The Prime Cause and Prevention of Cancer
Dr. Otto Warburg
Lecture delivered to Nobel Laureates on June 30, 1966
at Lindau, Lake Constance, Germany
There are prime and secondary causes of diseases. For example, the prime cause of the plague is the plague bacillus, but secondary causes of the plague are filth, rats, and the fleas that transfer the plague bacillus from rats to man. By the prime cause of a disease, I mean one that is found in every case of the disease.
Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. Almost anything can cause cancer. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. The prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen (oxidation of sugar) in normal body cells by fermentation of sugar.
All normal body cells meet their energy needs by respiration of oxygen, whereas cancer cells meet their energy needs in great part by fermentation. All normal body cells are thus obligate aerobes, whereas all cancer cells are partial anaerobes. From the standpoint of the physics and chemistry of life this difference between normal and cancer cells is so great that one can scarcely picture a greater difference. Oxygen gas, the donor of energy in plants and animals, is dethroned in the cancer cells and replaced by the energy yielding reaction of the lowest living forms, namely the fermentation of sugar.
In every case, during the cancer development, the oxygen respiration always falls, fermentation appears, and the highly differentiated cells are transformed into fermenting anaerobes, which have lost all their body functions and retain only the now useless property of growth and replication. Thus, when respiration disappears, life does not disappear, but the meaning of life disappears, and what remains are growing machines that destroy the body in which they grow.
All carcinogens impair respiration directly or indirectly by deranging capillary circulation, a statement that is proven by the fact that no cancer cell exists without exhibiting impaired respiration. Of course, respiration cannot be repaired if it is impaired at the same time by a carcinogen.
To prevent cancer it is therefore proposed first to keep the speed of the blood stream so high that the venous blood still contains sufficient oxygen; second, to keep high the concentration of hemoglobin in the blood; third, to add always to the food, even of healthy people, the active groups of the respiratory enzymes; and to increase the doses of these groups, if a precancerous state has already developed. If at the same time exogenous carcinogens are excluded rigorously, then much of the endogenous cancer may be prevented today.
These proposals are in no way utopian. On the contrary, they may be realized by everybody, everywhere, at any hour. Unlike the prevention of many other diseases, the prevention of cancer requires no government help, and not much money.
Many experts agree that one could prevent about 80% of all cancers in man, if one could keep away the known carcinogens from the normal body cells. But how can the remaining 20%, the so-called spontaneous cancers, be prevented? It is indisputable that all cancer could be prevented if the respiration of body cells were kept intact.
Nobody today can say that one does not know what the prime cause of cancer is. On the contrary, there is no disease whose prime cause is better known, so that today ignorance is no longer an excuse for avoiding measures for prevention. That the prevention of cancer will come there is no doubt. But how long prevention will be avoided depends on how long the prophets of agnosticism will succeed in inhibiting the application of scientific knowledge in the cancer field. In the meantime, millions of men and women must die of cancer unnecessarily.
CLICK HERE for MORE ON CANCER
Monday, February 12, 2007
Every Clinician Deserves an Un-Sales Rep
When I was practicing primary care, each year it got tougher to stay on top of the medical literature. But I had unlimited access to dozens of attractive, articulate people who came right to my office, at my convenience, to "update" me on topics like "modern concepts in hypertension" or "how to lower your patients' cholesterol." Some brought me lunch while they taught me; others offered to provide the education at a Red Sox game. The material they provided was user-friendly, accessible, engaging, and clinically relevant. But the only reason these "detail men or detail women" did this was to increase the sales of products of the drug companies each of them worked for, and the data they presented were carefully selected to accomplish just that goal. I wished that someone would come to my office and give me user-friendly drug information that was more neutral, not designed primarily to push products.
To address that unmet need, my colleagues and I created the concept of "academic detailing." We trained pharmacists to visit doctors in their offices to offer concise, clinically relevant overviews of various therapeutic categories. The only goal was to provide unbiased, commercial-free data about optimal care.[1] Sometimes they even brought lunch.
The original program was funded by a federal grant, but today similar programs are in operation in several countries.[2] In Australia, the government pays for a nationwide program that covers 60% of the country's primary care doctors. We've recently begun a program in Pennsylvania funded by that state; our reviews and teaching materials are freely available to all at www.RxFacts.org.[3] We all benefit if doctors have access to even-handed, non-product-driven drug information. Such programs can improve appropriate prescribing, and over time should even be able to save more than they cost, while helping us make smarter prescribing choices for our patients.
That's my opinion. I'm Dr. Jerry Avorn, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.
Sign Up now for a free monthly email that brings you the top features from MedGenMed.
