Breast Cancer - Women Health Information Page

The odds of a woman getting breast cancer some time during her life at around 1 in 8, and the odds of getting it have increased over the past few decades, although some say they are leveling off finally. Lucky for women, a breast cancer diagnosis is no longer a guaranteed death sentence; thanks to early detection and better treatments, more women are surviving breast cancer than ever before. Those of us who have been through it consider it a life-changing event, but not necessarily a life-ending one. It is a scary disease, however, no doubt about it.

You will soon be able to read "One Woman's Story" about my own trip through breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, written in 1992, and published in the Phoenix Gazette, through this site, but in the meantime, there are many more personal and more recent stories out there on the web - you can use the GoTo.Com search box at the bottom of this page to find them by typing in breast cancer stories.

You can read all about the Most Common Myths About Breast Cancer . Despite the work of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, many company campaigns such as Avon and Weight Watchers, and books such as Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book, women still believe the myths about breast cancer. Some general information about breast cancer can be found at these sites:

• Breast Cancer Resource Locator - Start here. ThirdAge, the Web for grownups, shows you where to look to find everything you need to know about Breast Cancer. Perfect for adults new to the 'net.

• Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization - Breast health information, information if you are a man who has breast cancer, information in Spanish, and links to other breast cancer pages

• National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations A network of breast cancer organizations that provide information, assistance and referral to anyone with questions about breast cancer, with a network of more than 375 organizations

• Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation - Breast cancer treatment, news and issues, and the race for the cure, and BreastCancerInfo.com from the Komen Foundation The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation is dedicated to education and research on breast cancer causes, treatment and the search for a cure.

• Breast Cancer Information Center - Breast cancer, self-examinations and mammography, new research on breast cancer treatments, breast cancer centers, and clincal trials

• Dr. Susan Love's Breast Cancer and Menopause website

• Breast Doctor for information on breast cancer and breast cancer treatment Award-winning site written by doctors for breast cancer patients and their families. Hundreds of pages of easy to read information on benign and malignant breast disease, diagnosis, treatments and prognosis. Expert editorial board.

Diagnosis: Early detection saves lives.

Mammograms might not be pleasant, but they save lives by finding cancers at their smallest, earliest stages, when they are still easy to treat. My cancer was found by mammogram when it was just specks of "microcalcification" indicating something was going on - far too small to be found by any other method. Breast self-examination performed monthly is also a highly recommended tactic for finding breast cancer; if you find something different, see your doctor, who will do a more thorough exam. If the doctor feels the results of the mammogram or breast exam are suspicious, you may be referred for a biopsy, which is a diagnostic test for the presence of cancer. For help reading your biopsy report in all its arcane medical glory, first ask your doctor for an explanation - and take notes. If you're still confused, Pathwise can explain your pathology (biopsy) report in language you can understand so you can be involved in your own health care.

Signs of breast cancer:

Early breast cancer usually does not cause pain, and with the exception of Paget's Disease, a rare form of breast cancer on the nipple and areola, does not usually show up on the surface of the breast. But as the cancer grows, it can cause changes that women should watch for. These include:

• a lump or thickening in or near the breast or in the underarm area;
• a change in the size or shape of the breast;
• a discharge from the nipple;
• a change in the color or feel of the skin of the breast, areola, (colored skin around the nipple) or nipple - possibly dimpled, puckered, or scaly..

Current treatments:

Radical mastectomy, in which the breast, lymph nodes and chest muscles are removed, is no longer the treatment of choice; modified radical mastectomy saves the chest muscles and makes reconstruction easier for women who choose to rebuild their breast. For many women, breast removal is no longer necessary; breast-saving lumpectomy and radiation with chemotherapy have been shown to be fully effective treatment for many types of breast cancer. This is the treatment I went through, and while I must admit that I've had better times in my life, it was not the worst ordeal I can imagine, and I didn't even lose my hair. (And treatments are better now than they were in 1992, since medicine charges ahead so quickly.) Post-surgical pain in breast and armpit, and restoring feeling to my armpit where lymph nodes were taken, were the hardest part of it all for me. Visualizing nerve and muscle cells reaching towards each other and knitting together helped, as did regular soft stroking of the areas with scars.

The type and intensity of chemotherapy treatments will vary with the type, stage and location of the cancer, and many women do lose their hair, but the hair grows back and your life can continue. Studies have even found that with some kinds of chemo treatments, wearing an ice pack on your head the day of treatment and the day after treatment can help prevent the hairloss. Nausea is mostly a thing of the past during chemo, since there are now powerful drugs given before the chemotherapy to prevent it. Radiation therapy isn't too bad, just exhausting and after a while you have a sunburned breast.

Current studies indicate that new ways of treating cancer might include cutting off blood supply to the tumor, a much less invasive way of treating cancer than current methods.

Don't face it alone!

If you are diagnosed with breast cancer, you need community and emotional support - you need to talk to people about it, rather than hiding the fact; this kind of verbal sharing has been found to help support your immune system, which needs all the help it can get under this kind of stress. A "fighting spirit" has been found to significantly increase survival in cancer, so don't just be a doormat, become an active participant in your own treatment, and refuse to take to your bed as a victim. And because you will have questions and some bad days, a support group is often helpful; find them through your local hospital or your local branch of the American Cancer Society. Finally, don't be afraid to ask friends and family members to take on some of the chores and tasks you normally handle. If you don't take care of yourself by asking them to do things for you now, you might not be around to do it for them later!

Some on-line resources for support:

• Breast Cancer Online Support Community - Join the Breast Cancer Online Community to experience support groups, chats and forums related to breast cancer. Submit health questions to our experts; receive newsletters; Ask the doctor.

• Celebrating Life - African American women speak out about breast cancer, with a questions and answers section, breast self exam, a foundation profile and links to organizations and support groups .

• Breast Cancer: Making Preparations - Read the latest breast cancer information, discuss with other women, and learn about breast cancer surgery.

• Breast Cancer Answers Project - their mission is to improve access to and awareness of breast cancer clinical trial information, support patients receiving treatment, and provide other information and assistance.

• Healthy Young Attitude - Healthy Young Attitude is a resource for young adults with cancer: find information on cancer diagnosis, cancer therapy, and cancer treatment; share a story with our cancer support group; talk to other young adults and twentysomethings with cancer.

