook

Siegel's piece, however, quoted Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, as saying that "if Bayer is serious about reforming its products, it has to commit to a fundamentally new paradigm for pesticides, which must start with a simple principal: This class of chemicals should not end up in people."

EWG last week published a report, the Post story asserts, that Roundup has "been detected in 21 oat-based cereals and snack products tested by the organization."

Siegel apparently believes Monsanto/Bayer "underestimated the reputational damage" that stemmed from the losing lawsuits "and how they damaged the company's public perception."

The Post also quotes Anthony Johndrow, an expert on how corporations manage crises, to the effect that Bayer is making its decisions more transparent and "is sincerely making a change."

Bayer, he indicates, knew what they were getting when they bought Monsanto last June: "This is their going forward, whether they like it or not."

When a jury recently awarded $2 billion to a Livermore couple who blamed Roundup for their non-Hodgkins lymphoma diagnoses, the verdict added to Bayer's steep stock descent to its lowest level in seven years, erasing more than 40 percent of its market value.

To read about more court cases involving manufacturers sued because their products caused disease, check out "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Feds ignore complaints, fears of many women

FDA declines to ban breast implant that's linked to cancer but intends to increase information about risks

The FDA has decided not to ban a type of breast implant linked to a rare cancer — at least for now.

According to a story by Laurie McKinley in last week's editions of The Washington Post, the decision, which came a month after a dramatic hearing in which many women expressed fears, complained about the implants and called on the Food and Drug Administration to execute such a ban, the agency plans instead to "increase efforts to collect and disseminate information about risks involving the device."

A joint statement by Amy Abernethy, FDA principal deputy commissioner, and Jeff Shuren, director of the agency's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, maintains that the FDA doesn't believe the textured implant "meets the legal standard for being banned at this time, based on available data and information."

Other countries have either banned or restricted sales of similar products "because of concerns about what's called breast implant-associated anapestic large cell lymphoma, or BIA-ALCL," McKinley's story contends.

The FDA also notes that "while textured implants make up as much as 80 percent of the market share in some other countries, they represent only 10 percent or less of the implants sold in this country," the Post article continues.

Federal officials also say they don't have "definitive evidence" demonstrating that the implants cause  "'breast implant illness,' a constellation of auto-immune problems that includes joint and muscle pain and allergies and fatigue — a topic that was repeatedly raised at the March hearing." But they do add, according to McKinley's piece, that evidence supports "that some women experience systemic symptoms that may resolve when their breast implants are removed."

Diana Zukerman, PhD

That admission has led Diana Zukerman, a PhD and president of the National Center for Health Research, to claim it's "the closest the FDA has come to acknowledging breast implant illness," which, she insists, is "definitely progress."

Historically, the agency tends to be reluctant to ban devices — having done so only twice, with powdered surgeons' gloves and prosthetic hair fibers.

The FDA has, however, "said it is considering requiring implants to carry what's called a boxed warning — the agency's strongest safety warning. And it may require doctors and patients to sign checklists of risks to make sure women have the necessary information to make an informed decision."

McKinley's story states that "bout 400,000 women a year get implants in the United States — 75 percent for cosmetic reasons and most of the rest for breast reconstruction about cancer surgery."

For more information on implants and reconstruction, check out "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

New insights, treatments, tests in disease 'war'

Medical community is starting to believe less is more when it comes to cancer treatments 

More and more doctors and patients apparently are using less aggressive weapons to fight cancer these days.

Dr. Justin Bekelman

A story by Laurie McKinley in yesterday's Washington Post quotes Dr. Justin Bekelman, a radiation oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania, about the medical community's focus on the "war on cancer."

Historically, he says, that phrase "implied that more is better and decimation is desired."

McKinley's story contends, however, that the idea is "falling out of favor," not only because it "subtly blames patients" who die "but also because it doesn't capture a world of new biological insights, improved treatments and molecular tests that are transforming how cancer is treated."

According to Bekelman, "Knowing when not to treat" can be "great medicine" — because, the story charges, oncologists equipped with new tools and evidence can cut back on toxic and costly approaches likely do more harm than good.

