Boston Lawyer Michael Shepard Taking Mesothelioma, Personal Injury, Asbestos Cases

Seeking compensation for injury caused by asbestos exposure is now easy. A mesothelioma lawyer who started with his mesothelioma cancer law practice in Boston now brings his services to Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. People who are suffering from mesothelioma and other asbestos related injuries that have affected their health and wellbeing can rely on Michael Shepard to fight for their rights and help them in claiming compensation.

Michael Shepard has an established reputation of being a compassionate attorney who, along with mesothelioma and asbestos related injuries, also helps people in their pain and suffering arising out of injuries inflicted to them due to the faults of others. If people are injured due to exposure to toxic chemicals, product defects, nursing home negligence, silica, talc, welding fumes automotive or aviation accidents, they should contact the attorneys office to seek guidance for obtaining compensation for the injury caused.

In his website, the mesothelioma cancer lawyer acknowledges that the time of the injured is precious and says “We know our clients want the freedom to see family and friends whenever they choose. We also know that because of their condition, they don’t want to be bogged down in legal matters. Through years of experience in this field, we have developed a streamlined approach to handling asbestos-related litigation that lessens the amount of time our clients spend dealing with lawyers and the courts. After a client’s brief, free, one-on-one consultation with us, we take the matter into our own hands, independently investigating the specific facts of the case, collecting crucial evidence and confronting the people who are responsible for your illness or injury. We make every effort to transform our clients’ “good” case into a “great” case that may secure the maximum compensation deserved.”

Whether the injured is in Boston, Vermont, New Hampshire or Rhode Island, Boston Mesothelioma cancer lawyers are ready to look into the case and assess the maximum compensation during the first free one to one consultation.

Source

Asbestos victims’ drug hope

VICTIMS of York's asbestos timebomb have been given a major boost after a medicine rationing organisation ruled they are entitled to a vital drug.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has decided the drug Alimta should be made available to patients with the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma.

The York Asbestos Support Group today hailed the decision, saying that while the drug was not a cure, it could both extend life and alleviate symptoms for patients and was the only treatment available.

"The NICE decision brings to a conclusion an approval process which started almost three years ago and which led to one of the worst examples of the health postcode lottery," said the group's delighted founder Kim Daniells.

"Hundreds of patients across the UK were refused treatment with this drug whilst those in Scotland, the North West and North East of England could access treatment."

She said NICE had rejected an appeal against an original decision to approve the use of the drug for the treatment of the condition, which was a fatal tumour of the lung pleura caused by exposure to asbestos.

"In the last three years, many hundreds of patients have been diagnosed with the condition and gone on to die without ever being able to access the treatment. Hopefully this situation will now come to an end."

She said NICE's guidance meant primary care trusts would now be obliged to provide uniform treatment.

They would be given the option of a 90-day lead-in period following the official announcement, but she hoped the guidance would result in mesothelioma sufferers gaining prompt access to the treatment they needed and deserved.

The decision could benefit former York Carriageworks employees who fall victim in future to mesothelioma.

Staff were widely exposed to deadly asbestos dust fibres during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, and even in the 1980s after some measures had been brought in to provide protection to staff.

Scores of ex-workers have died from the devastating cancer.

A NICE spokesman said Alimta was being recommended as a possible treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma in people with advanced disease, and whose cancer was not suitable for surgical removal and who met certain other conditions.

Source

Alfacell Signs Onconase Purchase And Supply Deal With Scientific Protein Labs [ACEL]

(ACEL) announced that it has entered into a purchase and supply agreement with Scientific Protein Laboratories LLC or SPL for the commercial production of Onconase or ranpirnase.

Onconase, the company's lead drug candidate, is currently being evaluated as a treatment for unresectable malignant mesothelioma or UMM in a confirmatory Phase IIIb clinical trial.

Kuslima Shogen, chief executive officer of Alfacell, said, “We have been pleased with the superb performance of the extremely well qualified team at SPL for many years and are confident that the commercial production of ONCONASE is in the right hands. This agreement is another step forward for Alfacell as we plan for the commercialization of ONCONASE.”