Prevention, risks and causes:

We don't know how to cure cancer, we don't know how to prevent cancer, and we don't really know what causes or triggers it, although we are getting more insight into various causes of cancer. Having a first degree relative (mother, sister, daughter) with breast cancer approximately doubles a woman's risk, and having two first degree relatives with breast cancer will increased her risk 5 times. Breast cancer risk is increased in women who have a particular gene (BRCA), which is more common in Jewish women of eastern European (Ashkenazi) descent. Recently, however, researchers revised risk estimates for women with "Breast Cancer Genes," saying that women who have inherited the BRCA genes may be at much lower risk of developing the disease than previously believed. However, most women with breast cancer do not have the gene, and do not necessarily have a family history of breast cancer. While all women are at risk of breast cancer, women of color are more likely to die of it. Some statistically significant links to breast cancer have been found in women who had their first menstrual periods early and their first children late (or not at all); in women who had high-fat diets during their adolescent years (but no real link to current diet has been shown); and there may be a connection to environmental estrogens in the form of exposure to pesticides, which have been found in water supplies and topsoil. There is a controversy about whether there is a cancer-prone (Type C) personality type which is a person who takes care of others before self, who tends to swallow or "stuff" big emotions like anger rather than feeling and expressing them - a description of the role of women in most cultures! On the other hand, although it has been the subject of extensive research and even more controversy and discussion, there is no convincing evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous abortion. Birth control pills apparently do not cause cancer and can help prevent other serious diseases in women.

What does all this mean for prevention?

There isn't a lot you can do about when you get your first period, other circumstances and considerations determine age at childbearing, and you cannot change your family gene pool. But there are things you can do to cut your risk from breast cancer:

• Teenaged young women should definitely cut back on the junk food and all women should eat healthy anti-cancer foods such as those shown in the foods article above - for many reasons, not the least of which is the risk of cancer down the road.

• Don't smoke. Lung cancer is not the only cancer linked to tobacco smoking.

• You cannot control pesticidal spraying that others do in fields and farmland, but you can keep from adding to the environmental burden by avoiding the use of toxic pesticides in your own gardening. For pest control, stick to Insecticidal Soap and Dormant Oil or pyrethrin dusts and sprays in the garden (or plant calendula, otherwise known as pot marigolds, which contain pyrethrin), dunk houseplants in a full sink or wipe or spray them with alcohol, and use biological pest control methods in the garden, such as beneficial insects and bacteria like BT.

• You can start taking care of your own needs through assertive "I talk" to get what you need from others without resorting to manipulation or aggressive behavior: "I need you to do this..." "I feel like XXXX when you YYYY" "I want you to know that I don't like ...." Remember, asking for what you need isn't "bad" or "selfish," and you have a right to take care of yourself - and to expect that those who share your life will help you.

• Let yourself feel and express your "big" emotions, especially anger. Anger is a scary emotion, but it is telling you something: you are not getting what you need and you feel upset. Fix whatever it is causing the anger. Don't swallow it, or "stuff it" or it can come back and eat away at you, tying up your stomach in knots, and it can resurface in the form of depression, whether or not there is a link to cancer.

• If you are at high risk of breast cancer for genetic or lifestyle reasons, ask your physician whether it is appropriate for you to take Tamoxifen, which has been approved by the FDA for use in the US as a preventive drug for high-risk women.

• Exercise. It's good for your bones and your health in general, and it may help you strengthen your immune system.

Use Of Smokeless Tobacco May Lead To Breast Cancer, Wake Forest Team Reports

John G. Spangler, M.D., M.P.H., told the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, meeting in Orlando, "These preliminary data are the first to document an apparent relationship between smokeless tobacco use and breast cancer."

The study, paid for by the National Cancer Institute, was conducted among Eastern Band Cherokee women 18 and older who live on tribal lands in Western North Carolina and use smokeless tobacco, also called snuff. The investigators found that the risk of breast cancer increased almost eightfold.

The increase "suggests that smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to cigarette smoking," said Spangler, assistant professor of family and community medicine.

However, he cautioned that because of the small number of cases, the results "should be confirmed in other studies."

The team found that that 8 percent of Cherokee women currently use smokeless tobacco.

Spangler and his colleagues have been tracking use of smokeless tobacco in North Carolina for several years and have already reported high rates of smokeless tobacco use among North Carolina women - particularly Native American women.

"Although smokeless tobacco use among women nationally is only 0.6 percent, 2.5 percent of women here in North Carolina use smokeless tobacco," Spangler said. "Other investigators have shown that 9 percent of all women in Pitt County use smokeless tobacco. These are extremely high rates compared to the nation."

Ironically, breast cancer mortality rates in North Carolina between 1993 and 1997 were lower among Native American women overall than among whites or African American women.

But when breast cancer is measured just in Lumbee women, the breast cancer mortality rate is 23.2 per 100,000, which is between the 18.9 per 100,000 mortality rate among white North Carolina women and the 26.6 per 100,000 rate among African Americans.

The investigators found that 23 percent of Lumbee women in Robeson County, N.C. used smokeless tobacco, which is 38 times the national average. Among Lumbee women 65 and over, the rate was even higher -- 51 percent - which is 85 times the national average for women

Spangler said that since the breast cancer mortality rate among Lumbee women is higher than the average among Native American women, that "lends support to the hypothesis that use may relate to development of breast cancer."

He added that other studies may confirm that breast cancer could be reduced by eliminating smokeless tobacco.

Editor's Note: The original news release can be found at http://www.wfubmc.edu/cgi-bin/newsEdit2/viewNews.cgi?article=957553688&Department;=OtherNews

  Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Wake Forest University School Of Medicine for journalists and other members of the public. If you wish to quote from any part of this story, please credit Wake Forest University School Of Medicine as the original source. You may also wish to include the following link in any citation:

Study: Mutation increases risk of cancer from secondhand smoke

WASHINGTON -- The combination of secondhand smoke and a missing gene may make women up to six times more likely to develop lung cancer if they live with a smoker, a study found.

Published today in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the study said an analysis of tissue from a group of Missouri female lung cancer patients who lived in smoking households found that those lacking a specific gene were 2.6 times to 6 times more likely to develop lung cancer.

