Study Says...Uninsured cancer patients die sooner...Duh?

You often hear funny jokes from the likes of Conan O'Brien, Jay Leno, and Stephen Colbert, about apparently wasteful spending on rather ridiculous scientific studies. I can't necessarily argue one way or another, if they were truly wasteful, or even if they are actually ridiculous. Often times, these research studies, which aim to study a rather obvious problem, are actually important, even if they do become the fodder for late night television shenanigans. Often these type of studies will point out a rather obvious findings, but not necessarily at the forefront of societies minds. Sometimes these studies may actually make someone think. When I first read "Uninsured Cancer Patients Twice as Likely to Die," and article about a study supported by the American Cancer Society, my first gut response, was a tirade of sardonic laughter. I was thinking, of course people who don't have proper healthcare are generally not going to survive as long as those people that do.

But I began to think. Lousy healthcare is a problem in this country. Now I'm not using this forum to tout my beliefs on universal healthcare. (But if you are curious, I am both for and against universal healthcare. Real decisive, I know. I believe that everyone should have some form healthcare, but the proposed systems to bring this about are still seriously flawed.)

The American Cancer Society has helped bring light to a serous problem in cancer healthcare. A problem that I feel we can all help with. By donating money to some important cancer foundations, hospitals, and what not, maybe we can lessen this statistic, and give more people a chance to surive this awful disease.

just a little rant...

There is nothing good about fanaticism. It doesn't matter what the person believes in, but fanatics of any belief are the cause of the most terrible atrocities that have befallen the human race. The Spanish Inquisition, the Klu Klux Klan, the holocaust, 9-11, are a few grand examples of global fanaticism that have stained this world with blood. Any hate crime toward any person, is another example of fanaticism that should never be accepted in society, yet they occur at an almost regular basis. What the hell?

While passion in your beliefs, is healthy, it is also healthy to understand where other people are coming from and to show respect for their beliefs and allotment in life as well. Respect is important, if any argument or debate stems from anything else other than respect, (arrogance, ignorance, or hate), then all paths of this world will fall into a ocean of blood and pain. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then fanatics are the one's that decided bypass the road all together and try flying Satan's no frill airline—Air Hell.

Anyone that believes all means justify the ends, then their can be no positive growth. No one likes to be told what to do, talked down to, threatened or attacked. History has proven that, under these situations, people will fight back and deservedly so. But the question is—are these people that are fighting back against fanaticism, fanatics themselves? I guess it depends on where they are coming from, but as long as they are coming from a place of respect and fighting injustice, then no.

As a scientist I have seen fanatics within the science community and without. Any scientist that scoffs at someone's religious beliefs, I feel is a fanatic. Science is about discovery; it's about the search for knowledge. It is not about disregarding things that science doesn't understand. Not believing in creationism doesn't mean it doesn't exist, even if we can't measure it through science. On the flipside, evolution could have occurred as well. A lot of scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution, although the evidence is incomplete and further research needs to be done. Personally I cannot attest to whether one theory of creation is more accurate than the other. Maybe everyone is wrong, and this whole thing we call creation was simply my own personal psychotic break. Whatever, it doesn't matter.

Fanaticism and arrogance doesn't fit in the science community anymore than it does anywhere else. With that, there is also a strong anti-science fanaticism that is occurring throughout the world. I feel that there is a strong perception that scientists are trying to disprove and disavow people's beliefs. This is simply not true. Scientists are striving to study the world and the universe in a more or less unbiased tangible way. This doesn't always succeed as we are all human, bias and prejudice occurs everywhere (like the jackass stupid remarks by James Watson), but in general we strive for knowledge. To be anti-science, is to be anti-progress and pro-ignorance. Ignorance is not bliss. Sadly, there are many groups, religious and otherwise that will abuse peoples ignorance, using manipulative techniques to control the thoughts and beliefs of their followers, something that has been occurring since the beginning of time. One example of this type of group is PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). I am are for ethical animal treatment and if one day we can completely do away with animal testing, I am all for it, but as of now, animal testing is very important, to a degree in research. The approaches of this group are borderline harassment and borderline terrorist. PETA's recruiting methods can be as bad as any extreme group; often going after children as recruitment prospects. An example of this can be observed with PETAkids.com or wearing cute costumes near playgrounds and schools (an example of this could be seen in the HBO special I am Animal: The Story of Ingrid Newkirk and PETA). While I'm not attacking the beliefs of PETA at all, PETA has done some good but it also has done some harm. Also any group with an approach to recruit kids, often at a very impressionable, an age before the children know better, before they are old enough to make an informed decision or be able to make a proper debate or even question things. Sadly I feel if any dogma needs to take such means to pull children into a group, it may not be a very strong belief at all. This is a tactic often used by many groups, not only PETA such as the tobacco companies.

Just a quick post...

Just a thought with all weird diet fads going on, some suggesting that fats aren't very bad for you and it is only carbohydrates that are bad for you. Maybe you should read this article from science news: High-fat Diet Makes Mice Susceptible to Liver Injury.

