1. Yes it is important to work on a cure for the different forms that are plaguing our society today. However, consider the fact that if we worked on preventing these cancers by getting rid of the carcinogens that are causing it to begin with would this not make more sense. Factories are still putting out large amounts of cancer causing pollutants and many of them seem to ignore this fact. While yes they are needed for producing the products we use everyday, they could research methods of alternative production that caused less pollution. There are so many ways to help in this fight that we need to be creative in how we approach the solutions.

Our world has progressed more in the past 100 years than at any other moment in our history. With the brilliant people we have in the world we should be able to refocus some of our energies on a solution for the cancer causing pollutants.

Posted at 2:31PM on Mar 8th 2006 by Kevin Grames

2. I have been diagnosed with Lung Cancer June 2005....I am still here......I guess that is a bonus....considering that there are prominent people who have died recently as a result of Lung Cancer and who were diagnosed around the same time as I was.
I have no idea why I am still here but I do thank god, the doctors, family and friends....because without them I would be six feet under for sure!

It's amazing though that prominent people have to pass from this disease before it becomes an issue.
More funding is needed to fight lung cancer. There are specific fund raisers for Breast Cancer etc....Do we need another for Lung Cancer? Why can't the funds be raised for ALL cancers? I don't know where to begin but as long as I live I would like to take part in making Lung Cancer a topic of Discussion and perhaps initiating some type of fund raising for this disease.

Posted at 5:34PM on Mar 8th 2006 by Patty Levine

3. Although I am not a cancer sufferer, I do have first hand experience of the disease, as my mother died from a number of cancers in early December 2005. Although her primary was bowel cancer, she suffered from bowel, stomach, lung and brain cancer at the time of her death.
Dr. Epstein is certainly to be applauded for working to remove the environmental elements (thought to be) responsible for some cancers. However, are there not also indications that some cancers, especially, I believe, breast cancer, are genetic in nature? Dr. Epstein alludes to the fact that some silver bullets are still required, but I feel he is somewhat remiss in not clearly stating this.
Money still needs to be pumped into this area, but there are also questions of legislation. The US and other governments must, absolutely MUST, allow and actively fund genetic and stem cell research to help find a cure for this horrible disease. Failure to do so is a tacit acceptance that we are not willing to do anything it takes to eradicate this disease. I'm not sure I could sleep at night if I had made that choice.

Posted at 5:01AM on Mar 9th 2006 by Stuart

4. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center is taking a new look at how to evaluate new medicines and treatments for cancer. "We need to rethink how we design and conduct clinical trials in the U.S." says Dr. Donald Berry, one of its scientists. He feels that we should turn the 'statistical method' used to evaluate new drugs on its head, stating that it limits innovation and learning.

What he's talking about is the adoption of the Bayesian method of science because it is more in line with how science works. They are putting this approach to the test with more than 100 cancer-related phase I and II clinical trials being planned or carried out using the Bayesian approach. Of course, the Bayesian method is no stranger to the technology of Cell Culture Assay Testing (Chemosensitivity Testing). In fact, it is what gives credit to the accuracy of assay testing.

Clinical trials test the efficacy (not the accuracy) of a drug. The efficacy of a drug is to produce a desired effect, which is tumor response (shrinkage). Single arm clinical trials provide the tumor response evidence that is the basis for approving new cancer drugs. The Bayesian methology can bring some much-needed "accuracy" to the forefront of clinical trials.

Clearly, more effective cancer therapies are desperately needed, and after 30 years of investigation aimed at intensified multi-agent chemotherapy, we should look for other avenues of study. In an era of ever-increasing numbers of partially effective cancer therapeutics, there is an obvious need for more accurate methologies. We cannot afford any more 'trial-and-error' treatments.

Posted at 10:47AM on Mar 9th 2006 by Gregory D. Pawelski

5. You write that to prevent cancer, "the place to start is by tackling the issues of environmental pollution and eliminating the carcinogens in food, cosmetics, personal care and household products."

You got it wrong. Again.

According to the CDC and the WHO, the top three causes of cancer are 1. smoking, 2. poor diet, including obesity, and 3. lack of exercise.

Here is a table published by the Canadian Cancer Society:
% of cancer deaths attributable to established causes of cancer:
tobacco 30%
adult diet/obesity 30%
sedentary lifestyle 5%
occupational factors 5%
family history of cancer 5%
viruses/other biological agents 5%
perinatal growth factors/growth 5%
reproductive factors 3%
alcohol 3%
socioeconomic status 3%
environmental pollution 2%
ionizing/ultraviolet radiation 2%
prescription drugs/medical procedures 1%
salt-other food additives/contaminants 1%
Source: Harvard Report on Cancer Prevention, Vol.1: Causes of Human Cancer (1996)

http://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/en/
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/dcpc.htm

Posted at 4:51PM on Mar 9th 2006 by EM