Lies, damn lies and statistics

[Guest guest]

Lies, damn lies and statistics

<A

HREF= " http://www.alternativemedicine.com/AMHome.asp?cn=Catalog & act=SearchAttri

bute & crt=Name1=HCArticleList%26Value1=Cancer%26Op1=EQ%26StartPage=1%26PageSize

=936 & Style=/AMXSL/HCDetail.xsl " >

http://www.alternativemedicine.com/AMHome.asp?cn=Catalog & act=SearchAttribute & c

rt=Name1=HCArticleList%26Value1=Cancer%26Op1=EQ%26StartPage=1%26PageSize=936 & S

tyle=\AMXSL\HCDetail.xsl</A>

Mark Twain's aphorism still rings true.

The cancer establishment claims we're winning the war on cancer, while the

rates for most cancers keep climbing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This past year a consortium of government agencies published a report that

purportedly showed about a 1% annual decline in the rates for new cancer

cases and deaths between 1992 and 1998. The title of the report was the

" Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1973-1998. " A more

accurate title would have been " How to Manipulate Statistics So They Show

What You Want. "

Things are getting a little desperate for the cancer establishment; that is,

the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the hospitals

and research facilities that receive enormous amounts of money in grants.

After all, it's been 30 years since the National Cancer Act of 1971 was

passed, making the " conquest of cancer " a national priority. Over $40 billion

has been spent since then, with annual funding currently at $3 billion.

Meanwhile, the rates for new cases of cancer and deaths from cancer keep

going up and up.

In 1900, 3% of Americans were diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. As

of today, according to the American Cancer Society, half of all men and two

out of five women will develop cancer. This is not just a result of people

living longer. It is true that the older one gets, the more likely it is he

or she will develop cancer. But where is it written that old age and cancer

should be synonymous? And more to the point, cancer rates and deaths have

increased for all age groups. In the 1930s, cancer was the tenth cause of

death in children under 14 years of age; today it is the number two killer,

after accidents.

While a 1% annual decline may not sound earth-shaking, remember that the

cancer establishment considers any statistically significant increase in

survival major progress. In the medical literature, you consistently find

that increases in the mean survival time for some cancers of even a month or

two are considered " promising breakthroughs. "

The report was the first of its kind to show anything but a steady rise for

cancer incidence and mortality, and when it was published in the Journal of

the National Cancer Institute, it was greeted with much ballyhoo. " This

welcome news on declining rates underscores the incredible progress we've

made against cancer, but it also reminds us that our fight is far from over, "

said Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. . Translation:

" See, we haven't wasted $40 billion, but we still need lots more. "

NCI director D. Klausner, M.D., said, " These findings highlight the

progress we've made against cancer, but also underscore the critical need for

research and for equitably applying what we already know to sustain this

progress. " Translation: " See, we haven't wasted $40 billion, but we still

need lots more. "

So will the 1990s be remembered as " the decade when we measurably turned the

tide against cancer, " as Dr. Klausner has stated? An analysis of the national

report finds this conclusion misleading, to put it politely. Remember, the

good news is that the overall cancer rates supposedly finally started

dropping, after going up by more than a factor of ten this century and

increasing over 20% just from 1973 to 1992. And, in fact, some cancer rates

did drop. One of the cancers that showed a decline was lung cancer, which

accounts for 13% of all cancers and 29% of all deaths. According to the

American Cancer Society, an estimated 553,400 Americans will die from cancer

in 2001, with 157,400 of the deaths due to lung cancer. If you take lung

cancer out of the equation, the reported decline in cancer is suddenly cut by

a third.

Why should we ignore the decline in lung cancer? Because the decline has

nothing to do with medical treatment or advances, but correlates directly

with the decline in smoking. While the medical establishment has done its

best to discourage people from smoking, starting with the surgeon general's

report in 1964, it certainly didn't originate the idea. Health " nuts " had

been saying that smoking causes lung cancer and other respiratory diseases

for decades before.