I'm not touting to be an expert on diet, but unfortunately many people who create these fad diets are not either. Their science is also often very poor. My only suggestion is to listen to yourself and listen to your doctor. No one knows your body better than you, and eat what makes you feel healthy (everyone is different). Also always do things in moderation. Just before you jump on any fad diet, make sure it is safe.

A little warning involving clinical trials and insurance.

It has only been recently that some states have passed laws and regulations surrounding payments of health insurance in connection to clinical trials. Often, insurance companies will not pay for new, controversial, or experimental procedures which include clinical trials. Unfortunately, many insurance companies will not even pay for normal routine healthcare (doctor visits, tests etc.), if they feel it is connected to a clinical trial. This type of care which includes such things as prescriptions, doctor visits, tests, etc. would normally be covered by the by the insurance company. Why do insurance companies do this? I’m not entirely sure, but it may be due to the fact that often these companies can and will find a way not to pay money for someone health care, even if the patients deserves and needs it (1, 2).

So before you decide to join a clinical trial, talk to your insurance company and make sure you understand their policy. Also talk to the hospital that is facilitating the clinical trial and make sure they are answering your questions about insurance coverage. If the researchers care about the trial, I’m sure they would help you find out any information that they can. Finally make sure you check out the laws of your state surrounding insurance coverage and clinical trials. If laws don’t exist in your state that make insurance companies pay for routine care whether it is involved in a clinical trial or not, then maybe you can start writing to your state legislature and hopefully lobby for changes in the law. A patient shouldn’t have to pay for healthcare, if all that has changed is that they are in a clinical trial. It’s simply not right.

1)www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_6_2x_State_Laws_Regarding_Clinical_Trials.asp
2)www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/learning/insurance-coverage

Fungi isn't all that bad... seriously

Doug Kaufmann’s article The Role of Fungus in Cancer is an example of the problems that I see with many articles and expert advice that often is exposed to the general public, through mass media that includes the internet, radio, as well as television. My criticism is not to take away from his body of work, nor it a personal attack on his character; however, I have a few qualms about how he has chosen to relay this information about the role of fungus in cancer.

An expert in his field of nutrition, Kaufmann has made some of important points surrounding diet, cancer and fungal infections. In particular, there is indeed evidence that fungus and diet play an important role in cancer. In my own research, looking at dietary supplements and nutritional restriction, I too have found a connection with diet and cancer. My major criticisms of this article, is that Kauffman has largely over-analyzed his findings, making some apparent far-fetched claims, particularly in definitely suggesting that fungus is involved with cancer. I understand this is an opinion, but as an opinion article goes, references beyond 1963 would be nice.

Also because an anti-fungal drug shows an effect against cancer, this doesn’t automatically mean that the fungus caused the cancer, or that, in fact, that a fungal infection might be mistaken for cancer. There are examples of anti-fungal medicine that has anti-cancer properties, separate from their abilities to kill fungus. Rapamycin for example, which was originally found as an anti-fungal drug, has shown to have important anti-cancer properties inhibiting important signaling in numerous cancers including bone tumors and prostate cancer (1,2,3). Many examples that Kaufmann mentioned about patients being put on an anti-fungal medicine which caused the cancer to go away, could very well suggest that the anti-fungal drug had an anti-cancer mechanism as it does that the cancer was actually a fungal infection. Far more data should be gathered before any true claims can be made. Furthermore, an extract from ganoderma lucidum, a fungus that has been used medicinally for years in Asia, has shown to have anti-cancer properties in prostate cancer cells, suggesting that all fungi are not bad.

By simply stating that fungus is probably the cause or even a huge cause of cancer without the proper references could be very misleading. Even though there is evidence to support this finding, there is no evidence that suggests how wide spread this phenomenon may or may not be. Unfortunately, after reading such articles, many people may begin to panic needlessly about something that may not be even a problem, at least not as severe as Kauffman suggests. This panic can cause a lot of problems with healthcare as well, making it difficult for physicians to diagnose properly. What I hope is that physicians and researchers will not take anything for granted, looking down all possible avenues in order to find an eventual treatment and cure for all cancer and other diseases, yet not, with every new finding, think it’s the next best thing since someone thought it a good idea to bring a sharp knife to a big loaf of bread.

1. Chen, J. and Fang, Y. A novel pathway regulating the mammalian target of rapamycin(mTOR) signaling. (2002) Biochem Pharmacology, vol 64, issue 4, pg 1071-1077.

2. Masiello, D., et.al. Combining an mTOR Antagonist and receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of prostate cancer. (2007) Cancer Biology and Therapy, vol 6, issue 2, pg 1538-4047.

3. Ory, B., et.al. mTOR inhibtors(Rapamycin and derviatives) and nitrogen containing bisphosphonates: Bi-functional compunds for the treatment of bone tumours. (2007) Current Medicinal Chemistry. vol 14, number 13, pg 1381-1387