Cancer, nevertheless, is not monolithic, the story indicates.

Rather, some cancers "need to be bludgeoned, but others can be treated with more tailored therapies or simply watched."

Although the latest mindset of "doing less in the face of danger" can be "emotionally difficult" for both patients and physicians, the article notes, proof that less is more has been frequently popping up lately, including a landmark clinical trial published in June that found more than "two-thirds of women with early-stage breast cancer can safely avoid chemotherapy." 

Not to mention the fact, according to the piece, that "men with early-stage, low-risk prostate cancer are rapidly embracing 'active surveillance' over surgery — and avoiding possible complications such as incontinence and sexual dysfunction," and that throat cancer caused by human papilloma virus, because it varies from other types of the disease, allows a cutback "in a brutal treatment regimen and [reduces] the risk of potentially devastating disfigurement."

The Post story also mentions the emergence of immunotherapy, usually less toxic than chemo, "as a first-line treatment for many patients," and cites a recent study showing that "people with advanced kidney cancer can skip surgery to have their kidneys removed and instead go right to drug treatment."

De-escalation isn't happening universally, however. 

McKinley contends that the "most common form of thyroid cancer, which poses little risk, is often still treated with unnecessary surgery, experts say. And some malignancies, such as pancreatic cancer, are so lethal that doctors are racing to find ways to ramp up treatment."

Details on trends and clinical trials in treatment can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Is 'co-testing' for disease on the way out?

HPV tests may replace Pap smears regarding cervical cancer changes, study suggests

Pap smears may be on the way out, replaced by a test for HPV, when it comes to detecting cancerous cervical changes.

At least that's what a new decade-long study involving some 19,000 women suggests might happen (because the Human PapillomaVirus test apparently is more sensitive and more accurate).

The study, published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, was reported in a Laurie McKinley story in The Washington Post.

Dr. Gina Ogilvie

Dr. Gina Ogilvie, a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and lead author of the study, has cited a particular benefit — the research showing "women who received HPV testing have more reassurance with a negative test and can likely get screened less frequently."

Mark Schiffman of the National Cancer Institute, an HPV researcher himself, confirmed "that it's important to move from the Pap smear to the HPV test alone," according to the Post article. 

He also reportedly maintains that the Pap smear, which he calls "crude and inaccurate," worked only because women were tested often and because cervical cancer grows slowly.

HPV, the Post piece says, "is the most common sexually transmitted infection and is usually eliminated by the immune system. But when an infection persists, it can cause cellular changes that develop into precancerous lesions and eventual malignancies."

McGinley's story notes that "about 13,240 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States in 2018, according to the American Cancer Society. About 42,000 women will die of the disease."

In recent years, the article continues, "most medical groups have recommended that women in the United States get both the HPV test and the Pap smear — a practice called 'co-testing.'"

Now, however, many experts are saying the Pap smear should be dropped. That position is still challenged by others who claim "that the Pap smear can catch a small number of cases of abnormal cells that might be missed by the HPV test."

The conventional Pap smear has already been replaced to a large degree by liquid-based Pap cytology tests.

The Post piece contends that "most medical groups," including the American Cancer Society and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, urge "that women of average risk get both HPV tests and Pap smears every five years between age 30 and 65, though they say a Pap test alone every three years is an acceptable alternative."

McGinley's story also notes that "about 80 million people in the United States are infected with HPV [although] most never develop any health problems because most infections go away by themselves, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

Doctors have long urged children and young adults be vaccinated against HPV with a shot approved in 2006 by the Food and Drug Administration.

More details about cancer research can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Can 40 percent of cancers be prevented?

Vast majority of cancer-causing mutations due to random DNA errors, new study indicates

"Two-thirds of cancer mutations are due to random DNA copying errors, study says."

That's the bulk of a slightly scary headline at the top of a recent "To Your Health" section of The Washington Post website.

In a story by Laurie McKinley, the study — published in "Science" magazine — cancer-causing mutations occur when normal cells divide. 

