Exciting new cancer treatment wipes out woman's cancer that was viewed as otherwise untreatable

This is an amazing case.  Hopefully it is just a matter of time before other types of cancer can be treated and they refine it to be effective on more people.  From the Washington Post:

Her name is Stacy Erholtz. For years, the 50-year-old mom from Pequot Lakes, Minn., battled myeloma, a blood cancer that affects bone marrow. She had few options left. 

She had been through chemotherapy treatments and two stem cell transplants. But it wasn’t enough. Soon, scans showed she had tumors growing all over her body. 

One grew on her forehead, destroying a bone in her skull and pushing on her brain. Her children named it Evan, her doctor said. Cancer had infiltrated her bone marrow. 

So, as part of a two-patient clinical trial, doctors at theMayo Clinic injected Erholtz with 100 billion units of the measles virus – enough to inoculate 10 million people. 

Her doctor said they were entering the unknown. 

Five minutes into the hour-long process, Erholtz got a terrible headache. Two hours later, she started shaking and vomiting. Her temperature hit 105 degrees, Stephen Russell, the lead researcher on the case, told The Washington Post early Thursday morning. 

“Thirty-six hours after the virus infusion was finished, she told me, ‘Evan has started shrinking,’” Russell said. Over the next several weeks, the tumor on her forehead disappeared completely and, over time, the other tumors in her body did, too. . . .

A 'Universal' Cancer Vaccine?

From the UK Telegraph:

The therapy, which targets a molecule found in 90 per cent of all cancers, could provide a universal injection that allows patients' immune systems to fight off common cancers including breast and prostate cancer. Preliminary results from early clinical trials have shown the vaccine can trigger an immune response in patients and reduce levels of disease. The scientists behind the vaccine now hope to conduct larger trials in patients to prove it can be effective against a range of different cancers. They believe it could be used to combat small tumours if they are detected early enough or to help prevent the return and spread of disease in patients who have undergone other forms of treatment such as surgery. Cancer cells usually evade patient's immune systems because they are not recognised as being a threat. While the immune system usually attacks foreign cells such as bacteria, tumours are formed of the patient's own cells that have malfunctioned. . . .

ALERT: Congressional Democrats uncover Republican plot to given them and their constituents cancer!

This is probably the most serious credible charge that I have seen made against Republicans. Personally, I don't know how they are going to be able to defend themselves against it. This is going to lead to disaster for Republicans in coming elections.

A group of Democrats complain Styrofoam cups in the House cafeteria could contain carcinogens.

In a letter to Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) and other Republican leaders, the nine Democrats say the Styrofoam cups and other dining materials could hold chemical components that could cause cancer. The Democrats are upset with the switch to Styrofoam from recyclable materials put into place when Democrats ran the House.

The letter asks Boehner to reconsider the switch away from recyclable to polystyrene-based foam containers, and warns that the health of visitors to the Capitol could be compromised.

"The irresponsibility of the decision to use polystyrene foam without considering other options is all the more egregious because the cafeteria is not merely used by House members and our staffers," the lawmakers write. "The health of constituents and visitors to the Hill who eat in the cafeteria will be impacted by this short-sighted decision." . . .

Do airport body-scans have radiation risk?

Some individuals will apparently get cancer from these scans, but the risk of any individual getting cancer is very small.

Some scientists and two major airline pilots unions contend not enough is known about the effects of the small doses of X-ray radiation emitted by one of the two types of airport scanning machines.
The Transportation Security Administration's advanced imaging technology machines use two separate means of creating images of passengers -- backscatter X-ray technology and millimeter-wave technology.
At the end of October, 189 backscatter units and 152 millimeter-wave machines were in use in more than 65 airports. The total number of imaging machines is expected to near 1,000 by the end of 2011, according to the TSA. . . .
"If you think of the entire population of, shall we say a billion people per year going through these scanners, it's very likely that some number of those will develop cancer from the radiation from these scanners," Brenner [director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University and a professor of radiation biophysics] said.
Skin cancer would likely be the primary concern, he said. Each time the same person receives a backscatter scan, the small risk associated with the low dose of radiation is multiplied by the number of exposures.
Brenner said the risk to an individual is "very small indeed" for a single scan. He said he is most concerned about frequent fliers, pilots and young people, because children are more sensitive to radiation.. . . .

See also this:

Some US scientists warned Friday that the full-body, graphic-image X-ray scanners now being used to screen passengers and airline crews at airports around the country may be unsafe.

They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays," Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, told AFP.

"No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner," he said.

The possible health dangers posed by the scanners add to passengers' and airline crews' concerns about the devices, which have been dubbed "naked" scanners because of the graphic image they give of a person's body, genitalia and all. . . .

And also this discussion.

Stepped-up security screening at airports in the wake of foiled terrorism plots has provoked an outcry from airline pilots and travelers, including parents of children who say they are too intrusive.

With the busiest holiday travel season nearing, fliers face long security lines and new rigorous patdown checks begun in recent weeks aimed at discovering hidden explosives. As a result, some travelers are questioning whether to fly at all. . . .

Comparing the US to Europe in Five-year Cancer Survivor Rates

Question: Are brain cancer rates higher in Europe than in the US?

If Cell phone radiation causes brain cancer, this evidence would indicate that the rate should be higher in Europe than the US.

According to the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), specific absorption rate, or SAR, is "a way of measuring the quantity of radiofrequency (RF) energy that is absorbed by the body." For a phone to pass FCC certification, that phone's maximum SAR level must be less than 1.6W/kg (watts per kilogram). In Europe, the level is capped at 2W/kg while Canada allows a maximum of 1.6W/kg. The SAR level listed in our charts represents the highest SAR level with the phone next to the ear as tested by the FCC. Keep in mind that it is possible for the SAR level to vary between different transmission bands and that different testing bodies can obtain different results. Also, it's possible for results to vary between different editions of the same phone (such as a handset that's offered by multiple carriers).

Yet, it appears to me from this data here, that the brain cancer rates are the same or lower in Europe than the US. Of course, all this could mean that there are much more important factors at work in the opposite direction.

There should also be differences by the type of phone:

Manufacturer and model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SAR level(digital)
1 Motorola V195s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6
2 Motorola Slvr L6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.58
3 Motorola Slvr L2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.54
4 Motorola W385 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.54
5 RIM BlackBerry Curve 8330 (Sprint) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.54
6 RIM BlackBerry Curve 8330 (Verizon Wireless) . . . . 1.54
7 Motorola Deluxe ic902 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.53
8 T-Mobile Shadow (HTC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.53
9 Motorola i335 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.53
10 Samsung Sync SGH-C417 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.51

For an earlier discussion that I had on this issue, see here.

Cell Phone Use and Brain Cancer?

A new study claims that "Cell Phones Could Be More Dangerous Than Cigarettes" in causing cancer. The claim is that it takes about 10 years for this to occur, but that cell phones can double the risk of brain cancer. Given the number of people using cell phones for a long time, one would think that the impact of this would have begun to show up. The Census Bureau claims that:

The number of cell phone subscribers in the United States reached approximately 159 million in 2003, up from 34 million in 1995, according to the latest edition of the national data book released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. . . .

But look at these numbers on brain cancer rates from the National Cancer Institute. Brain cancer rates have been flat for the last decade. If cell phones doubled brain cancer rates for those who used them, one would think you would see something in these numbers. The researcher may be correct about the direction, but the effect must be relatively small.

One possibly unrelated question that I have is: why is the brain cancer rate for whites so high relative to other groups?