Today -- June 8th -- is the beginning date of the SECOND WORLD CONGRESS FOR ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE taking place in Bologna, Italy. It will be in session thru the 13th....
Guru wanted to be there (and was invited) ... but one cannot always do what one "wants." If I were there I would eagerly be seated in this morning's session (chaired by my friend Dr. Martin Blank of Columbia) concerning the "mechanisms" between EMF and biological processes. Actually, I see that session starts tomorrow.....Best regards and GOD BE WITH YOU, Martin.....
Other key items on the schedule include much more about the "melatonin" thesis, including the latest from Drs R.P. Liburdy, R.G. Stevens (the original "thinker" on the melatonin connection), and R. Luben -- all of whom were also presenters at the recent meeting in Durham which guru attended....
Let me quote from the Bologna program bulletin what is now being said about the melatonin connection:
"A number of experimental studies have been conducted to test the [melatonin] hypothesis. Although the literature is still evolving and consensus is being built, it is fair to say a) there exists credible scientific support for the hypothesis and, importantly, b) this support encompasses in vitro, in vivo, and epidemiological research. The melatonin hypothesis, thus, currently represents one of the more well documented/tested interactions in the field of bioelectromagnetics."
The following message (which appeared previously on EMF-L) is being posted again ... dedicated to the Bologna conferees ... with the hope that its message may somehow be carried into the meeting ... and with the hope that its message may somehow take hold in that meeting and provoke some thought about the importance of the "prevention" approach ... for dealing with the EMF health threat.........
I do regard this meeting as particularly important because it is the BEST venue for bringing togethor non-U.S./U.S. science ... (I believe) ... absent the influence of the powerful vested interests who always appear in such large numbers at U.S. meetings........
Roy Beavers
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 18:44:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Reuss <creuss@hitline.ch>
Reply-To: emf-l@mail.llion.org
To: Multiple recipients of list <emf-l@mail.llion.org>
Subject: FWD: As Cancer Therapy Fails, Prevention is Key
BOSTON (Reuter) - A University of Chicago researcher said a new study of cancer death rates shows very little progress has been made in treating the disease and he urged that the focus of research be shifted to prevention.
In a study published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. John Bailar said death rates from 1970 to 1994 demonstrate that doctors have made little real headway in developing better cancer treatments.
After so many years of failure, he said it was time to devote more resources to preventing the disease, which kills more than half a million Americans each year.
Bailar, who made a blistering analysis of the lack of progress in treating cancer in a study more than 10 years ago, said his updated findings show that cancer is still winning.
``In 1986, we concluded that 'some 35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure.' Now, with 12 more years of data and experience, we see little reason to change that conclusion,'' said Bailar, who updated his study with the help of medical student Heather Gornik.
They do not say research into treatments should be halted. ''There should, however, be a substantial realignment of the balance between treatment and prevention, and in an age of limited resources this may well mean curtailing efforts focused on therapy.''
Bailar and Gornik looked at death rates -- adjusted to account for the fact that older people are more likely to die from cancer -- because they are less vulnerable to manipulation than data on incidence and survival.
They found the rate of cancer deaths rose an average of 0.3 percent per year between 1975 and 1994, compared with a 0.1 percent rise from 1950 to 1975. The rate actually peaked in 1991 and is apparently declining a bit because fewer people have been smoking in recent years.
When comparing younger and older cancer victims, they discovered that the death rates for people 55 and older has increased by 15 to 20 percent even as the death rate among people under 55 has decreased by about 25 percent.
Even in the few cases where there has been a modest decline in the death rate for certain types of cancers, ``improved treatment has contributed little,'' they argued.
The big reasons for the declines seemed be a reduction in cigarette smoking, improved screening and unexplained declines in certain types of tumors such as colorectal cancer.
``In our view, prudence requires a skeptical view of the tacit assumption that marvelous new treatments for cancer are just waiting to be discovered,'' the two researchers said.
``We, like others, earnestly hope that such discoveries can and will be made but it is now evident that the worldwide cancer research effort should undergo a substantial shift toward efforts to improve prevention.''
They added: ``The ultimate results may be as disappointing as those to date from treatment efforts, but it is time to find out.''
Cordially....(and thanks for your message)....
Cheerio,