Onconase is a first-in-class product candidate from Alfacell's proprietary ribonuclease or RNase technology.

In addition to an ongoing Phase IIIb study in malignant mesothelioma, Alfacell is conducting a Phase I/II trial of Onconase in non-small cell lung cancer or NSCLC and other solid tumors.

ACEL is currently trading at $2.40, up 16 cents or 6.95%.

Source

Alfacell Deals U.S. Rights for Onconase to Strativa

Alfacell Corp. licensed U.S. commercialization rights for the Phase III cancer drug Onconase (ranpirnase) to Strativa Pharmaceuticals in a deal worth up to $225 million.

Just $5 million will change hands up front, but both Alfacell and Strativa stand to gain much more if their gamble in choosing each other as partners pays off. Specifically, Alfacell could get $30 million for FDA approval of Onconase in unresectable malignant mesothelioma (UMM) and up to $190 million for milestones tied to Onconase sales as well as development and commercialization of the drug in additional indications. Alfacell also would receive double-digit royalties and retains a co-promotion option.

For Alfacell, the gamble lies in choosing Strativa, the recently-launched specialty pharmaceutical division of Par Pharmaceutical Cos. Inc. So far, Strativa markets just one product: Megace ES for anorexia, cachexia and unexplained weight loss in HIV patients. Although the company has deals in place for three additional late-stage products, all three are for HIV or cancer supportive care, and Onconase would be Strativa's first true oncology therapeutic.

Lawrence Kenyon, executive vice president and chief financial officer for Alfacell, told BioWorld Today that Onconase has been the subject of "bids from multiple companies for a number of years." Strativa was selected because it had the hunger of a start-up looking to build an oncology business focused on niche products, combined with the resources and infrastructure of Par Pharmaceuticals, he said.

For Strativa, the gamble lies in Onconase's somewhat checkered development history. The drug, a natural ribonuclease isolated from frog eggs, failed a Phase III trial in pancreatic cancer and its first Phase III trial in UMM.

In the pancreatic cancer trial, a preliminary analysis showed that Onconase plus tamoxifen failed to improve survival compared to 5-fluorouracil. Kenyon said part of the problem was an inability to recruit sufficiently healthy patients into the trial, and the pancreatic cancer program subsequently was discontinued. (See BioWorld Today, July 16, 1998.)

The first Phase III UMM trial compared Onconase as a monotherapy to doxorubicin. Again, there was no survival difference in the overall population, but Kenyon said a retrospective analysis showed that the sickest patients had been disproportionately weighted to the Onconase group. Backing them out of the analysis resulted in a two-month survival difference.

Onconase is now being studied in a Phase IIIb trial designed to confirm the positive data seen in the Phase III subset analysis. The trial, which was designed in coordination with the FDA, compares Onconase plus doxorubicin to doxorubicin alone in the less-severe groups of UMM patients. Enrollment of 428 patients is complete, and Kenyon said the company is "very close" to obtaining the number of clinical events needed to analyze the data.

Under the deal with Strativa, Alfacell will continue to fund development, manufacturing and regulatory work with Onconase, including the ongoing Phase IIIb trial. Strativa will fund U.S. commercialization.

Previous deals with US Pharmacia affiliate USP Pharma Spolka Z.O.O. and Genesis Pharma SA cover Onconase commercialization in Eastern Europe and certain Southeast European countries, respectively.

As of Oct. 31, Alfacell reported $5.4 million in cash and equivalents, most of which was earmarked to support the Onconase trial and new drug application filing. Once the filing is submitted, Alfacell intends to work with Strativa on additional indications for Onconase, including the possibility of moving a non-small-cell lung cancer program into Phase II.

Kenyon said the money from Strativa also will allow Alfacell to "ramp up" its preclinical work on AC 03-636 for glioma and antiviral indications, AC CJ-001 for glioma, and AC CJ-002 for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Shares of Somerset, N.J.-based Alfacell (NASDAQ:ACEL) rose 25 cents, or 14.3 percent, to close at $2 on Tuesday. Meanwhile, shares of Woodcliff Lake, N.J.-based Par Pharmaceuticals (NYSE:PRX) rose 52 cents to close at $21.49.