"This is a small pilot study that needs to be confirmed and extended," said Dr. William P. Bennett of the City of Hope National Medical Center, Los Angeles. "But if our findings are correct, then ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) may be significantly more dangerous than previously thought."

The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer by 20 percent, Bennett said.

"If our study is correct, for half of the population that lacks this gene, then ETS exposure is a much more significant risk," he said. "The risk is more than doubled."

Bennett is first author of the JNCI study.

Dr. Clarice R. Weinberg of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences said the study is intriguing because it supports the idea that a gene deletion and ETS may work together to increase the risk of lung cancer.

However, Weinberg said the study has a weakness because it only examined lung cancer patients. To validate the conclusions for the general population, she said, a larger study is needed that compares lung cancer patients with a randomly selected group of people without the disease.

The study is based on the analysis of tissue samples from 106 Missouri women, mostly rural housewives, who had never smoked but who had been diagnosed with lung cancer. The tissue was tested for the presence of a gene called GSTM1, which is known to inactivate carcinogens found in tobacco smoke.

"This gene is deleted in 50 percent of Caucasians," said Bennett. "It is a very common inherited mutation."

Researchers interviewed the women to gather information about their exposure at home to ETS.

The study found that "for those who were exposed to secondhand smoke and who had the deletion of this gene, their lung cancer risk was increased 2.6-fold over those who had the gene and no ETS exposure," said Bennett.

As the exposure to ETS increased, so did the risk for women with the gene deletion. Bennett said, for instance, that such women who were exposed to 55 pack years of ETS were six times more likely to get lung cancer. A pack year of ETS exposure comes from living in a household where one pack of cigarettes is smoked daily for a year. Five packs smoked daily, perhaps by several individuals, would give 55 pack years in 11 years.

Bennett said the fact that the study involved only women was not by design, but by happenstance.

"The study was designed to look at nonsmokers with lung cancer," he said. "It just turns out that there are a lot more women nonsmokers (with lung cancer) than men."

Bennett said the study must be considered only a preliminary finding because the sample size, at 106, was small. He said there is a need for a larger, more comprehensive study.

Attorneys for the tobacco industry have claimed in lawsuits that there is no scientific proof that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer. Lawsuits testing the issue have had mixed results. Juries in Indiana and Mississippi last year ruled that nonsmokers or their families were not entitled to damages from the tobacco industry as the result of illness alleged to have been caused by secondhand smoke.

A federal judge in North Carolina ruled last year in favor of the tobacco industry in a lawsuit challenging the EPA's 1993 report that linked secondhand smoke and cancer. An appeal is expected.

But also in 1998, the tobacco industry reached a $349 million dollar settlement in a class-action secondhand smoke lawsuit brought by airline flight attendants.

   Affiliations: National Cancer Institute 

Millikan RC, Pittman GS, Newman B, et al.: Cigarette smoking, N-acetyltransferases 1 and 2, and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 7(5): 371-378, 1998.

To examine the effects of smoking and N-acetylation genetics on breast cancer risk, we analyzed data from an ongoing, population-based, case-control study of invasive breast cancer in North Carolina. The study population consisted of 498 cases and 473 controls, with approximately equal numbers of African-American and white women, and women under the age of 50 and age 50 years or older. Among premenopausal women, there was no association between current smoking [odds ratio (OR), 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5-1.5] or past smoking (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.6-1.6) and breast cancer risk. Among postmenopausal women, there was also no association with current smoking (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7-2.0); however, a small increase in risk was observed for past smoking (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4). For postmenopausal women who smoked in the past, ORs and 95% CIs were 3.4 (1.4-8.1) for smoking within the past 3 years, 3.0 (1.3-6.7) for smoking 4-9 years ago, and 0.6 (0.3-1.4) for smoking 10-19 years ago. Neither N-acetyltransferase 1 (NAT1) nor N-acetyltransferase 2 (NAT2) genotype alone was associated with increased breast cancer risk. There was little evidence for modification of smoking effects according to genotype, except among postmenopausal women. Among postmenopausal women, ORs for smoking within the past 3 years were greater for women with the NAT1*10 genotype (OR, 9.0; 95% CI, 1.9-41.8) than NAT1-non*10 (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 0.9-7.2) and greater for NAT2-rapid genotype (OR, 7.4; 95% CI, 1.6-32.6) than NAT2-slow (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 0.4-8.0). Future studies of NAT genotypes and breast cancer should investigate the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, diet, and other exposures.

Race for Cure

Should Include Attention to Prevention

Regardless of where one stands on abortion, for the sake of women�s lives the medical facts can not be ignored.

Washington, D.C.�Race for the Cure takes place tomorrow to raise money and awareness for breast cancer. But its purpose will be incomplete if it does not include information on one of the scientifically proven causes of breast cancer: abortion.

Nearly 200,000 women suffer from breast cancer�more than twice the number of women infected with AIDS. Clearly, breast cancer is a serious women�s health issue. But it is irresponsible to focus solely on cures when solid proof for prevention is available.

Researchers have uncovered a link between breast cancer and abortion in studies conducted in the United States, Japan, Denmark, Italy and Russia. One study showed that women who had one or two abortions before a full-term pregnancy doubled their risk, while women who had three or more abortions tripled their risk. Similar conclusions were found from studies conducted in the U.S., Israel, Canada, France, Denmark and Japan.

"I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It�s not a matter of believing, it�s a matter of what is."

�Dr. Janet Dailing (who is pro-choice) of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, who has reached the conclusion linking breast cancer to abortion

Neglecting to inform women of the link between abortion and breast cancer could mean thousands of them pay the price with their lives.

MEDICAL IMAGING UPDATE
Mammography and ultrasound best for detecting breast cancer

By Pippa Wysong

Ultrasound picks up tumours in dense breasts

CHICAGO - Women should not only get screened for breast cancer with mammography, but they should have ultrasound studies done, some researchers contend.

Ultrasound studies are good at picking up many of the cancers missed by mammograms, especially those which occur in women who have dense breasts.

A study was done in which 18,005 women underwent three types of screening for breast cancer: mammography, ultrasound and physical exam.

A total of 7,202 (40%) had dense breasts. Of those who had cancer from that group, many had early cancer that was missed by mammography alone.

Results of the study were presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America by Dr. Thomas Kolb, a radiologist from the Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Centre in New York City.