Humans, according to the piece, "have trillions of cells, which are constantly regenerating by dividing and making new cells. But each time DNA is copied, the scientists said, an average of three random mistakes will occur. While most are harmless, a small number affect genes that will promote cancer."

Bert Vogelstein

The Post article indicates that two Johns Hopkins University researchers — Bert Vogelstein, a cancer geneticist, and Cristian Tomaetti, a mathematician — were able in their study to separate the randomness factor from the other main contributors to cancer: inherited genes and environmental factors such as smoking and obesity.

Cristian Tomasetti

Results, after analyzing  "genome sequencing and epidemiological data for 32 types of cancer," assigned the mutations thusly: 66 percent, DNA-replication mistakes; 29 percent, environmental factors; 5 percent, heredity.

Variations depended on what kind of cancer they were talking about. According to the story, for example, "random DNA-replication mistakes account for about 77 percent of critical mutations in pancreatic cancer, and virtually all childhood cancer."

But "more than two-thirds of the mutations in lung cancer were due to environmental factors, mostly smoking."

McGinley's piece noted that "the new research builds on a 2015 study that highlighted the role of 'bad luck' — random DNA errors — in developing cancer. That study drew vehement protests from some cancer physicians and researchers who worried it would encourage people to take a fatalistic approach to cancer rather than trying to reduce their cancer risk by maintaining a healthy weight, exercising regularly, eating a good diet and avoiding cigarettes."

The Hopkins researchers have claimed "their earlier work was widely misinterpreted," the article continued — and emphasized that the new study "was consistent with estimates that 40 percent of cancers can be prevented."

Vogelstein insisted said that "science needs to find better ways to detect cancer early, when there is a good chance of curing it."

According to the story, critics of the 2015 study "disliked the 'bad luck' explanation and complained that the study was limited to the United States and didn't include the most common cancers — breast and prostate."

Insights into cancer mutations — especially BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes — can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Activist disputes truths of many scientists

Link between abortion, breast cancer debunked but Trump advisor may still believe it

A high-ranking Trump advisor may still accept as true a debunked connection between abortion and breast cancer.

Charmaine Yoest

According to a recent fact-checking article by Michelle Ye Hee Lee in The Washington Post, Charmaine Yoest, assistant secretary of Health and Human Services, is "a prominent opponent of abortion rights" who declined to give a yes-or-no answer to the question of whether she still believes it.

The Post story cites a 2012 feature story in The New York Times that described her position "supporting the discredited theory that abortion increases a woman's risk for breast cancer."

It also cites the conclusion of the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and others in the scientific community that the theory, which has been spread for decades, is false, and that although "abortion has not been scientifically proven to be a factor," there are "many risk factors for breast cancer, including: family history, the woman's age (older women face increased risks), how old she was at her first menstrual period (people who get their first periods earlier face a higher risk), how old she was when she delivered her first full-term pregnancy (women who have children later or who never have children face a higher risk), and obesity after menopause."

The Times piece specifically mentions an "analysis of 53 studies involving 83,000 women that found no link between abortion and a higher rate of cancer."

Yoest, herself a breast cancer survivor, has been a national anti-abortion activist (including a stint as president and chief exec of the anti-abortion group, Americans United for Life).

The discredited theory, according to the Post, "was widely promoted in the wake of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision" and perpetuates the myth that "the development of breast tissues at certain periods of the pregnancy cycle leads to an increased chance of breast cancer [and that] if a woman ends her pregnancy in the second trimester, from about 20 to 32 weeks, she faces a greater risk."

The theory doesn't differentiate, by the way, between pregnancies ended via abortions, miscarriages or premature deliveries.

Other debunked theories about breast cancer risks are detailed in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Data from 1.2 million females reviewed

Daily glass of wine or booze can dramatically raise women's risk of breast cancer, review shows

Having just one glass of wine or another alcoholic drink a day is likely to boost a woman's risk of breast cancer.

That's what a new massive review indicates, according to a story by Laurie McGinley in today's editions of The Washington Post.

The increased risk is considered significant.

