Hello Everyone,

Most of you are familiar with Dr. Moss, cancer treatment advisor,
very respected throughout the USA and abroad. I used his services a
year or so ago, and get his newsletter.

In the issue in my Inbox today is information from the Lancet and
other medical publications concerning studies on mammograms and
radiation in breast cancer. He asked for input, and I thought of all
of you on this list, too; perhaps you might also like to respond. It
could be very helpful to a lot of people, and I'm sure your privacy
would be respected. The following is copied/pasted from the
newsletter:

=========================
Your Experiences With Radiation Therapy
========================


I continue to work on my book about the safety and
effectiveness of radiation therapy. I would be very
interested in hearing from readers who have had
interesting experiences (positive or negative) with
radiation therapy, which they feel should be included
in this book. Please reply to
book@.... Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following is the entire newsletter for those of you interested in
it:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Weekly CancerDecisions.com
Newsletter #22 02/05/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------


======================
Mammography Under the Gun
======================


The cancer world has been shaken by a debate over the
merits of screening mammography for breast cancer.
Drs. Peter C. Goetzsche and Ole Olsen of the Nordic
Cochrane Collaboration in Copenhagen reviewed all the
clinical trials for mammography. They concluded, in
the medical journal, the Lancet, that "there is no
reliable evidence that screening for breast cancer
reduces mortality." Last week, a branch of the US
National Cancer Institute agreed with them that the
"evidence justifying mammography was shaky."


The Cochrane Collaboration, the Lancet and the NCI are
bastions of orthodox medicine. Because of this, even
the New York Times joined in the attack (January 27,
2002). In a lead editorial, "Uncertainty Over
Mammograms," the Times questioned the likelihood of
ever getting an honest answer to the question of
whether or not mammography is a worthwhile screening
technique.


"It may not be easy to get a truly independent
review," they wrote. "Mammography has been so
strongly endorsed by the cancer establishment and has
become such a significant source of revenue and
patients for many hospitals and doctors that it may be
difficult to excise without overwhelming evidence that
it is dangerous." (Dangerous? This is odd, since the
Cochrane researchers did not say that mammography is
dangerous, only that it is ineffective.)


How amazing to hear the Times speak of "the cancer
establishment." And that establishment was not slow in
responding. Four days later, ten US medical groups,
including the American Cancer Society and the American
Medical Association, placed a full-page ad in the New
York Times, supporting mammography. The ad coincided
with an article by Claudia Henschke, MD, of Cornell
Medical Center, also published in the Lancet, which
analyzed one 1988 clinical trial from Malmoe, Sweden.
She concluded that mammography did, indeed, reduce
deaths.


How could these researchers be so far apart in
analysis of the same studies? Because Goetzsche and
Olsen looked at all the people who had died of any causes,
while Henschke looked only at people who had
specifically died of breast cancer in one study, and
ignored all other causes of death. This is comparing apples
and oranges. Overall survival is a more meaningful
outcome than disease-specific survival. The reason is
that the treatments themselves may cause deaths. (Even
Henschke concedes that early detection and treatment
may be associated with "somewhat increased mortality"
in earlier years). By failing to take account of all
causes of death one conveys an unduly positive
estimate of the intervention.


Expect to see an escalating campaign to counteract the
negative findings. The establishment will pull out all
of the stops on this one, because mammography is the
centerpiece of the whole orthodox strategy on breast
cancer. On the ABC Evening News, I heard a prominent
doctor from Memorial Sloan-Kettering sternly warn
that women would die if they listened to Goetzsche
and Olsen's arguments. Dr. Tim Johnson, the network's
resident MD, strongly urged women to continue getting
their mammograms (2/1/02). He conveyed the impresson
that even the Lancet now admits that mammography works."


Yet here is the actual opinion of the Lancet's
editor-in-chief, Richard Horton, MD. "The public
believes mammography to be far more effective than it
really is," he said. "Women deserve an accurate
assessment of the benefits or harm from screening
mammography. That means encouraging an open debate
about the issue."


=========================
Your Experiences With Radiation Therapy
========================


I continue to work on my book about the safety and
effectiveness of radiation therapy. I would be very
interested in hearing from readers who have had
interesting experiences (positive or negative) with
radiation therapy, which they feel should be included
in this book. Please reply to
book@.... Thank you.


===========
New Schedule
===========


We are going to publish this newsletter one day later,
so that we can allow more time for proofreading. There
were a few small errors in last week's issue. For
instance, I wrote that ImClone "had never turned a
profit and had just three million dollars in quarterly
earnings." As an astute reader pointed out, this is a
contradiction, since "earnings" are by definition
"profit." What I really meant was that they had three
million in quarterly revenue. In any case, look for
our newsletter on Tuesdays instead of Mondays.


---Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.


------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER


The news and other items in this newsletter are
intended for informational purposes only. Nothing in
this newsletter is intended to be a substitute for
professional medical advice.
-----------------------------------------------

To UN-SUBSCRIBE FROM THIS LIST: Please "HIT REPLY"
and TYPE "REMOVE ME" in the message area of your
email, to be automatically removed from this list.
Thank you.


=====
CLIENTS: Please ask all your questions in the
"Q and A Forum" in the Members Area of
www.cancerdecisions.com. For information on
reports or phone consultations please call
Diane Galbo at 800-980-1234.