Source

Supreme Court hears ALCOA asbestos suit

Does a company have responsibility for people — other than its own employees — who are exposed to harmful agents from its facilities? That is the question the Tennessee Supreme Court tried to get its arms around Tuesday in Knoxville.
In late 2003, Maryville resident Amanda Satterfield, who was 23 years old at the time, filed a lawsuit against ALCOA Inc. and Breeding Insulation Co. in Blount County Circuit Court.

In her suit, Satterfield charged that she “was exposed to harmful asbestos dust and fibers from the day of her birth from her father’s use of asbestos products and inadvertent introduction of dust and fibers into their home and personal environments.” Satterfield had mesothelioma, a rare cancer directly associated with asbestos exposure.

On Jan. 1, 2005, at the age of 25, Satterfield lost her battle with cancer.
Doug Satterfield, Amanda’s father and the representative of her estate, continued with the suit after her death. With his 18-year-old daughter Amelia at his side, Doug Satterfield cried throughout the hearing in the Tennessee Supreme Court Building in downtown Knoxville.

Doug Satterfield hauled asbestos for ALCOA, starting his career with the company in 1973. He served in the military from 1975 to 1978 and then returned to work at ALCOA. His lawyers have maintained that Doug Satterfield was exposed to asbestos at ALCOA Tennessee Operations and that he brought home harmful dust and fibers on his clothes, resulting in Amanda contracting mesothelioma.

The lawsuit sought $10 million in compensatory and $10 million in punitive damages — although Satterfield has said the case is about justice and doing the right thing, not money.

ALCOA, represented by attorney John Lucas of Knoxville, argued that the ramifications of what the court is considering go far beyond this case, and could possibly create “an infinite universe of potential plaintiffs.”

Lucas referred to Satterfield’s allegations as the “conduit theory” — stating that, by assigning responsibility to companies for third-party contact with harmful agents, the court would define Doug Satterfield as the “vehicle” that transmitted asbestos into his home.

Tennessee Supreme Court Justice William Koch Jr. asked Lucas how that differed from an employee who drove an ALCOA truck into a neighborhood and exposed residents to asbestos.

“How is it negligent for ALCOA to let asbestos fly out of a truck and not negligent for ALCOA to allow employees to go home with asbestos dust on their clothing?” Koch asked.

ALCOA made a similar arguments during a coal tar pitch-related lawsuit in Knox County Chancery Court last year, charging that it would open the “floodgates of litigation” and that Tennessee would become a “plaintiff’s Mecca.” That case is now proceeding with a class action certification hearing following the conclusion of discovery depositions.

Knoxville attorney Greg Coleman, who represents Satterfield, said the real question was “what did ALCOA know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it?
“Public policy should at least extend to the home,” Coleman said. “ALCOA may not have known if an employee would stop at the Waffle House on his way home from work — but they did know that the employee would eventually end up at his home.”
Satterfield’s case has been in the legal system for more than four years. Originally heard — and dismissed — in Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young’s court, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed Young’s decision, reinstated the lawsuit and charged ALCOA with the cost of the appeal in April 2007.

The Tennessee Supreme Court Justices are expected to issue a written opinion on the case within three months. They can either return the case to Blount County Circuit Court, where it will proceed, or dismiss it entirely.

After the hearing, Doug Satterfield told The Daily Times, “It seems like ALCOA is trying to change the law to protect itself.

“It’s unthinkable that public policy shouldn’t protect the children of workers.”

Amelia Satterfield, Amanda’s younger sister, said she believed the hearing went well, but said her family was nervous about the court appearance.

Coleman said: “ALCOA is trying to reverse what the law should be. They’re saying the greater the magnitude of the harm and the higher the mortality rate, the less responsibility they should have. Where I come from in Ducktown, Tennessee, that’s called bologna.”

The Tennessee Supreme Court should issue its written opinion by early April.