"No study has quantified the sensitivities for all three screening modalities in a single patient population," he said.

In the study population, 161 were found to have breast cancer, 83% of whom were identified through mammography, and 63% identified through use of ultrasound. Physical exam was able to pick up on only 30% of cases.

Of the women who had dense breasts, 80 cancers were identified in 75 women. Mammography alone helped find 56 (76%) of those cancers, but when combined with ultrasound, 75 (94%) of the cancers were found. The remaining five cancers were found through physical exam, Dr. Kolb said.

How well cancers could be detected with use of mammography was related to breast density. The more dense the breast, the less sensitive the test.

"Breast density was the most significant factor with mammography," Dr. Kolb said. "As density increases, sensitivity decreases."

This is reversed with ultrasound. The test became more sensitive as breast density increased. Women who had breasts that were of a grade I density (more fatty breasts which are the least dense type), mammography detected 97.5% of cancers. With grade IV density (more glandular, dense breasts), the sensitivity dropped to 55%. For breast density of grade I, ultrasound had a sensitivity of 53%, but jumped to 75.1% for breasts that were grade IV.

Ultrasound, used as a screening tool alongside mammography can bring the number of cancers detected up, especially in women who have dense breasts, he said.

In a second presentation at the conference, Dr. Beverly Hashimoto, deputy chief of radiology at the Virginia Mason Medical Centre in Seattle described the merits of using high frequency ultrasound.

While most calcifications can be detected by mammogram, ultrasound is helpful when it comes to figuring out whether the calcifications are cancerous and should be biopsied, she said.

"With high frequency ultrasound, we can find smaller and smaller tumours."

She presented findings from a study of 220 women who had abnormal mammograms. Of that group, 86 were found to have abnormal clusters of calcifications which didn't show any masses on mammograms.

A total of 24 of those women were identified, histologically, as having breast cancer, Dr. Hashimoto said.

Of those 24 cancers, ultrasound was successfully used to identify 20 of them as being cancerous. Out of those 20, 12 were found to have masses which showed up on ultrasound.

While high frequency ultrasound machines are more expensive than the devices most hospitals use, they can catch some of the smaller tumours, and unusual calcifications which may be missed by mammogram. Centres which do breast cancer screening "should have high quality equipment," she said.

The device used in the study had a 8-12 mHZ transducer.

INFORMATION ON CANCER PREVENTION IS NOT REACHING WOMEN

By PCRM (Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine)

 Only one in five women is aware of the role of dietary factors in breast cancer, and this dismal figure is improving only very slowly, according to a new study by PCRM�s Neal D. Barnard, M.D., and Andrew Nicholson, M.D. The study, published in Preventive Medicine, was based on telephone surveys by Opinion Research Corporation in 1991 and 1995.

When asked, �What steps, if any, are you aware of that women can take to lower their chances of developing breast cancer?� only 20 percent of women cited dietary factors as playing any role in 1991. Four years later, the figure had risen to 23 percent, a difference that is not statistically significant. In contrast, self-examination and mammography were cited as �preventive� steps by 55 percent and 37 percent, respectively, of women in 1995, in spite of the fact that neither one prevents cancer but rather simply detects existing cancers.

Awareness of the role of diet in breast cancer was particularly low in women younger than 25, above age 64, or in lower socioeconomic groups. Only 11 percent of those with incomes below $15,000 and 3 percent of those with less than a high school education were aware of the diet-cancer connection.

Additional questions were asked with more prompting to see whether the numbers improved. When subjects were asked to consider dietary steps specifically, rather than mammograms or any other factor, the number citing reducing intake of fat or meat or increasing intake of vegetables, fruit, fiber, or vegetarian meals increased to 37 percent in 1991 and to 52 percent in 1995. This increase is significant, although these figures still pale in comparison with the number of Americans who are aware of the links between diet and heart disease.

When subjects were asked a yes-or-no question as to whether they had ever heard that low-fat diets might reduce the risk of breast cancer, 58 percent of subjects said �yes� in the 1995 survey. Again, differences in response rates by age, race, income, and education were apparent.

Countries where fattier diets are consumed have much higher breast cancer rates, presumably because fat in foods increases the amount of estrogen in the blood. Fiber reduces estrogen levels. Federal cancer authorities hold that the evidence linking diet and breast cancer is strong and publish limited informational materials for the public. However, mammography and self-examination have been much more aggressively promoted by governmental agencies and private groups.

The survey did not address the possibility that some women were aware of theories linking diet and breast cancer but did not believe the evidence. A large study of nurses conducted by Harvard University, for example, failed to detect any relationship between dietary fat and breast cancer, a result that has been attributed to the fact that the subjects in that study did not vary greatly in their dietary habits. International comparisons and case-control studies show an important role for diet in breast cancer.

Other studies have shown that knowledge about cancer prevention is far from universal. The 1987 National Health Interview Survey asked subjects to name diseases that might be related to what people eat and drink. Less than half (48 percent) mentioned cancer of any type. A surprising 70 percent thought their diets were already healthful and there was no reason to change. A separate survey, conducted in 1991, found that 60 percent of respondents were confident that they already knew how to choose healthy food. Yet only 8 percent thought that five or more daily servings of fruit and vegetables were needed for good health, and only 40 percent thought that eating fruits and vegetables would help prevent cancer.

CANCER

Losing a War that Could be Easily Won.

More and more evidence points to the fact that something is mortally wrong with the way the biomedical industry is trying to find cures for the many diseases that afflict Americans. After decades of spending ungodly amounts of money on research and being bombarded on a daily basis with news of impending �breakthroughs� in the national crusade against cancer, we are now told that more Americans are dying from cancer than ever before.

It is this kind of catastrophy (the same is happening with practically all the other diseases) that has brought the wealthiest health care system in history to its knees. The consequences of this collapse in terms of economic devastation can only be partially measured: In 1994 alone, the U.S. spent 1.15 trillion dollars on what we still euphemistically call �health care� (and it is increasing at the rate of at least 16 percent annually � 160 billion a year). The losses in connection with a lack of productivity, for example, are also astronomical; however, they are much more difficult to measure. What this collapse means in terms of human suffering for us all is, of course, incalculable.

