Varmus at National Cancer Institute: Harmful to Health

CHICAGO, IL, December 6, 2010 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- On October 22, 2010, Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, wrote to Dr. Harold Varmus, who was appointed director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) by President Obama three months previously. The senator raised questions on the amount of "sponsored travel," sometimes a dozen or more trips a year and almost exclusively to international conferences paid for by outside organizations or companies, taken in recent years by "numerous NCI employees, notably senior leadership."

According to ScienceInsider, many of the 16 scientists involved took at least 10 trips a year in 2008, 2009, and 2010. However, a subsequent letter from Dr. Varmus and the National Institutes of Health director, Dr. Francis Collins, attempted to claim that this travel was part of their scientific work!

"Varmus, the current director of the NCI, has a distinguished track record on basic research on cancer treatment. However, this is paralleled by frank and dangerous unawareness of longstanding, well-documented scientific evidence on the causes and prevention of cancer," warns Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

As long ago as 1998, in Natalie Angier's Natural Obsessions book, Varmus claimed, "You can't do experiments to see what causes cancer - it's not an accessible problem, and not the sort of thing scientists can afford to do - everything you do can't be risky."

"The claim by Varmus that 'you can't do research to see what causes cancer' is bizarre. At best, it reflects unbelievable ignorance," asserts Dr. Epstein.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has published annual reports on carcinogens, largely based on carcinogenicity tests on rodents, since 1964. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has also published systematic and comprehensive reviews on carcinogens, again largely based on carcinogenicity tests, since 1980. Both the IARC and NTP reports reflect decades-old unarguable scientific evidence on "what causes cancer."

"The ignorance or indifference of Varmus to cancer prevention is reinforced by his unrecognized personal conflicts of interest," Dr. Epstein declares. "In 1995, Varmus, then director of the National Institutes of Health, struck the "reasonable pricing clause," as detailed in my 2002 publication in the International Journal of Health Services. This clause protected against exorbitant industry profiteering from the sale of drugs developed with taxpayer money."

"Varmus also gave senior NCI staff free license to consult with the cancer drug industry, a flagrant institutional conflict of interest," reveals Dr. Epstein. In this connection, he explains, the 2008 edition of Charity Rating Guide & Watchdog Report listed Varmus with a compensation package of about $2.7 million. According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, this is the highest compensation of directors in over 500 major non-profit organizations ever monitored.

"As disturbing," Dr. Epstein warns, "is the longstanding abdication of responsibility by the NCI, the primary federal institute explicitly charged by President Richard Nixon in 1971 to fight the war against cancer. This charge clearly prioritized the allocation of adequate resources to investigate and eliminate known avoidable causes of cancer."

However, he points out, while the NCI budget has escalated 25-fold, from $200,000 in 1971, to over $5 billion currently, this has been paralleled by an escalation in the incidence of a wide range of cancers. These include liver, 165%; thyroid, 145%; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 82%; childhood, 24%; and breast, 19%.

"These increases also reflect the NCI's longstanding and reckless indifference to prevention, matched by exclusionary emphasis on treatment and related research," states Dr. Epstein.

Reflecting these disturbing concerns, a July 29, 2003 report by the National Academy of Sciences, requested by Congress, charged that:

• The leadership of NCI is marred by pervasive conflicts of interest, and a revolving door with industry, particularly the cancer drug industry.
• Contrary to NCI's exaggerated claims and misleading public assurances, overall cancer incidence rates, including those of childhood and non-smoking adults, have sharply escalated over recent decades.
• NCI policies and priorities remain fixated on damage control - screening, diagnosis, and treatment and related research--with minimal priorities for prevention.
• Contrary to the requirements of the 1971 Act, the NCI has still failed to inform the public of a wide range of avoidable causes of cancer. This denial of the public's right to know has even been extended to the withholding of readily available scientific information.

"These criticisms of the NCI are as germane and timely today as they were seven years ago. However, and disturbingly so," Dr. Epstein warns, "they remain unrecognized by Congress, let alone the public."

As President Obama has stated in September 2008, "It is critical to understand the relationship between environmental factors and risk or onset of disease, particularly cancer."

CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chicago, Illinois
Email: epstein@uic.edu
www.preventcancer.com

Quentin D. Young, M.D.
Chairman
Health & Medicine Policy Research Group
Past President, American Public Health Association
email: quentin@pnhp.org
www.hmprg.org

Rosalie Bertell, PhD
Regent of the International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland
Past President of International Institute of Concern for Public Health
Email: rosaliebertell@greynun.org
www.iicph.org

Ronnie Cummins
Executive Director
Organic Consumers Association
email: ronnie@organicconsumers.org
www.organicconsumers.org

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; Recipient of the 1998 Right Livelihood Award ("Alternative Nobel Prize") and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention; Author of over 270 scientific articles and 20 books on the causes and prevention of cancer, including the award-winning The Politics of Cancer (Sierra Club Books, 1978) and Cancer-Gate: How To Win The Losing Cancer War (Baywood Publishing, 2005).

Please join the CPC on Facebook

Tamoxifen link to second tumors

Many years ago now, Dr. Samuel Epstein of Chicago raised serious concerns about Tamoxifen. Perhaps more people should have been listening.

More people should be listening to the fact that annual screening mammogram promotes breast cancer. (Suggestion: Request Thermography)

Long-term use of a common breast cancer drug may hike the risk of developing a deadly second tumour, a study suggests.

Tamoxifen, given to thousands of British women, prevents tumours being fuelled by the sex hormone oestrogen, and stops them returning after surgery.

But a US study links use of the drug to a four-fold raised risk of developing a more aggressive, difficult-to-treat tumour, not dependent on oestrogen.

However, women are strongly advised not to stop taking tamoxifen.

" Women should be reassured that the benefits of taking hormone-blocking drugs, such as tamoxifen, after their first diagnosis of breast cancer far outweigh any potential risks ”
Dr Alison Ross Cancer Research UK

Experts stress any risks of taking the drug are far outweighed by the benefits.

They said the odds of developing a second, non-hormone sensitive tumour remained very low.

Each year around 45,500 women in the UK are diagnosed with breast cancer and 12,000 die from the disease.

Around two thirds of breast cancers are sensitive to the hormone oestrogen.

Tamoxifen become the "gold standard" treatment for these hormone-sensitive tumours, although in recent years newer drugs have started to be preferred.

The latest study, by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, looked at long-term use of the drug among more than 1,000 women.

The researchers, writing in the journal Cancer Research, found that tamoxifen reduced the chances of oestrogen-positive breast cancer returning by 60%.

But they also found that five or more years of treatment was associated with a 440% increase in the chance of an aggressive, non-hormone sensitive tumour appearing in the opposite breast.

These tumours can be particularly difficult to treat.

Many women in the UK cease tamoxifen treatment after five years to avoid side effects, but several thousand woman have been on the drug for a longer time.

Risks and benefits

Lead researcher Dr Christopher Li said: "It is clear that oestrogen-blocking drugs like tamoxifen have important clinical benefits and have led to major improvements in breast cancer survival rates.

"However, these therapies have risks, and an increased risk of ER negative (oestrogen receptor negative) second cancer may be one of them.

"Still, the benefits of this therapy are well established and doctors should continue to recommend hormonal therapy for breast cancer patients who can benefit from it."

Professor Jack Cuzick, head of Cancer Research UK's Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics and Statistics at Queen Mary, University of London, stressed that tamoxifen had a proven track record.

He said: "There is overwhelming evidence that tamoxifen, and newer more effective hormone blocking treatments, prevent far more recurrences, new breast cancers and cancer-related deaths than they might stimulate."

Professor Cuzick said some of the non-hormone sensitive tumours recorded in the study may have started out as hormone-sensitive, but had been kept at bay by tamoxifen treatment.

Dr Alison Ross, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "Women should be reassured that, based on extensive scientific evidence, the benefits of taking hormone-blocking drugs, such as tamoxifen, after their first diagnosis of breast cancer far outweigh any potential risks.

"More research will be needed to confirm the possible link between its long-term use and the relatively rare occurrence of an aggressive form of the disease in the other breast."

Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/8220767.stm
Published: 2009/08/25 17:04:00 GMT, © BBC MMIX