Posted 01/19/2007
Jerry Avorn, MD
Readers are encouraged to respond to the author at javorn@partners.org or to George Lundberg, MD, Editor of MedGenMed, for the editor's eyes only or for possible publication via email: glundberg@medscape.net
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/549759?src=mp
When I was practicing primary care, each year it got tougher to stay on top of the medical literature. But I had unlimited access to dozens of attractive, articulate people who came right to my office, at my convenience, to "update" me on topics like "modern concepts in hypertension" or "how to lower your patients' cholesterol." Some brought me lunch while they taught me; others offered to provide the education at a Red Sox game. The material they provided was user-friendly, accessible, engaging, and clinically relevant. But the only reason these "detail men or detail women" did this was to increase the sales of products of the drug companies each of them worked for, and the data they presented were carefully selected to accomplish just that goal. I wished that someone would come to my office and give me user-friendly drug information that was more neutral, not designed primarily to push products.
To address that unmet need, my colleagues and I created the concept of "academic detailing." We trained pharmacists to visit doctors in their offices to offer concise, clinically relevant overviews of various therapeutic categories. The only goal was to provide unbiased, commercial-free data about optimal care.[1] Sometimes they even brought lunch.
The original program was funded by a federal grant, but today similar programs are in operation in several countries.[2] In Australia, the government pays for a nationwide program that covers 60% of the country's primary care doctors. We've recently begun a program in Pennsylvania funded by that state; our reviews and teaching materials are freely available to all at www.RxFacts.org.[3] We all benefit if doctors have access to even-handed, non-product-driven drug information. Such programs can improve appropriate prescribing, and over time should even be able to save more than they cost, while helping us make smarter prescribing choices for our patients.
That's my opinion. I'm Dr. Jerry Avorn, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.
Sign Up now for a free monthly email that brings you the top features from MedGenMed.
Posted 01/19/2007
Jerry Avorn, MD
Readers are encouraged to respond to the author at javorn@partners.org or to George Lundberg, MD, Editor of MedGenMed, for the editor's eyes only or for possible publication via email: glundberg@medscape.net
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/549759?src=mp
Saturday, February 10, 2007
More about Merck's- Help Pay for Vioxx
News reports about Merck's aggressive marketing campaign aimed at obtaining state government mandates forcing 11 and 12 year old girls to be vaccinated with its Human Pappilomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil, is the latest example of irresponsible marekting targetting America's female population. Another is the recruitment of female students at university campuses who are asked to enroll as human subjects in an experimental Herpes vaccine trial co-sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. . Below is a form letter sent out to all female students at the Unviersity of Maryland offering $358. Since doctors agree that condoms are the safest and most effective protection against sexually transmitted diseases-- Why are only females being sought for risky experimental vaccine trials?
Gardasil is touted as prevention for cervical cancer which Merck says is the second-leading cancer among women around the world. But as The Wall Street Journal reports (below) the prevalence of cervical cancer is actually low in the U.S. The American Cancer Society estimates that 11,150 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 3,670 will die from it in the U.S. this year. That's equivalent to 0.77% of cancers diagnosed in the U.S. and 0.65% of U.S. cancer deaths each year. By comparison, the society estimates that 178,480 American women will get diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007 and 40,460 will die from it.
These numbers underscore Merck's strictly commercial motivaiton: Gardasil's price tag is exorbitant-three shots at $360 each-is being forced on American children-not because they are at particular risk-but rather to ensure that the company profits hugely. So what is the justification for even considering mandatory vaccination of children?
Since 80% of cervical cancer occurs in underdeveloped countries, clearly, those who might benefit the most are denied access because they can't afford the vaccine. The WSJ confirms that Merck is "desperate" for funding streams and "vaccination across the U.S. would make Gardasil an automatic blockbuster." The campaign has been dubbed: "Help pay for Vioxx" litigation.
Inexplicably, influential media sources have demonstrated a blind willingness to accept without evidence, unsubstantiated promises about a new vaccine from a company whose ignoble record of fraudulent claims and illegal marketing of a lethal drug caused thousands of preventable deaths. Prominent among these is The New York Times which rendered its position on the side of commerce in an editorial (below) reflecting a faith-based belief rather than a critical appraisal of evidence. Not only does the editorial endorse Merck's vaccine for all preteen girls, it offered "congratulations to Texas for becoming the first state to REQUIRE vaccinating young schoolgirls-ages 11 and 12"-even as it acknowledges that "many parents are appalled at the notion of vaccinating such young girls against a sexually transmitted disease."
"GARDASIL has not been shown to protect against disease due to non-vaccine HPV types.The health-care provider should inform the patient, parent, or guardian that vaccination does not substitute for routine cervical cancer screening. Women who receive GARDASIL should continue to undergo cervical cancer screening per standard of care." [Link]
Gardasil will not prevent cancer--it does not protect against ALL HPV types [e.g., 31, 33, 35] . The vaccine will merely result in a change of prevalent serotypes.