In a September 30, 1994 front page story entitled, �U.S. Panel Urges Full Overhaul of Cancer Research� the Los Angeles Times reported that a 15-member federal advisory panel, a subcommittee of the National Cancer Advisory Board (made up of representatives from cancer research, medicine, nursing, industry, communications and patient advocacy) recommended a sweeping overhaul of the nation�s anti-cancer campaign. This is what transpired from the subcommittee�s report to Congress:
� One in three people will be diagnosed with cancer during a lifetime and an estimated 1.2 million new cancer cases will be added in 1994 to the 8 million Americans alive today who already have been diagnosed.
� The incidence of cancer has gone up 18 percent and the death rate 7 percent since Nixon declared the �war on cancer� in 1971.
� Unless things change dramatically, cancer will surpass heart disease as the number one killer of Americans within five years.
� The panel was asked by Congress to evaluate why cancer is still on the rise after $23 billion has been spent on research since 1971.

A WAKE-UP CALL

Interestingly, this is not the first time that individuals from within the establishment have issued a big time wake-up call. There have been many others over the years, including John C. Bailar III of the Harvard School of Public Health and Elaine Smith of the University of Iowa Medical Center who co-wrote the article entitled, �Progress Against Cancer?� published in the May 8, 1986 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.

At the time, the article in question made considerable noise by stating that the war on cancer was being lost. These are some of the statements made by doctors Bailar and Smith in the article�s conclusions:

�Age-adjusted mortality rates have shown a slow and steady increase over several decades and there is no evidence of a recent downward trend. In this clinical sense we are losing the war against cancer.

"The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure.

"Why is cancer the only major cause of death for which age-adjusted mortality rates are still increasing?

"On the basis of past medical experience with infectious and other nonmalignant diseases, we suspect that the most promising areas are in cancer prevention rather than treatment. Research opportunities in areas of cancer prevention may well merit sharp increases in support, even if this requires that current treatment related research must be substantially curtailed. Certainly, the background of past disappointments must be dealt with in an objective, straightforward, and comprehensive manner before we go much further in pursuit of the cure that always seems just out of reach."

As with the many other diseases that remain uncured, the obvious question with cancer is this: After spending billions and billions of dollars and decades of massive effort on the part of the leading medical and research institutions in the country, how is it possible that not only have we failed to stop cancer but, in fact, we are in worse shape than ever before?

It is clear at this point that the problem has got to lie at the premise level. In other words, the foundation of cancer research has got to be flawed to the core. Only such a fundamental error can account for a disaster of this magnitude.

What could this error be? What is at the root of the total failure of biomedical research? Doctors Bailar and Smith provide only a partial answer to this vital question when they valiantly bring up the total lack of interest in prevention that pervades the current system. They point out that the medical/research community is only interested in �treatment-related research� meaning, of course, that it only steps in when cancer has already occurred.

Intervening after the fact is bad enough, but doctors Bailar and Smith go a step further: They clearly state that �treatment-related research� is not only extremely unwise, but that it has not worked at all. What doctors Bailar and Smith failed to say, however, is that �treatment-related research� is based almost in its entirety on experimental research on animals, which is the very reason for its failure.

PREVENTION: THE REACHABLE DREAM

There are only two ways to deal with human health problems: Prevention and clinical research. By far the most intelligent choice is to devote the lion�s share of our resources to prevention.

There is no doubt that most cancers are directly related to our diet. Massive evidence points to the fact that a vegan diet (no animal products whatsoever) is the best way to prevent cancer, along with the avoidance of alcohol and tobacco. Environmental carcinogens are also an important source of cancer. A truly serious program focusing on prevention would eliminate incalculable amounts of suffering and would save trillions of dollars.

Unfortunately, prevention poses two �problems:� The medical/research/pharmaceutical chemical empire is not in the least interested in prevention because it knows full well that it cannot make a red cent out of healthy people. The only one who benefits from prevention is the individual. But, in general, prevention is not embraced by those who would have the most to gain from it either: the public at large.

Over the past 50 years, the biomedical empire has done such a fantastic job of discrediting prevention (by convincing people that it is a thoroughly utopian concept) that most people do not really believe it is possible to live a relatively disease-free life. In fact, most people believe just the opposite, that it is natural for man to get sick. Besides, how can anyone expect people to believe in such a concept when all they see is widespread disease around them?

CLINICAL RESEARCH Vs EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH

In conjunction with prevention, the only other intelligent choice is clinical research, or the observation of those who get sick in spite of preventive efforts.

It is beyond dispute that the only reliable (and thus useful) information that can be gathered about any disease can only be obtained by examining those who contracted the disease spontaneously. Only this vital information can lead to effective treatments and real cures. This is why clinicians are the only ones who know anything about human disease. Unfortunately, the current biomedical establishment rejects both prevention and clinical research. Instead, it has chosen to rely on experimental research on animals.

Experimental research is the opposite of both prevention and clinical research. It attempts to reproduce or recreate disease in the laboratory which is a total impossibility. Trying to recreate spontaneous human diseases (naturally occurring diseases that arise from within) in a healthy being constitutes experimental research. It is impossible to recreate a naturally occurring human disease in a healthy animal (or in a healthy human being for that matter) simply because once it is recreated, it is artificial and is no longer the original, natural disease. Clearly, recreation and spontaneous are contradictory terms. It is sometimes possible to recreate some of the symptoms of a disease but never the disease itself. The exception to this fact is the case of infectious diseases. However, animals do not get human infectious diseases and we do not get theirs. This explains why there isn�t a single non-human animal who has contracted AIDS, for example, in spite of the relentless efforts of the vivisectors to create an animal model of human AIDS.

It then follows that experimental research cannot find cures for any diseases no matter how many millions of experiments are performed.

The concept on which vivisection rests is devoid of any scientific validity, logic or common sense. Consider the premise upon which today�s biomedical research rests:
1. Healthy non-human animals are supposedly given human diseases.
2. The disease is then studied in the animal.
3. A �cure� is found (usually through the illusion of drugs) for the laboratory animal.
4. The �cure� is then extrapolated to the sick human being.

This is what is called the animal model of human cancer, diabetes, etc. Tragically, almost all biomedical research being conducted today, including cancer research, is based on the animal model of human disease.

Predictably, the absurd concept that spontaneous diseases can be recreated in the laboratory (an obvious oxymoron) and that human medicine can be based on veterinary medicine has brought us increases in both the incidence and death rates in practically all diseases, including cancer.