Let us look at the progress conventional medicine has actually made in

treating lung cancer. The one-year survival rate increased from 34% in 1975

to 41% in 1996, and the five-year survival rate increased from 12% to 14%

during the same time period. Unfortunately, these small increases in

short-term survival are meaningless in the long term. Lung cancer is almost

always fatal with conventional treatment.

We've mentioned that the decline in lung cancer, which is in no way due to

medical advances, accounts for the lion's share of the cancer rate decline.

In the meantime, the incidences of ten other cancers have increased from 1992

to 1998. These include cancer of the liver, thyroid, esophagus, small

intestine and heart, plus non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, melanoma and breast cancer.

Breast cancer rates have increased 40% from 1975 to 1998. However, the report

shows that the five-year survival rate increased. Or did it? Survival rates

are another way that statistics are easily manipulated. A recent study in

Canada illustrates this. Since the 1980s, the Canadian National Breast

Screening Study has been following more than 39,000 women who received either

an annual physical breast examination or an examination plus mammography.

Breast cancer detection for both groups was about the same: 622 for the

mammography group and 610 for the physical exam-only group. However, breast

cancer detection averaged about two years earlier for the mammography group.

" Early detection is your best protection, " right? Well, not in this case.

There were 88 deaths among the women who had examinations plus mammography,

compared with 90 for the physical exam-only women. However, since the cancer

was detected earlier with mammography, it would seem as if the women were

living longer. Actually, they were living longer only in relation to the date

of diagnosis. An earlier diagnosis would seem to give them a longer survival

rate, when, in fact, they were dying at the same rate as always (see sidebar

on page 14).

Here's another way to keep cancer incidence rates down: Don't count certain

types. For instance, the statistics for two types of breast cancer, ductal

carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and lobula carcinoma in situ (LCIS), are not

included in the U.S. report. In situ carcinomas are an early stage of cancer

in which the tumor is confined to the organ where it first developed. In the

breast, these tumors usually appear either in the milk passages (DCIS) or

milk-producing glands (LCIS). Because these tumors have not invaded

neighboring tissue, the standard treatment of surgery (lumpectomy or full

mastectomy), radiation and chemotherapy (Tamoxifen) is usually effective in

stopping its spread, albeit with horrendous side effects. However, the

incidence of in situ breast cancers has skyrocketed and continues to

increase: The American Cancer Society estimates that 46,400 American women

will have been diagnosed with DCIS or LCIS in 2001. Adding these in situ

cancers to invasive breast cancers would increase the incidence rate by 24%.

Neither does the survey count in situ melanoma skin cancers, with which the

American Cancer Society estimates 31,400 Americans will be diagnosed in 2001.

Adding these cases would increase the rate for skin cancer by 56%. Changes in

diagnostic procedures also affect incidence rates. In explaining fluctuations

in the incidence of prostate cancer, for example, the National Institutes of

Health noted that with the advent of Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA)

screening in the late 1980s, there was a spike in the incidence of prostate

cancer, not because more men were suddenly getting the disease above the

normal increase, but because previously undetected cancers were suddenly

being diagnosed. Now that the prevalent cancers have been detected, what

looks like a decline in incidence in the 1990s, they say, is not due to fewer

men getting prostate cancer, but is a decline relative only to the abnormally

high number of tests and diagnoses made just previous to that period.

So what is the bottom line here? Is cancer declining or is it rising, and by

how much? In talking to the statisticians at the National Cancer Institute

and the American Cancer Society, and checking figures at the Centers for

Disease Control and the National Center for Health Statistics, we found that

even they couldn't agree on a figure. Estimates ranged from a decrease of

0.7% to a decrease of 1.1%.

Taking into account the variables I've mentioned above would bring the

decline close to zero. That would still be an improvement over the appalling

rise during this century. How much of this is due to conventional medical

treatment, how much is due to lifestyle changes and how much is due to the

simple fact that humanity is reaching the saturation point with this disease?

It is true that improved screening tests have helped mortality rates for some

cancers, such as colorectal cancer. Most cancers detected earlier are easier

to treat by both conventional and alternative medicine. Conventional medicine

also has devised protocols that have proved effective in treating certain

other cancers, such as Hodgkin's disease and acute lymphocytic leukemia in

children.