Statistically, McGinley's piece says, the difference is "5 percent for pre-menopausal women and 9 percent for post-menopausal women."

Reducing risk is also possible, the story also reports, by vigorous exercise such as running and bicycling.

That information translates, according to the study, into "pre-menopausal women who were the most active [having] a 17 percent lower risk of developing malignancies compared to the least active women, while post-menopausal women had a 10 percent decreased risk."

Why the added or diminished risks?

McGinley writes that "alcohol increases estrogen, which is linked to increased breast-cancer risk, while physical activity reduces it."

The review — done by the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) and the World Cancer Research Fund — "evaluated research in 119 studies encompassing data on 12 million women from around the world."

AICR estimated that 1 in 3 cases of breast cancer could be prevented if women didn't drink alcohol, were physically active and maintained a healthy weight.

Anne McTiernan

The Post article cites Anne McTiernan, a cancer-prevention researcher at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and one of the report's lead authors, to the effect that the review "suggests there is no level of alcohol use that is completely safe in terms of breast cancer. If a woman is drinking, it would be better if she kept it to a lower amount."

The review showed, too, that women who are overweight or obese run a higher risk of post-menopausal disease in general. Losing just 10 percent of their weight apparently can reduce blood estrogen and inflammation.

But even a healthy lifestyle is no guarantee.

The Post paraphrased the researcher as saying it's more like wearing a safety belt — with many women doing everything they can to reduce their risks but still get diagnosed with breast cancer.

"That's unfortunate, but that's what happens," the newspaper quoted McTiernan as saying.

Many more risks of breast cancer are outlined in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

'Existential dread' matches dread about disease

Cancer patients, survivors fear GOP dismantling Obamacare, return to 'medical dark ages'

Both cancer patients and survivors are having new fears — anxieties that equates to the trepidation they had when first diagnosed with the disease.

According to a recent story by Laurie McKinley in The Washington Post, what they're afraid of is the Republican obsession to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

The McKinley piece says those patients and survivors "are among the most vocal of groups raising alarms about the GOP's repeal effort. They are calling congressional offices and showing up at their representatives' town hall meetings with angst-filled stories about a pre-ACA world in which they couldn't get individual health plans because of their medical histories."

More than 15 million people in the United States are patients or survivors, the story adds, "with millions more affected as family members."  

McKinley writes that "many people described a kind of existential dread that matches their fear of cancer," still the second-leading cause of death in this country.

Dr. J. Leonard Lichetenfeld

In effect, they fear a return to the "medical dark ages" where their disease is concerned.

"Some worry," the story continues, "that the law's likely dismantling may put the latest oncology treatments, which can run $10,000 a month, out of reach. Others point to research showing that insurance status affects cancer patients' survival."

The piece also quotes Dr. J. Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, as telling a recent House committee hearing, "Cancer patients need to know that they have insurance."

Fear, and how to overcome it, is a major topic of "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers. 

A warning about pills, ointments, drops, teas

Federal agency's order targets 14 companies for phony claims about curing various cancers

The Food and Drug Administration is cracking down on bogus claims about cancer cures.

According to a story by Laurie McGinley in The Washington Post this week, the FDA has ordered 14 companies to stop making such claims about "asparagus extract, exotic teas and topical creams for pets."

The order says if they don't stop, they may "face possible product seizures and criminal prosecution."

Or, at least, court injunctions of their products.

More than 65 unapproved products are covered in the order, "products that the companies touted as preventing, treating or curing cancer, a violation of federal law, the agency said."

Those items, the story notes, "include pills, ointments, oils, drops, teas and diagnostic devices."

Douglas Stearn

McGinley's piece quotes Douglas Stearn, director of the FDA's Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, as warning that "consumers should not use these or similar unproven products because they may be unsafe and could prevent a person from seeking an appropriate and potentially lifesaving cancer diagnosis or treatment."

The agency, the article continued, "gave the companies 15 days to correct the violations or provide a plan on how they will correct them."

FDA officials said they've "issued more than 90 warning letters in 10 years to companies marketing hundreds of fraudulent products making cancer claims on websites, on social media and in stores."