HIGH TIME TO WIN THE WAR

The biomedical community has spent practically all of our resources on experimental research on animals. Over the last 100 years they have infected hundreds of millions of animals (billions if we include rats and mice) with artificial �cancerous� tumors.

According to the same biomedical researchers, they have �cured� millions of cancer-suffering animals in the laboratory. Unfortunately, the �breakthrough cures� that �worked� in the lab on the animals (surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy) have failed miserably when applied to human beings.

Tragically, the public has been prevented from making this vital connection. The solution to our health, economic, and environmental problems hinges upon the creation of a true health care system which will adopt prevention and clinical research as its centerpieces, and will call for the total abolition of animal experimentation.

It is clear that a serious national effort based on prevention could stop most forms of cancer if not all. Even such biased entities as the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society acknowledge that diet accounts for at least 35 percent of cancer deaths and tobacco for another 30 percent. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that as much as 90 percent of all cancers are environmentally induced.

Whatever it is, it is beyond argument that diet alone could bring about massive positive changes in cancer statistics. We already know that it is possible to convince people that certain destructive habits can be broken. The change of heart among Americans about tobacco convinces us that once given the correct information, Americans will oppose animal experimentation and will choose a vegan diet, as well as a toxicant-free environment in which to live.

XENOTRANSPLANTATION

THREATS MASQUERADING AS CURES

Throughout medical history charlatans have preyed upon the anxieties and fears of terminally ill patients, their families and friends by promoting a general retreat from rationality and substituting a variety of miraculous �cures�. The modern incarnation of such quackery appears to be well represented by xenotransplant researchers and surgeons.

Having failed to successfully scare the general population with dire predictions of death and devastation from such complex diseases as cancer and AIDS (both largely preventable and thus avoidable), the biomedical research/health care complex has prepared another threatening scenario, the so-called shortage of organs for use in transplantation. They also have a high-technology solution, the use of various body parts, tissues and organs of healthy animals for implantation into unhealthy human recipients. This is the basic concept of the rapidly expanding field of xenotransplantation. It is also a realistic threat to the survival of many non-human primates and every human being.

Although there are only a handful of clinical research centers currently involved in planning and/or conducting xenotransplantation with human patients, researchers have found a gold mine of experimental possibilities, involving a wide variety of species, essentially every internal organ (except the brain), tissue (including the brain) and body part. The number of possible combinations of transplants, anti-rejection drugs and treatment protocols is endless. However, the current focus appears to be on using animal organs to compensate for a limited supply of suitable human organs, and using primate bone marrow to reconstitute the immune systems of AIDS patients.

In fact, there is no shortage of human organs for possible use in clinical transplantation. There is, however, a serious shortage of donors, as well as an inefficient and flawed system for selecting recipients. It is a sad commentary on our society that we burn or bury more than enough organs to meet current medical needs. As discussed below, with regard to bone marrow and AIDS, there is no undeniable evidence that such xenotransplantation could work or should be conducted.

Despite the lack of realistic justifications, the research and treatment continues. Examination of the history of xenotransplantation shows Susan Ildstad�s suggestion that �the optimum source for a donor would be the lowest on the phylogenetic trees, and possibly one consumed as a food source,� has not always been followed.

The first clinical use of animal organ transplantation was by French surgeon Princeteau, who in 1905 grafted a rabbit kidney slice into a child. In 1906 Jabowlay implanted pig and goat kidneys into human patients. The use of primate organs was first tried in 1910, when Unger used a monkey kidney. Lastly, Neuhof, in 1923, utilized a lamb kidney for a similar operation. All of these xenograft recipients died quickly and the field was abandoned until the the early 1960s. During the 1960s and 1970s, more than 25 primate xenografts were conducted. In 1964 Dr. Keith Reemtsma started the current obsession with using primate organs by transplanting chimpanzee kidneys into six human patients. A single individual lived for nine months and served as the incentive for a rash of similar clinical trials. These involved several surgeons using chimpanzee hearts, kidneys and livers, and an entire series of baboon kidney xenotransplants by Thomas Starzl. As expected, none of these experiments was successful.

The rationalization offered in support of such experiments centered on the evolutionary proximity of humans, chimpanzees and baboons; the failure to establish viable human organ procurement programs and, in the case of Reemtsma, the ready availability of non-human primate donors at the Delta Regional Primate Research Center.

Due to consistent failures and the inability to control the rejection process, the field of primate xenotransplantation experienced a hiatus of nearly twenty years. Then, in 1984, Dr. Leonard Bailey conducted the infamous Baby Fae experiment, violating the basic medical credo, �Do no harm.�

Baby Fae was born with a serious heart defect, which Bailey chose to treat by replacing her damaged organ with a healthy one from a baboon. This experiment is critically important since it provides a baseline for subsequent clinical xenotransplantation activities and a lengthy list of medically and scientifically inappropriate decisions. These include:

• Bailey�s earlier experiments on heart transplantation in sheep and goats were privately funded and not subjected to peer review.
  
• Bailey had virtually no experience with human heart transplantation.
  
• There are indications that truly informed consent was not given to the parents.
  
• No attempt was made to obtain a suitable human heart, although one was available the day of
  surgery.
  
• A surgical technique existed to repair the damaged heart and could have kept the child alive until a
  suitable human heart became available.
  
• The baboon heart would not grow to adult human size, thus guaranteeing that the child would
  eventually need a human heart transplant.

It was a foregone conclusion that Baby Fae would not survive. A similar fate awaited the patients who received baboon liver xenotransplants in 1992 and 1993. Dr. Thomas Starzl and others rationalized such human experimentation by claiming that since some primates are resistant to human infections like hepatitis, the baboon livers could be used to replace human organs ravaged by disease. The primate�s natural resistance would prevent reinfection of the transplanted organ, a common but not universal problem associated with using human livers.

Infectious disease specialists, however, were appalled that Starzl chose xenotransplantation of baboon livers because of the known risk of transferring or creating a serious viral infection in the recipients. In fact, the Pittsburgh team did not inform the supplier of the animals that they would be used for clinical experimentation. Post-operative examination of the primate donors demonstrated that they were infected with at least four known viruses, with unknown consequences for human infection.