Source

New year price hikes, as if on cue

ANYONE with an air conditioner should cherish the relief today because the cost of running it is going to rise substantially in the new year.

Like the fireworks at midnight, we could set our watches by the price rises that herald the new year, and along with electricity, the cost of public transport, toll booths and health care will rise.

Energy bills will be the most significant of the new year price rises for Victorian consumers.

On January 1, Victoria's three biggest energy retailers — Origin Energy, AGL and TRUenergy — will charge up to 17% more for power, after the drought, increased demand and renewable energy targets pushed the cost of generating electricity to record highs.

An average household paying $945 annually for its power bill is likely to pay $1106 for consuming 6500 kilowatt hours of peak and off-peak electricity. A larger family could face a rise of about $220 annually.

Riding trams, trains and buses will be more expensive in January, with the the cost of public transport in Melbourne rising by about 20 cents per trip, with a zone 1, two-hour full fare going from $3.30 to $3.50, and a zone 1-and-2, two-hour ticket rising from $5.30 to $5.50.

And you will not escape the price rises by taking the car, with Citylink passes set to rise by 4.5%, with an e-tag day pass going up to $5.97 and a 24-hour pass rising to $11.45.

Health too, will get more expensive.

The amount you have to spend to be eligible for the Medicare Safety Net — under which the Government picks up 80% of medical costs after you've spent a certain amount in a year — will rise by $9.80 to $529.30 for concession card holders and $19.70 to $1058.70 for general patients.

It will also be harder to qualify for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme safety net. The threshold for general patients will rise $82.80 to $1141.80 and for concession card holders it will go up $15.60 to $290.

The amount patients will have to contribute to the cost of subsidised medicines will go up 60 cents to $31.30 for general patients and 10 cents to $5 for concession card holders.

But it is not all bad news.

Several new drugs will attract subsidies from tomorrow, including Champix for those quitting smoking and Alimta for the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma.

And it will be easier to get eye treatment, with optometrists given the right to prescribe certain subsidised medications for the first time.

Source

LegalView Blog Informs Readers of New Mesothelioma Cancer Treatment Center Being Built to Aid Mesothelioma Cancer Victims

LegalView.com offers readers several mesothelioma resources including its continually updated mesothelioma blog. A recent blog post regarding mesothelioma offered readers an inside into a new mesothelioma treatment center that is to be built in Australia.

Denver, CO (PRWEB) December 23, 2007 -- LegalView, the number one source for everything legal on the Internet, recently updated its mesothelioma legal blog to inform readers and sufferers of mesothelioma about a new mesothelioma treatment center that will be built. The new center is scheduled to be open in a year, but, according to news reports, the treatment center's first goal is to ensure that every mesothelioma cancer victim will be able to access treatments available at the center.

Mesothelioma is a deadly and rare form of cancer that is inevitably incurable at the moment. While research continues to lengthen a victim's life as well as to ease the pain the cancer causes, there is still no way to 100 percent treat the cancer. Mesothelioma is usually caused by exposure to asbestos fibers that are breathed into the lung and essentially crystallize causing the development of cancer cells on the lining of the lung. It is typical that mesothelioma occurs anywhere from 10 to 40 years after initial exposure to asbestos. Many are currently being diagnosed with the cancer because of years of negligence by companies who knowingly endangered employees by exposing them to the deadly dust. If you or anyone you know has developed mesothelioma cancer, it may be in your best interest to contact a mesotehlioma law firm for more information.

The new mesothelioma treatment center is being built in honor of a local Sydney man who recently passed away. Bernie Benton was exposed to asbestos and began helping others dealing with the same plight. The mesothelioma treatment center will be one of the world's first asbestos research centers that focuses only on mesothelioma. Those suffering from mesothelioma cancer can find more information on this and other mesothelioma treatments at the mesothelioma information portal.

In addition to information regarding mesothelioma, LegalView.com also offers resources on several additional legal issues that are tragically affecting individuals throughout the country everyday. Readers will be able to find a traumatic brain injury law firm who specializes in helping brain injury victims with consultations and attorney referral services. Individuals who have suffered from a construction accident injury or an auto accident can find information on finding a construction accident attorney or auto accident lawyer through LegalView as well.