They acknowledged, however, that "while the warnings sometimes stopped the sales, the companies sometimes just moved the products to new websites."

A disturbing trend, the agency indicated, is "a rise in phony cancer treatments for pets" — dogs and cats mainly.

Want to learn how the FDA has dealt with other cancer claims? Check out "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Will FDA obey Trump, take step backward?

Researcher warns of using under-tested drugs, cites futile treatment on his father 

Dr. Cary Gross

Can some cancer treatments do more harm than good?

Absolutely, indicates Cary Gross, professor of medicine and cancer researcher at the Yale University School of Medicine, in a recent article in The Washington Post.

Gross cites the case of his own 80-year-old father, who'd been treated for Hodgkin's disease and couldn't walk because of weakness when his oncologist suggested a new, expensive, risky drug that was covered by insurance.

The oncologist was afraid chemo might do more harm than good but believed the "targeted therapy" treatment that used antibodies to kill only cancer cells would work.

Although the tumors shrunk at first, and Gross' father regained some strength, he experienced mild pain in his feet after a few months, followed by more severe shooting pains through his legs. Those side effects, Gross wrote in his article, again prevented him from walking and kept him bed-bound.

He subsequently died.

"The Food and Drug Administration had approved the treatment based only on a small study of about 100 patients, one-third of whom demonstrated complete remission," Gross reported.

"Although side effects were rare, the average age of patients in the study was 31. This is typical of cancer-treatment studies, which most often test new drugs in younger and healthier people — not older people with lots of medical conditions."

Gross expresses fear that "unfortunately, our government's commitment to evaluating new drugs is about to take a step backward. At a recent meeting with pharmaceutical company executives, President Trump announced he would be cutting regulations 'at a level nobody's ever seen before.'"

The FDA, he contends, "shouldn't shy away from requiring thorough evaluation of new drugs. The same level of enthusiasm and funding that goes into developing new treatments should be invested in testing whether they are safe and effective in patients outside of the initial small trials. Under-tested drugs with unclear safety profiles and efficacy should not be given to broad swaths of the population."

Other illustrations of clinic trials and their aftermath can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

BRCA1 tests increase but results are questioned

Did Angelina Jolie op-ed in N.Y. Times help women find breast cancer gene mutations?

Angelina Jolie

Although celebrities can spur women to gather information about breast cancer, the question remains how valuable resultant data will turn out to be.

Angelina Jolie is a case in point.

According to a story by Carolyn Y. Johnson this week in The Washington Post, a new study published in the British Medical Journal has indicated that additional thousands of women in the United States were tested for breast cancer gene mutations right after the actress went public about her decision to get a double mastectomy.

Her choice was based on the fact that she had BRCA1, one of the mutations that increases chances of developing breast and ovarian cancers.

The Post piece noted that "testing rates increased 64 percent in the three weeks after Jolie's [op-ed in The New York Times went viral in 2013].

But that stat, based on research at Harvard Medical School, also showed it cost about $13.5 million to do the additional 4,500 genetic tests.

Unfortunately, researchers concluded, "mastectomy rates among women who had a genetic test actually declined after the [New York Times] piece was published, suggesting the women who got the tests done weren't as likely to have the mutation."

More information about the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

18 million premature deaths predicted

Number of smokers dips again, but addiction is now linked to 40 percent of all cancers

Smoking has now been linked to 40 percent of all cancers despite the number of smokers continuing to decline dramatically.

Malignancies, in addition to lung cancer, include throat, stomach, pancreas and liver, according to a recent story by Laurie McKinley in The Washington Post.

Tom Frieden

McKinley quotes Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as saying that although smoking rates are "at all-time lows…nearly half (the current 36 million smokers) could die prematurely from tobacco-related illnesses, including 6 million from cancer."

The article also quotes the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report to the effect that the number of smoking adults declined 1.7 percent last year — down to 15.1 percent.

In 2005, there were 45.1 million adult American smokers.

