An often-unpleasant means of assessing the status of a cancer is the biopsy a procedure in which a small sample of a tumor is removed for analysis, often via surgery of some type. Now a recent study suggests that a new type of blood test might suffice to let doctors know the status of the cancer without an invasive procedure.
Worried about meat and cancer? You don't need to fret International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of the World Health Organization, is in the health scare business, as its analysis of coffee shows.
Continuing declines in overall U.S. death rates between 1969 and 2013 represent major public health gains, including in most specific illnesses. COPD death rate is higher than it was initially, but is also now declining along with smoking rates.
Despite the number of internet sites that attempt to convince you that baking soda is a magical cure for cancer, it just isn't so. Here's why.
Women diagnosed with cancer while pregnant have plenty to worry about. A new study may help reduce that burden, since it shows that typical cancer treatments may have no significant adverse effect on their fetus or newborn.
Vitamin D is essential for normal bone growth and development in children, and in adults it's needed for maintenance of bone strength all because it allows the absorption of calcium from the diet. But now it is also being touted by some as a sort of miracle vitamin, which it isn't.
One of the most difficult decisions a patient with late stage cancer has to make is whether or not to continue or use additional chemotherapy.
Well, Berkeley California is once again in the forefront of another health debate, according to the NY Times. And no surprise (again), the topic is anti-science in the service of that city s prevalent left-leaning natural is good, technology is suspect philosophy. A new law mandates a warning, to wit: cellphones and cancer!
Here s a simple question with nothing even close to a simple answer: Do cancer drugs cost too much? ACSH s Dr. Josh Bloom, who has written frequently on this subject, including an op-ed the New York Post thinks that al too often they are. He says, There are obvious cases of recently approved cancer drugs that offer very little benefit in terms of either disease-free progression or extension of life. The annual cost for these drugs is roughly $100,000, but
Yesterday, we noted that the HPV vaccine, one of the few methods we have to actually prevent cancer, was not being utilized as much as it should. Today we read that young adult women have a significantly reduced incidence of HPV-related cervical lesions.
Yet another study shows that the HPV vaccine is safe and effective in generating protection against cancer-causing strains of the virus. Since it's one of the very few vaccines against cancer, protecting against cancer of the cervix and other areas, why isn't it being utilized more often?
Why are there so many scary stories about common foods and products causing cancer? An excellent blog-essay explains quite a lot about how science (or science-y) journalism works. It may confuse or scare you, but not as much as the so-called research does.