"Tina Walker, the mother of an 11-year-old girl in Flower Mound, Texas, told The Wall Street Journal that she would prefer to wait until the vaccine has been on the market for several years before subjecting her child to it. "We are the guinea pigs here," she says.
Under what moral authority do the editors of New York Times decree that Tina Walker's rights as a responsible parent should be nullified-and her daughter exposed to potential harm by a company that has a proven record of concealing the lethal hazards of its products?
The Times editors would do well to examine how often the Times got it wrong when it endorsed any number of medical treatments that proved harmful. For example, on November 18, 1994, Times health columnist, Jane E. Brody, gave a ringing endorsement to hormone replacement therapy (New Therapy For Menopause Reduces Risks, [Link]), reporting that it protects women "not only against the risk of uterine cancer but heart attacks as well." In time, these claims were overturned by science-but not before untold number of women died as a result of bad medical advice.
Furthermore, Merck does not deserve our trust in disclosing all we need to know about its products. Merck marketed Vioxx as an effective, safer alternative to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis, but-as its secret documents later uncovered during litigation revealed--Merck concealed the fact that Vioxx increased the risk of cardiovascular disease. What guarantee do we have that Gardasil is not another Merck hoax?
News reports about Merck's aggressive marketing campaign aimed at obtaining state government mandates forcing 11 and 12 year old girls to be vaccinated with its Human Pappilomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil, is the latest example of irresponsible marekting targetting America's female population. Another is the recruitment of female students at university campuses who are asked to enroll as human subjects in an experimental Herpes vaccine trial co-sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. . Below is a form letter sent out to all female students at the Unviersity of Maryland offering $358. Since doctors agree that condoms are the safest and most effective protection against sexually transmitted diseases-- Why are only females being sought for risky experimental vaccine trials?
Gardasil is touted as prevention for cervical cancer which Merck says is the second-leading cancer among women around the world. But as The Wall Street Journal reports (below) the prevalence of cervical cancer is actually low in the U.S. The American Cancer Society estimates that 11,150 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 3,670 will die from it in the U.S. this year. That's equivalent to 0.77% of cancers diagnosed in the U.S. and 0.65% of U.S. cancer deaths each year. By comparison, the society estimates that 178,480 American women will get diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007 and 40,460 will die from it.
These numbers underscore Merck's strictly commercial motivaiton: Gardasil's price tag is exorbitant-three shots at $360 each-is being forced on American children-not because they are at particular risk-but rather to ensure that the company profits hugely. So what is the justification for even considering mandatory vaccination of children?
Since 80% of cervical cancer occurs in underdeveloped countries, clearly, those who might benefit the most are denied access because they can't afford the vaccine. The WSJ confirms that Merck is "desperate" for funding streams and "vaccination across the U.S. would make Gardasil an automatic blockbuster." The campaign has been dubbed: "Help pay for Vioxx" litigation.
Inexplicably, influential media sources have demonstrated a blind willingness to accept without evidence, unsubstantiated promises about a new vaccine from a company whose ignoble record of fraudulent claims and illegal marketing of a lethal drug caused thousands of preventable deaths. Prominent among these is The New York Times which rendered its position on the side of commerce in an editorial (below) reflecting a faith-based belief rather than a critical appraisal of evidence. Not only does the editorial endorse Merck's vaccine for all preteen girls, it offered "congratulations to Texas for becoming the first state to REQUIRE vaccinating young schoolgirls-ages 11 and 12"-even as it acknowledges that "many parents are appalled at the notion of vaccinating such young girls against a sexually transmitted disease."
"GARDASIL has not been shown to protect against disease due to non-vaccine HPV types.The health-care provider should inform the patient, parent, or guardian that vaccination does not substitute for routine cervical cancer screening. Women who receive GARDASIL should continue to undergo cervical cancer screening per standard of care." [Link]
Gardasil will not prevent cancer--it does not protect against ALL HPV types [e.g., 31, 33, 35] . The vaccine will merely result in a change of prevalent serotypes.
"Tina Walker, the mother of an 11-year-old girl in Flower Mound, Texas, told The Wall Street Journal that she would prefer to wait until the vaccine has been on the market for several years before subjecting her child to it. "We are the guinea pigs here," she says.
Under what moral authority do the editors of New York Times decree that Tina Walker's rights as a responsible parent should be nullified-and her daughter exposed to potential harm by a company that has a proven record of concealing the lethal hazards of its products?
The Times editors would do well to examine how often the Times got it wrong when it endorsed any number of medical treatments that proved harmful. For example, on November 18, 1994, Times health columnist, Jane E. Brody, gave a ringing endorsement to hormone replacement therapy (New Therapy For Menopause Reduces Risks, [Link]), reporting that it protects women "not only against the risk of uterine cancer but heart attacks as well." In time, these claims were overturned by science-but not before untold number of women died as a result of bad medical advice.