Ernest Hawk, vice president for cancer prevention at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, also was quoted by McKinley: "Smoking is more than just a habit. It's an addiction, and it's very hard to get off any addictive substance."

I cerainly know all about that — I smoked more cigarettes than I care to remember. 

For more than 30 years.

When I finally quit, I dug a hole in my back yard, inserted an unfinished pack of Pall Malls, and declared to the skies, "I'm burying these cigarettes so I can live."

The American Lung Association, by the way, has called on Congress "to fully fund smoking-cessation efforts in states," according to the Post story.

"Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at caregivers, details a vast variety of cancer causes, proving that cancer is hardly monolithic.

Are younger men shunning intercourse?

Men's oral cancer risk leaps 61 percent in four years — because of a shift in sexual habits

The risk of oral cancer in men has jumped dramatically.

Insurance claims from "a database of more than 21 billion privately billed medical and dental claims" show the reasons, according to an article this week by Ariana Eunjung Cha in The Washington Post.

With one of the main causes being "the cascading effect of human papillomavirus (HPV) in the United States."

The American Cancer Society has estimated some 50,000 Americans will be infected this year, with 9,500 dying from the disease.

The Post story, citing a report published by FAIR Health, disclosed that the increase in oral cancer from 2011 to 2015 was a startling 61 percent.

With the biggest increases coming in throat and tongue cancers.

During the period studied, those cancers were three times as prevalent in men as women, the Post piece noted.

In the past, oral cancer was linked mainly to smoking, alcohol use or a combination.

Now, the Post article maintained, changing sexual habits are a problem, with surveys showing "younger men are more likely to perform oral sex than their older counterparts and have a tendency to engage with more partners."

Dr. Gypsyamber D'Souza

According to Gypsyamber D'Souza, PhD., an associate professor in the Viral Oncology and Cancer Prevention and Control Program at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health quoted by the Post, "These differences in sexual behavior…explain…why the rate of this cancer is increasing."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier this month recommended preteens 11 or 12 get vaccinated against HPV, noting that more teenagers and young adults "are engaging in oral sex than vaginal intercourse under the assumption that it's safer."

It's not, of course, unless only the possibility of pregnancy is being considered.

Information about disease prevention can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Clinical trial on lymphoma is suspended

Cancer researcher's work put into question by his failure to file timely report on deaths

It's no secret that new research can frequently contradict old — even when the latter has only been public for a few days or weeks.

But now comes a new wrinkle: Researchers may be invalidating their work by failing to file appropriate reports.

Or, at best, bringing their tests into question.

Case in point: An early-stage clinical trial sponsored by the National Cancer Institute on an experimental drug, ibrutinib, that involved lymphoma of the central nervous system, a blood cancer that to date had no effective treatment and was often deadly.

According to a story this week by Laurie McGinley in The Washington Post, the lead researcher failed to tell authorities in a timely manner that "two patients had died of fungal infections that might have been caused by the experimental treatment."

That failure, which led to the researcher being suspended "until he undergoes additional training," meant the trial was suspended — despite what McGinley's story called its "impressive results" in which eight of the 18 patients enrolled in the study "continue to be in complete remission, including six whose disease had not responded to previous treatment — a situation that usually causes death within a matter of months."

Dr. Francis Collins

The reporting lapses were reported by Dr. Francis Collins, National Institutes of Health director; Dr. Doug Lowe, NCI director; and other officials.

The study, which was begun in 2013, centered on ibrutinib being used in conjunction "with a cocktail of chemotherapy medications. In addition, steroids were used to reduce swelling in the patients' brains."

The principal investigator, Kieron Dunleavy, had reported concerns — after the second fatality — and "ordered CT scans in other patients in the trial to try to catch fungal infections early, before they became deadly," but he allegedly delayed filing "an official 'unanticipated problem' report" for months.

That kind of report is supposed to be filed within 24 hours of suspecting a problem caused by the treatment.

When the Federal Drug Administration — which regulates trails — learned of the problem, it "conducted a review that concluded there also were several other adverse events that weren't promptly reported," McGinley's story indicated.