SOURCE

Is Vitamin C a Viable Treatment for Cancer?

Vitamin C whether intravenous or oral is one of the most prevalent types of alternative and complimentary cancer therapies. Yet, this nutrient is still considered “controversial” by mainstream oncology. Since two time Nobel Prize winner (in chemistry and peace) Dr. Linus Pauling advocated its use in cancer starting in the late 1970’s, evidence to its efficacy has been quietly and steadily mounting.

Humans Do Not Make Vitamin C

Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C except humans and a small number of other animals, including, apes, guinea pigs, the red-vented bulbul, a fruit-eating bat and a species of trout.

Vitamin C and Cancer - Early Work

Pure L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) was first prepared in 1928 by the Nobel prize winning biochemist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi and in 1932 it was shown that this substance was vitamin C. In 1954 and 1959 Dr. W. J. McCormick, a Canadian physician, hypothesized that cancer is a collagen disease, secondary to a vitamin C deficiency. His theory was based on the fact that collagen is the “mortar” that binds cells together and if cells stick together, tumors would have a more difficult time breaking away and metastasizing. This concept was expanded upon when, in 1966, Dr. Ewan Cameron wrote a book entitled “Hyaluronidase and Cancer.” In it he pointed out that the ground substance or “intercellular cement” that binds cells of normal tissues contains various molecules that strengthen it including glycosaminoglycans and fibrils of collagen. Dr. Cameron discussed how tumors can produce enzymes that breakdown these molecules (i.e. hyaluronidase and collagenase).

Linus Pauling, Ph.D. (chemistry) had been interested in vitamin C for many years and had written previously how people required large amounts of vitamin C (1). Working with Dr. Cameron, Dr. Pauling pointed out that Vitamin C could: A) stimulate normal cells to produce increased amounts of a hyaluronidase inhibitor and; B) increase the number of collagen fibrils made (2). Based on these theories, Drs. Pauling and Cameron embarked on a number of studies to test the efficacy of vitamin C in cancer patients.

Pauling and Cameron Studies Find Improvement in Survival and Quality of Life

In 1976, Drs. Pauling and Cameron reported the survival times of 100 terminal cancer patients who were given supplemental ascorbate (10 grams/daily intravenously) and those of a control group of 1,000 patients of similar status treated by the same clinicians in the same hospital (Vale of Leven Hospital in Scotland) who had been managed identically except for the ascorbate. The 1,000 controls were matched by sex, age, primary tumor type, and clinical status. By August 10, 1976 all 1,000 of the controls had died while 18 of the 100 ascorbate-treated patients were still living. As of September 15, 1979, five ascorbate treated patients were still alive and “living normal lives.” The 100 acorbate-treated patients lived, on the average, 300 days longer than their matched controls with better quality of life (measured from the time all patients were considered “untreatable”).

A second study was performed in 1978 with 100 new ascorbate-treated patients and 1,000 matched controls (about half of the controls were in the original set) (3). This analysis broke out the improved survival times by cancer type. For each type of cancer there was an improvement in survival.

Mayo Clinic Studies Do Not Show Significant Benefit

Pauling’s and Cameron’s studies were not considered the gold standard in clinical studies. The gold standard was and remains the randomized, prospective, double-blind study in which half the patients are randomized to one arm of a study, half to another arm and neither the patient nor the doctor knows who is getting what.

To test whether ascorbate was effective, Dr. Charles Moertel and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic conducted two randomized placebo controlled studies of patients each with advanced cancer (published in 1979 and 1985) (4). Patients randomized to the treatment group were given 10 grams of oral ascorbate, and neither study showed significant benefit. (In the first Mayo study, median survival was improved two weeks with the ascorbate group.) Because Moertel’s studies were taken as definitive, ascorbate treatment was considered useless. There were however, at least three significant differences between the Mayo Clinic’s “definitive” studies and those of Drs. Pauling and Cameron.