As with all examples of organ xenotransplantation, there was no evidence to indicate that the baboon livers would biochemically or physiologically function appropriately in a human recipient. Even Starzl admitted that �a baboon liver could impose on a human recipient lethal interspecies metabolic differences.�

Dr. Hugh Auchincloss of Harvard Medical School, a strong supporter of xenotransplantation, summarized these baboon to human liver experiments by noting that �survival rates reported for allotransplantation [human to human] in those patients with hepatitis B is superior to that which we could expect from xenotransplantation.�

Ironically, when biopsy specimens were taken from the transplanted baboon livers, one was positive for hepatitis B. This suggests that the original justification for the experiment, resistance to human pathogens, was not valid.

Although efforts to transplant primate hearts and livers into human patients are highly publicized, what is less obvious is the bewildering array of experiments conducted throughout the 20th century, with a major focus of activity within the last two decades. These usually involved transplanting organs between different species of non-human primates, transferring pig organs into baboons or other monkeys, these animals acting as surrogates for human patients; or general models of xenotransplantation with different types of rodents. In a surprisingly candid comment, Auchincloss also noted that �successful rodent experiments do not provide an adequate scientific basis for human experimentation.� It should also be stressed that careful examination of the relevant scientific literature suggests that �successful� monkey studies are also inadequate to predict the responses of human organ recipients.

No xenotransplantation experiment has provoked more opposition and misinformation than that of Dr. Susan Ildstad. Because the immune systems of AIDS patients are destroyed by their HIV infections and baboons are supposedly not susceptible to the AIDS virus, she wants to transplant healthy bone marrow stem cells from baboons into the bodies of terminally ill AIDS patients. In theory these baboon cells will subsequently give rise to an entirely new, fully functional immune system, free of the AIDS virus.

Dr. Ildstad has conducted a series of experiments in recent years involving rodents and primates. From that work she concluded that it is possible to graft immune cells from one species to another, without the long-term use of immunosuppressive drugs. In a study published in 1994, she and her co-workers acknowledged that the widespread clinical use of bone marrow transplantation has been limited by the general tendency of donor marrow to be rejected by a process called graft versus host disease, which usually kills the recipients. This would likely be the case with humans and baboons, which are more similar to each other than either is to a rodent.

Based on experiments involving mice, Dr. Ildstad claims to have discovered a new type of bone marrow cell (a facilitator) which, when mixed with typical stem cells form the marrow of a donor, allows survival of the transplant and avoids the problems associated with graft versus host disease. She suggests that this discovery �may expand the potential application of bone marrow transplantation to disease states in which the morbidity and mortality associated with conventional bone marrow transplantation cannot be justified.� She also transplanted human bone marrow into baboons. This involved the use of immature cells, low levels or irradiation to prepare the recipient�s bone marrow, and several days of immunosuppressive drugs. The result was a non-human primate whose immune system includes 15% human cells, but with no evidence that these cells are functioning to support the needs of the baboon.

This project has received widespread criticism from physicians, immunologists, infectious disease experts, philosophers, animal protectionists, and other xenotransplant researchers. Apparently no scientists, other than Ildstad, have been able to identify these special facilitator cells. Baboon cells may not be resistant to HIV, foreign marrow cells may not function in an environment regulated by human hormones and physiology, and new immune cells may not be able to develop in AIDS patients with typically damaged thymus glands.

Stephen Rose, director of AIDS funding at the National Institutes of Health, was not impressed with Ildstad�s animal experimental results. He noted that �having seen her data - there are no underlying data to make me believe this is going to be successful.� David Sachs, Harvard University xenotransplant specialist, agreed, observing that �there was no evidence from the data she presented to show that facilitator cells were present in primates.�

Others questioned Ildstad�s motives for promoting such human experiments, since she has jointly patented the facilitator cells with the biotechnology company Genetic Sciences and would likely make a considerable amount of money if the cells actually exist and the experiment worked.

Despite scientific skepticism about the validity of her hypothesis and the existence of her special facilitator cells, the major fear raised by these experiments is that they could directly cause the creation of a new infectious disease more deadly than AIDS or Ebola, both of which probably initially were derived from non-lethal primate viruses transferred to new human hosts.

Such concerns are widely expressed in the recent medical literature, but apparently ignored or diminished by supporters of xenotransplant research and federal regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which supported the clinical experiment to transplant baboon bone marrow cells in AIDS patient Jeff Getty. Prior to that decision, the FDA convened lengthy hearings of the National Academy of Sciences� Institute of Medicine and its own Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee. The latter hearing included voting participation by many individuals who were either directly or indirectly involved with xenotransplant research and related commercial drug and therapy development. Although supposedly an open hearing, the only members of the public testifying were five individuals selected by Jeff Getty. Neither the background nor advisory meeting included significant representation of public opposition. As one member of the committee noted, �We were heavily influenced by emotional pleas on the part of the family of the recipient.� The final decision was based more on politics and pressure tactics than on sound medical and scientific evidence.

Despite attempts by the FDA to represent the bone marrow experiments as necessary and probably safe, the message was clearly delivered, that such projects pose a serious threat to the health of all human beings. For example, at the hearings:

1. Dr. Louisa Chapman, leader of the Centers for Disease Control�s Xenotransplant Working Group,discussed the danger involved in using non-human primate organs and tissues, with a lengthy description of previous non-human viral disease transmission from other primates to humans, noting that �baboon endogenous retroviral proviral DNA can be detected in tissues of all baboon species, as well as those of many other monkeys.� Such �retroviruses may have pathogenic potential under conditions associated with xenotransplantation� and cannot be removed by selective breeding or efforts to raise specific pathogen-free animals. As a simple example, she explained that �periodic emergence of new pandemic influenza strains is hypothesized to occur by a process of reassortment between human and animal influenza viruses.�
   
2. Dr. Marion Michaels, from the University of Pittsburgh, told the committee, that despite rigorous screening, �the donor organ, the tissue or the accompanying hematopoietic cells can also be a source of infection. Most often these infections are latent organisms and are often clinically silent in the donor.� Such viral contamination is a serious problem in regular human-to-human transplantation.
   