Collins said "that it appeared that the combination of ibrutinib and steroids 'seemed to place patients, many of whom have compromised immune systems, at an enhanced risk of infection,'" the article said.

Information on research, and how it often flip-flops, can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Gene mutation may portend four times the risk

Men worry about defective breast cancer genes as possible clue to deadly prostate cancer

Holy cow, it wasn't enough that I worried about women I know having BRCA1 and 2 mutant genes that portend breast and ovarian cancers.

Now I'm worrying about the guys, too.

Seems that, according to a recent article in The Washington Post by Laurie McGinley, men (like me) are becoming more aware that the defective genes — "the kind that prompted actress Angelina Jolie to have her breasts and ovaries removed preemptively," the story notes — have also been linked to aggressive, potentially deadly prostate cancer.

McKinley writes that "men with these mutations are more likely than non-carriers to contract aggressive, lethal prostate cancer, to be diagnosed at a more advanced stage and to ultimately die of the disease, researchers say."

A study recently presented to a meeting of  the American Urological Association found 17 percent of patients with BRCA2 "already had advanced [prostate] disease, four times the rate of patients without the mutation," the article states. 

Dr. Bruce Montgomery

McKinley's story quotes Dr. Bruce Montgomery, an oncologist at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance-University of Washington Medical Center as saying, "The problem is, everyone associates this with women and their cancers. In men's minds, BRCA is about breast cancer, so they don't see it as relevant."

The implication, of course, is that they're wrong. It is not only relevant, knowledge about the mutation is a crucial part of a health-education learning curve.

Although "an estimated 12 percent of women will develop breast cancer during their lifetimes, according to the National Cancer Institute," McKinley's story says, "that proportion rises to as high as 65 percent of women who inherit a BRCA1 mutation and about 45 percent for those with a BRCA2 defect."

Men with the BRCA mutation also are at a higher risk of getting breast cancer. Currently, more than 2,000 American males contract that disease each year.

To learn even more about the BRCA defects, check out "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," the VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Big Pharma, insurers, hospitals play blame game

'Financial navigators' helping patients cope with high cost of cancer drugs and treatment 

Laurie McGinley

As soon as you or a loved one is diagnosed with cancer, you concentrate on survival.

Not on what that may cost.

But as soon as treatments and drugs start being prescribed, the money factor is likely to grab your attention.

Which in turn may lead to sticker shock.

Or depression.

A recent story by health-and-medicine writer Laurie McGinley in The Washington Post indicates that out-of-pocket $10,000 per month fees for a single drug isn't that unusual.

A monthly regimen of multiple drugs can run into the thousands of dollars in co-pays.

S. Yousuf Zafar

The Post article refers to patients suffering from "financial toxicity" — a term coined in 2013 by S. Yousuf Zafar at the Duke University School of Medicine — as well as the "mix of economic stress, anxiety and depression cancer patients often endure."

It focuses on "financial navigators [who] help people survive financially as well as medically [by taking] a highly individualized approach, working closely with patients and oncologists from the time of diagnosis and continuing through the twists and turns of a protracted illness."

As cancer costs continue to rise, and the health-care system grows more complex, the piece continues, the navigators'  strategy "is to pull every lever possible to extract maximum assistance from pharmaceutical companies, the government, foundations and…hospitals."

Meanwhile, Big Pharma blames insurance companies for making patients absorb higher deductibles and co-pays.

And in a turn-around, according to McGinley, "insurers say excessive hospital charges, doctor fees and drug prices are the culprits."

Hospitals join the blame game, too. They point fingers at "pharmaceutical companies [that] are inflating prices [and insurers that] are failing to adequately cover needed treatments."

The article also quotes a Seattle researcher to the effect that "people battling cancer are, on average, about 2-1/2 times more likely to file for bankruptcy than people without cancer — and that post-bankruptcy patients are nearly 80 percent more likely to die from any cause compared with others with cancer."

"Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, wrote for male caregivers, addresses the costs of meds and treatments as well as the emotional toll on patients and their loved ones alike.

But be wary. The financial bell can be tolling for thee.