Mayo Clinic Studies Did Not Replicate the Studies by Pauling and Cameron

Difference #1 - In First Mayo Study Most Patients Were Pretreated With Chemo

The overwhelming majority - 87% (52 of 60 patients) of the patients in the first Mayo study had received chemotherapy before the study began. In contrast, only 4% of the patients in Pauling and Cameron study had received chemo. Pauling wrote, “It is known that cytotoxic chemotherapy damages the immune system and might prevent the vitamin C from being effective, inasmuch as it functions mainly by potentiating this system.(5)”

This is a valid critique. A Pubmed search for vitamin C reveals a large number of peer reviewed medical and scientific journal articles that demonstrate that vitamin C scavenges free radicals when it acts as an antioxidant (6), helps neutralize carcinogenic chemicals such as nitrosamine and nitrites (7), enhances lymphocyte function and mobilization of phagocytes (8), improves natural killer cell activities (9), modulates cell growth and differentiation (10), and enhances IgA, IgG and IgM antibody levels (11). Several of these mechanisms are directly related to the body’s immune system and to cancer resistance. Cytotoxic (cell-killing) chemotherapy is notorious for seriously compromising the patient’s immune system by killing the cells that mediate immunity. (Note: in the 1985 Mayo clinic study, this difference was removed as none of the Mayo patients were administered prior chemotherapy.)

Difference #2 - Pauling and Cameron Administered Intravenous Vitamin C, the Mayo Studies Used Only Oral Vitamin C

A commentary published by doctors from the National Institute of Health (NIH) in 2000 pointed out that there was a second significant difference in study design that may have accounted for the different results in the Mayo Clinic studies (12). The authors explained that intravenous (IV) administration (used by Pauling and Cameron) was superior to oral administration (used by Moertel) in respect to bioavailability of the vitamin. The NIH authors said, “It is now clear that intravenous administration of ascorbate can yield very high plasma levels, while oral treatment does not.” The NIH authors concluded that, “Moertel’s results were not comparable to those of Cameron, as ascorbate was given orally and not intravenously. In retrospect, the route of administration may have been key.”(13)

This observation was repeated in another peer reviewed paper published in 2004 in the Annals of Internal Medicine which stated “Because efficacy of vitamin C treatment cannot be judged from clinical trials that use only oral dosing, the role of vitamin C in cancer treatment should be reevaluated.” (14)

Difference #3 - In Pauling’s and Cameron’s Studies, Vitamin C Therapy Continued For the Life of the Patient

And yet a third difference with the Mayo Clinic study was that vitamin C administration was discontinued immediately after a patient could no longer take oral medications or there was progression of the disease. Apparently, in the Pauling and Cameron studies the IV doses continued regardless of the patient’s changing status. Vitamin C was provided during the life of the patient. However, in Moertel’s studies, because it was administered orally, vitamin C was discontinued in a large number of patients whenever there was a sign of worsening. According to writer Ralph Moss, “Because of the odd departure from Cameron’s protocol, patients in the treatment arm of the experiment (in Moertel’s second study) received vitamin C for a median time of only 10 weeks. None of the Mayo patients died while receiving it. Their deaths occurred after the vitamin had been taken away from them.”(15)

Was the Goal of the Mayo Studies to Replicate Pauling and Cameron’s Work or Denounce It?

Obviously if the Mayo Clinic studies were designed to test the outcomes of Drs. Pauling and Cameron studies then they should have replicated their methodology of administration (as long as it was scientifically reliable and clinically appropriate). Why didn’t Moertel’s group administer the vitamin intravenously throughout the life of the patient? We don’t know. Any one of these discrepancies described above should have been sufficient for a complete reevaluation, but as is so often the case, the cancer establishment had successfully “proved” that a mere vitamin was of no value in cancer and the case was closed. Or was it?

Vitamin C Therapy is Still Used Today

In the intervening 20 years since Moertel’s last study two trends have continued: 1) patients are being administered IV vitamin C in various cancer clinics around the world and many are showing benefit; 2) the overall plausibility of ascorbic acid administered intravenously as a cancer therapy is being better understood by recent insights into clinical pharmacokinetics and its in vitro cancer-specific cytotoxicity.