Furthermore, Merck does not deserve our trust in disclosing all we need to know about its products. Merck marketed Vioxx as an effective, safer alternative to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis, but-as its secret documents later uncovered during litigation revealed--Merck concealed the fact that Vioxx increased the risk of cardiovascular disease. What guarantee do we have that Gardasil is not another Merck hoax?
TEXAS TO REQUIRE POORLY TESTED VACCINE
[The tests on this vaccine have been mainly on older girls and women, have been short term and were sponsored by Merck]
RALPH BLUMENTHAL, NY TIMES - Texas on Friday became the first state to require all 11- and 12-year-old girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
GREGORY LOPES, WASHINGTON TIMES - The National Vaccine Information Center yesterday warned state officials to investigate the safety of a breakthrough cancer vaccine as Texas became the first state to make the vaccine mandatory for school-age girls. Negative side effects of Gardasil, a new Merck vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, are being reported in the District of Columbia and 20 states, including Virginia. The reactions range from loss of consciousness to seizures. "Young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision and some girls have lost consciousness during what appear to be seizures," said Vicky Debold, health policy analyst for the National Vaccine Information Center. . .
Merck began marketing Gardasil last year after the Food and Drug Administration approved it for females ages 9 to 26. The vaccine is the first of its kind to build immunity against two strains of HPV, which lead to 70 percent of cervical cancer cases in the United States. . .
Its side effects were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a federal reporting system for consumers to notify federal regulators of bad reactions to medications. The adverse events began being reported in July 2006, when an advisory panel to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended girls ages 11 and 12 receive the series of shots.
The types of side effects reported are not cause for alarm, according to the American Cancer Society. "We have not been informed of an instance that would call into question the overall safety of the vaccine," said Debbie Saslow, director of breast and cervical cancer control at the American Cancer Society, adding that about 70 similar events had been known in October 2006. . .
Clayton Young, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Texas, objects to Merck's claim that Gardasil will prevent cervical cancer. "There is no proof Gardasil will stop cervical cancer," he said. "They haven't been studying it long enough to make that claim.". . .
Gardasil is delivered in three separate injections that cost $120 to $150 per injection. Blue Cross Blue Shield, an omnipresent health insurer in the Mid-Atlantic region, covers the vaccine for girls in the federally recommended age groups. Merck revenue from Gardasil reached $155 million for the fourth quarter of 2006 and $255 million for the entire year.
Source: http://prorev.com/2007/02/texas-to-require-poorly-tested-vaccine.htm
[The tests on this vaccine have been mainly on older girls and women, have been short term and were sponsored by Merck]
RALPH BLUMENTHAL, NY TIMES - Texas on Friday became the first state to require all 11- and 12-year-old girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
GREGORY LOPES, WASHINGTON TIMES - The National Vaccine Information Center yesterday warned state officials to investigate the safety of a breakthrough cancer vaccine as Texas became the first state to make the vaccine mandatory for school-age girls. Negative side effects of Gardasil, a new Merck vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, are being reported in the District of Columbia and 20 states, including Virginia. The reactions range from loss of consciousness to seizures. "Young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision and some girls have lost consciousness during what appear to be seizures," said Vicky Debold, health policy analyst for the National Vaccine Information Center. . .
Merck began marketing Gardasil last year after the Food and Drug Administration approved it for females ages 9 to 26. The vaccine is the first of its kind to build immunity against two strains of HPV, which lead to 70 percent of cervical cancer cases in the United States. . .
Its side effects were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a federal reporting system for consumers to notify federal regulators of bad reactions to medications. The adverse events began being reported in July 2006, when an advisory panel to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended girls ages 11 and 12 receive the series of shots.
The types of side effects reported are not cause for alarm, according to the American Cancer Society. "We have not been informed of an instance that would call into question the overall safety of the vaccine," said Debbie Saslow, director of breast and cervical cancer control at the American Cancer Society, adding that about 70 similar events had been known in October 2006. . .
Clayton Young, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Texas, objects to Merck's claim that Gardasil will prevent cervical cancer. "There is no proof Gardasil will stop cervical cancer," he said. "They haven't been studying it long enough to make that claim.". . .
Gardasil is delivered in three separate injections that cost $120 to $150 per injection. Blue Cross Blue Shield, an omnipresent health insurer in the Mid-Atlantic region, covers the vaccine for girls in the federally recommended age groups. Merck revenue from Gardasil reached $155 million for the fourth quarter of 2006 and $255 million for the entire year.
Source: http://prorev.com/2007/02/texas-to-require-poorly-tested-vaccine.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)