3. Dr. John Coffin, a leading expert on recombination in viruses, concluded that �the infection is a virtually inevitable consequence� of xenotransplantation and that �this is a very serious worry because the animals that have been chosen for doing this - the baboon and pig - are both known to carry endogenous viruses, replication competent, but very poorly studied, that are capable of infecting human cells.� He further suggested that such baboon bone marrow experiments would make the HIV-AIDS infection �worse by spreading the host range.�

The principal informed critic of the proposed bone marrow experiments remains Dr. Jonathan Allan, from the Southwest Foundation (suppliers of baboons for use in xenotransplantation), an expert on primate viruses. He notes that baboons were selected for these experiments because of their evolutionary closeness to humans, but �at the same time, any agent or pathogen that a baboon might harbor is also going to be more likely to be transmitted to humans.� He further warns that it is �well-established that most new emerging human infectious diseases generally have their origins in other species.� Baboons may be hosts for a variety of unknown viruses that, by themselves or in recombination with viral DNA already resident in humans, would be capable of creating a new disease. NO guidelines or precautions being considered for bone marrow experiments can prevent the introduction or spread of such a virus into the general human population. Despite claims to the contrary, the issue here is not the safety of the recipient, ... but the future health and welfare of every other human that may be exposed to a new, deadly pathogen. This is not alarmist propaganda. It is very basic science.

Allan also stressed that the possible negative consequences of transplanting animal organs in general, and primate bone marrow in particular, are enhanced because the recipient is severely immuno compromised, and can tolerate high viral concentrations as well as supporting a silent infection that could become �tolerized� and lead to unregulated replication of the new viruses. Furthermore, some current assay systems for the identification of the presence of retroviruses would not work on patients like Getty because he already has HIV in his system. This suggests that a new baboon-derived retrovirus may not be detectable in the transplant recipient until it is too late and a new disease emerges and begins to spread.

All of the available evidence suggests that xenotransplantation of organs and tissues represents a major threat to future human health and little or no benefits. The basic concept circumvents all of the natural barriers designed to protect our bodies from harm. In addition, there are alternatives, such as heightened efforts at preventive medicine, increased supplies of human organs, and development of bioengineered organs and tissues that can meet the needs of terminally ill patients.

Xenotransplantation cannot work as a �bridge� since it will inevitably increase the number of desperately ill patients receiving the limited number of human organs; and thus diminish the overall success of transplant efforts. Even if successful and there were no risk of creating a new disease, there would never be enough non-human primates to provide for all of the human patients with terminal organ failure or AIDS. Finally, if a virus were transmitted from baboons to humans, it would incorporate itself into human chromosomes and be nearly impossible to remove.

In his concluding remarks to the FDA advisory panel, Jonathan Allan clearly summarized the basic problem with xenotransplantation in general and bone marrow experiments in particular. He cautioned that �to proceed with this kind of procedure in the face of knowing how AIDS is transmitted, is to repeat the past because none of the types of screening processes, none of the registries, none of the archiving of samples, none of the surveillance, none of that would pick up on an AIDS-like virus. If you proceed with this, you need to understand that there is going to be a risk that you are not going to eliminate the risk of transmitting another virus that could be as deadly as the AIDS virus.� These experiments �constitute a threat to the general public health and not merely a complication of the risk/benefit calculation for the individual
xenogenic tissue recipient.�

In brief, �DO NOT use non-human primates as organ donors if you don�t want to infect the human population.� Clearly, all primates, including humans, would benefit from an immediate and permanent cessation of all xenotransplantation experimentation.

This article appeared in American Anti-Vivisection Society Magazine. For further information or subscription please contact the AAVS(The American Anti-Vivisection Society) 801 Old York Road #204, JENKINTOWN PA 19046-1685 USA. Ph 215-887-0816 - Fax 215-887-2088 - Email: aavsonline@aol.com. You can visit their website on www.aavs.org.

A RECKLESS GAMBLE

Undiscovered Viruses

I am not wishing to produce more fear in the world; we have enough of that already! I am wanting to inform and help people make their own decisions from a position of wisdom. Just because we are capable of doing something doesn�t mean we should do it.

Knives and bombs

A large notice is now appearing in some supermarkets proclaiming that they will not be selling knives of any description to children under 16 years old, in the belief that youngsters may not act sensibly with them. We, too, need a large notice, stating that we are not allowing scientists to muck around with genes - of humans, animals and plants - because undoubtedly they do not have the wisdom to use such power wisely. (Remember, it was scientists that were responsible for all the dreadful explosives, rockets and other military hardware used to wreak havoc, including the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, round the world.)

Animals as spare parts

Scientists are now attempting to cross the natural species barrier, by transplanting bits of animals into humans as if animals are there for the purpose of providing spare parts. All 35 or so such documented transplants performed over the last few years have resulted in the deaths of both the human recipient and, of course, the hapless animal donor.

Vast amounts of money are being invested in these projects, and the big businesses involved want to see a return on their money - so that the temptation to hide the difficulties and the risks involved will surely prove too great. Industries have all too often shown a total disregard for human concerns in favour of a quick profit: cigarette manufacturers export and encourage developing nations to grow and use tobacco; drug companies sell medicines to poor countries - medicines that we in the West have rejected as unsafe; and chemical industries still supply banned pesticides to areas that are unaware of the dangers of these long-lasting chemicals.

Healthy living

If we want better health for ourselves and our families, then we have to look for simple changes in our lives, particularly in what we eat. We are what we eat, and ironically it is precisely because people eat too many pigs (and other factory-produced animals), and have generally unhealthy lifestyles, that pig-organ transplants are being considered!

Undiscovered viruses

The big danger from pig-to-human transplants is not that the individual may die, but that known or unknown viruses can be transferred from the pigs - where they cause no harm - to immuno-suppressed patients (the natural immunity having been damaged by drugs), where the virus can explode into life and then go on to be unleashed into the rest of humankind. Think of HIV and the AIDS plague, believed to have been transferred either from a monkey or as part of scientific experiments (perhaps linked with the smallpox vaccine) - and then think of our inability to control such experiments.

The Nuffield Council Report on Xenotransplantation (page 73) concludes that �the risk [of transmitting diseases into the whole human population] is unquantifiable!� In other words, the NCRX has no idea of the extent of the danger.

This is a reckless game.

Breast Cancer Awareness Page

Study: Ultrasound can find breast cancer in some women

by Brenda C. Coleman
The Associated Press