But after 30 years and $40 billion spent on research, how dare the cancer

establishment trumpet these meager accomplishments as " turning the tide "

against cancer! The bottom line is this: The incidence of more types of

cancer continues to increase, and no amount of surgery, radiation,

chemotherapy and even immunotherapy or genetic therapy is ever going to stop

it. The problem is that the medical establishment does not know how to cure

cancer because it doesn't know what causes cancer. These folks don't know

because they don't want to know. If they did face the facts, it would be bad

news to the richest and most powerful corporations in the world, the

pharmaceutical, nuclear, media and financial conglomerates that dominate

conventional medicine and shape our national disease-care policy. Top

executives from these industries are always well-represented on the American

Cancer Society board of directors.

The cancer establishment pays lip service to prevention, but only in terms of

blaming the victims: People smoke or drink too much, they are not exercising

or eating enough fruits and vegetables. These factors are very important. But

one thing you never hear about in terms of prevention is how the poisoning of

our air, water, soil, food and bodies with toxic drugs, heavy metals,

industrial chemicals, pesticides, nuclear and other forms of radiation is a

major cause of cancer. The poisoning of our environment is probably the major

cause of most cancers, and living in our toxic world makes it especially

necessary to do our best to optimize our health individually.

The proof of this has been around a long time, documented in many studies.

For example, in 1973 a study conducted at Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical

School in Jerusalem found that when cancerous breast tissue is compared with

non-cancerous tissue from elsewhere in the same woman's body, the

concentration of toxic chemicals such as DDT and PCBs was " much increased in

the malignant tissue compared to the normal breast and adjacent adipose

[fatty] tissue. " Following public outcry, Israel banned these chemicals from

use on feed for dairy cows and cattle. Over the next ten years, the rate of

breast cancer deaths in Israel declined sharply, with a 30% drop in mortality

for women under 44 years of age and an 8% overall decline. At the same time,

all other known cancer risks, alcohol consumption, fat intake, lack of fruits

and vegetables in the diet, increased significantly. During this period,

worldwide death rates from cancer increased by 4%. The only answer scientists

could find to explain the disparity was the reduced level of environmental

toxins in Israel.

In 1993, faculty members at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York

conducted a blind study of almost 15,000 women to determine whether exposure

to organochlorine pesticides was associated with breast cancer. Their report,

published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, found a fourfold

relative increase in breast cancer risk for women with high levels of

pesticide residues in their bodies. Here's the smoking gun, the evidence that

pesticides cause breast cancer. And yet data such as this is ignored by the

cancer establishment, even when it's published in NCI's official journal!

Writes S. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus of environmental and

occupational medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health:

" The ACS [American Cancer Society] has a longstanding track record of

indifference and even hostility to cancer prevention Å ACS policies are

further exemplified by allocating under 0.1% of its $700 million annual

budget to environmental and occupational causes of cancer. "

The ACS report " Cancer Facts & Figures 2001 " clearly shows this. Under the

heading " Environmental Cancer Risks " is a section called " Unproven Risks, "

containing the following statement: " Continued research regarding pesticide

use is essential for maximum food safety, but pesticides play a valuable role

in sustaining the food supply. When controlled properly, the minimal risks

they pose are overshadowed by the health benefits of a diverse diet rich in

foods from plant sources. "

There is an even more insidious relationship between cancer drugs and

pesticides: Most of the companies producing chemotherapeutic drugs also

manufacture pesticides. AstraZeneca, the inventor of Tamoxifen, which is

vigorously promoted by both the American Cancer Society and the National

Cancer Institute, is the world's largest producer of organochlorine

pesticides, which have been proven to cause breast cancer. When looking at

any study, it is always prudent to learn who paid for it: The results

inevitably promote the funder's goals. So it is with the National Report on

Cancer, which is designed to legitimize the status quo and further the

interests of multinational conglomerates. Unfortunately, although they, in a

sense, paid for the study, it is the one-million-plus Americans diagnosed

with cancer every year who will really pay the price.