I’m saying that because a new study may make a worthwhile statistical point, which is that approximately 170 million years of healthy life were lost worldwide due to cancer in 2008.

That’s pretty arresting. Ouch!

Researchers analyzed cancer registries from around the world and used a measure called disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) to assess not only the impact of fatal cancer, but also the effects of disabilities among cancer survivors, such as breast loss due to breast cancer or infertility due to cervical cancer.

The researchers also determined that men in Eastern Europe had the largest cancer burden worldwide (3,146 age-adjusted DALYs lost per 100,000 men). Among women, the highest burden was in sub-Saharan Africa (2,749 age-adjusted DALYs lost per 100,000 women).

Colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancers were the main contributors to total DALYs in most areas, accounting for 18 percent to 50 percent of total cancer burden.

Infection-related (viral-based) cancers such as liver, stomach and cervical cancers accounted for a larger part of overall DALYs in eastern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (27 percent and 25 percent, respectively)

In addition, the study revealed that improved access to high-quality treatment has not improved survival for a number of common cancers associated with poor outcomes, especially lung, stomach, liver and pancreatic cancers.

Translation: conventional treatment doesn’t work for most cancers (and is therefore not “high quality” care).

This study also shows quite starkly that Cancer is emerging in poorer countries. As they adopt the much-desired Western lifestyle, they get our diseases too.

To be knowledgeable and to beat cancer, you need to read my decisive book Cancer Research Secrets.

[The study was published online Oct. 15, 2012, in The Lancet]

Pancreatic cancer kills more than 250,000 people worldwide each year. Only 3 percent of people diagnosed with the disease live beyond five years. Genes, smoking and type 2 diabetes are all risk factors, but diet is believed to play a role as well.

It’s true that conventional researchers are getting on the trail of diet as a cause of cancer. But they still don’t really get it.

They are thinking in terms of factors in the diet which are “carcinogenic” (cancer causing). It’s what is NOT in the diet that’s carcinogenic! If there are no decent nutrients in the junk diet, how can the body have a healthy defence system and ward off what is really quite a common challenge to the body. Cancer cells, we know, are everywhere but easily mopped up on a daily basis by the immune system.

Plus we know for sure that antioxidants prevent cancer and help in the fight against it, once established.

In the new study, researchers led by Dr. Andrew Hart of the University of East Anglia tracked the long-term health of more than 23,500 people, aged 40 to 74, who entered the study between 1993 and 1997. Each participant kept a food diary that detailed the types, amount and method of preparation for every food they ate for seven days.

After 10 years, 49 participants (55 percent of whom were male) had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. By 2010, the number of participants diagnosed with pancreatic cancer increased to 86 (44 percent were men).

On average, patients survived six months after diagnosis.

The researchers found that people with the highest dietary intake of selenium were half as likely to develop pancreatic cancer as those with the lowest intake. Those who consumed the highest dietary intake of all three antioxidants — selenium and vitamins C and E — were 67 percent less likely to develop pancreatic cancer compared to those with the lowest intake.

That’s down two thirds.

Need I say more?

The study was published online July 23, 2012, in the journal Gut.

It’s still the land of amazing possibilities.

Where else, I wonder, could a 15 year old kid come up with a successful $3 screening test for deadly pancreatic cancer and get it patented? Because that’s what happened….

Jack Andraka, a pupil at a Maryland high school student, came up with a quick basic dip-stick sensor test, using simple diabetic test paper and a $50 meter from Home Depot. He focused specifically on early-stage pancreatic cancer after losing an uncle to the disease.

Pancreatic cancer is so deadly because it’s hard to diagnose until it’s too late. The median (like average) survival time following is only five months from diagnosis. Only 4% of patients make it past the five-year mark, once diagnosed. Chemo, radiation and surgery are ineffective, basically.

A few holistic practitioners, like Nick Gonzalez with his Beard enzyme therapy, claim far better than average survival rates, but the fact remains that pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly because it is so difficult to diagnose early enough to be treatable.

Patients would typically show up after months of “minor” symptoms that the patient tries to ignore, like weight loss, abdominal pain, and chronic itching. Only after months of feeling unwell does the patient finally report for an exam. Jaundice is often the symptom that first alarms the patient.

If the doctor recognizes the symptoms as possible pancreatic cancer, an imaging test is usually needed to confirm the diagnosis. X-rays are no help and these days we do a CT scan, an MRI, or an ultrasound.

If the imaging test shows a mass on the pancreas, most doctors order a biopsy. When the mass is confirmed as pancreatic cancer, it’s way too late.

Andraka’s test changes all that. It’s 168 times faster, 400 times more sensitive, and 100 times more selective than the closest conventional tests being used.

At around $3 it’s also 26,000 times less expensive — and it doesn’t seem to give false positives or false negatives!

In a single-blinded study of 100 patient samples, Andraka’s test gave a 100 percent correct diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

The science is sophisticated and requires nanotube “cylinders” coated with a specific antibody designed to attach to the protein or virus you’re testing for. In this case, they bind to a protein that’s associated with pancreatic cancer cells.

A simple electrical meter tells the technician whether there’s been a shift in the space between the nanotubes, which only happens when the targeted protein or virus comes into contact with the antibodies on the surface of the nanotubes.

Brilliant!

For his efforts, Jack Andraka won the $75,000 Gordon E. Moore award at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.

Obviously, the dollars and suits want his invention (which he’s in the process of patenting). He’ll have to hope the unscrupulous cancer mafia don’t invest the millions of dollars to somehow break his patent. Granting the license of a major laboratory that can fight back is probably the only way to prevent that.

He’ll get very rich and he deserves it.

Oh, and already Andraka is saying his test can be used for early diagnosis of lung and ovarian cancer as well — two more diseases where early diagnosis plays a major role in survival rates.

[SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/22/jack-andraka-15-wins-inte_n_1535741.html]

For more about non-conventional ways to tackle cancer and survive, get my “Cancer Research Secrets”:

Order it here

Know what’s weird here? Hardly anybody is concerned. Doesn’t that say volumes for the fact that they don’t believe their own B*S* anyway? I think it does.

If you had the “latest drug” for pancreatic cancer, that was “proven” to work, but in fact had been tested only on lung cells or ovarian cancer, wouldn’t you worry… just a little?

Well, that’s what patients are now facing. It seems there has been a huge mix up and scientists supposedly doing research into cancer therapies have been testing out on any old cell line, not necessarily the one they claimed. In other words all the science is fraudulent and should be re-done, even if not an intentional mistake (no evidence of that).

The study which stirred all this up is a Dutch study (you’d never get this degree of honesty from an American study or researchers), showing that three of 13 human esophageal cancer cell lines widely used for worldwide research were actually cell lines from lung, colorectal and other malignancies.

Two of the contaminated or misidentified cell lines were involved in research published in more than 100 papers and in the issuance of 11 U.S. patents, which led to clinical trials in patients. Winand N.M. Dinjens, senior author of a short paper published online Jan. 14 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and head of molecular diagnostics in the department of pathology at the Josephine Nefkens Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam in The Netherlands.

Predictably, “experts” are stating that the unintentional misidentification or contamination of the cell lines is not critical and is even a fairly common occurrence. Well, they would say that, woudn’t they, since they got egg all over their faces…

“From the scientific point of view, it’s not a huge deal, but it’s certainly something you’re glad you found out,” said Charles Saxe, scientific director of the Program in Cancer Cell Biology and Metastasis at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta [Yeah, I’ll bet he was real glad]. “This probably doesn’t surprise anybody. The surprise is probably that there were only three.”

The unpleasant surprise for the rest of us, Mr. Saxe, is that you seem to play down mistakes of this order, yet belong to a lobby which wants to jail honest holistic practitioners for staking out part of your money-grabbing territory with something a little less twisted (Saxe works for the corrupt charity known as the American Cancer Society; most countries have a version of this “cancer charity” scam).

“The issue of misidentification/crosscontamination is not a new thing,” said Robert H. Shoemaker, chief of the screening technologies branch at the U.S. National Cancer Institute and author of an editorial accompanying the study, who also did not deem the finding a huge catastrophe.

What? A kid in 2nd or 3rd grade who turned in such sloppy work would be punished by the teacher. If you got an assignment to write about European history and wrote instead about Japanese history, you’d get whalloped— and expect to be, right?

Notice that my concern here is not that this happened or that there was contamination: it’s that nobody in responsible positions seems to give a damn.

It shows just what cycnicism and phoney science is out there. It’s not science: it’s pre-packaging drugs for sale to an unsupecting public.

SOURCE: Jan. 14, 2010, online Journal of the National Cancer Institute; comments from www.medicine.net