Clinical Examples from the National Cancer Institute

A reading of Drs. Cameron and Pauling’s book “Cancer and Vitamin C” provides 26 case histories of patients with various cancers who received a benefit from vitamin C including: brain, breast, prostate, bladder, lung, stomach, ovarian cancer, leukemia and mesothelioma. But, since Cameron and Pauling have been considered advocates of vitamin C, here is another more disinterested source. Three case examples come from a peer reviewed article whose authors come from the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, and universities. In a March 2006 article entitled “Intravenously administered vitamin C as cancer therapy: three cases” the authors examined clinical details of three cases in accordance with National Cancer Institute (NCI) Best Case Series guidelines (16). Tumor pathology was verified by pathologists at the NCI who were unaware of diagnosis or treatment. In all three cases (metastatic renal cancer, bladder cancer, and lymphoma), vitamin C demonstrated efficacy.

Although these case histories by themselves are insufficient to prove that vitamin C is an effective treatment for cancer, in the words of these authors, these histories “increase the clinical plausibility of the notion that vitamin C administered intravenously might have effects on cancer under certain circumstances.(17)”

Biological Mechanisms of Vitmain C Are Better Understood Today

The number of peer reviewed journal articles continues to grow that describe the clinical pharmacokinetics and in vitro cancer-specific cytotoxicity of vitamin C. In other words, how Vitamin C is absorbed by the body and can kill cancer cells. For example, an article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine set out the pharmacokinetics of intravenous vitamin C (18); another article in the journal Nature discussed how vitamin C preferentially killed melanoma cells (19); and there have been several articles in Anticancer Research(20), and Oncology (21) that described how ascorbate killed various other cancer cell lines in vitro.

Vitamin C and Collagen

You may recall that Drs. Cameron and Pauling pointed out that Vitamin C could increase the number of collagen fibrils made. In the last 20 years biochemists have described the molecular basis of scurvy and in doing so have helped us understand how vitamin C and collagen are related. Apparently vitamin C plays a role in collagen metabolism by acting as a cofactor in the enzymatic reactions involved in the hydroxylation of praline and lysine. Without this hydroxylation, proper aligned stable helices of the alpha chains are not formed, so the procollagen that is formed is unstable and degraded (22).

Vitamin C May Prolong Life

Vitamin C has many roles that may be associated with fighting cancer including: acting as an anti-oxidant and scavenging free radicals, supporting the various immune cells, modulating cell growth and differentiation, helping to synthesize carnitine which is essential for the transport of fat to mitochondria, and possibly even strengthening collagen. The mounting evidence does suggest that Drs. Pauling and Cameron were right and that vitamin C is a benefit to cancer patients. We will conclude, therefore, with their words, “Vitamin C is not a miraculous cure for cancer, but…it significantly prolongs the life of the cancer patient…We believe that supplemental ascorbate can be of real help to all cancer patients and of quite dramatic benefit to a fortunate few.”(23)

Perhaps our health authorities will recognize the benefit of this “mere” vitamin. But, maybe the issue all along was not the fact that vitamin C is a potentially effective and non-toxic therapy, but rather that drug companies cannot make sufficient profits from it because as a vitamin it is difficult to patent. If this is the case, it would be an example of how economics not medicine decides what therapies are made available for cancer.

SOURCE

How is a Mesothelioma Diagnosis Determined?

If you've been exposed to asbestos and suspect that you may have asbestosis or mesothelioma, it's very important that you see a doctor who has experience dealing with asbestos related diseases as soon as possible. The doctor will determine a mesothelioma diagnosis by taking a full medical history and performing a series of diagnostic tests.

One of the reasons that mesothelioma is so deadly is that it is often not diagnosed until it has reached late stage malignancy. New tests and more sensitive instruments have made it possible to get a mesothelioma diagnosis earlier in the progress of the disease. As with most types of cancer, the earlier that it's caught, the more treatment options you'll have. The sooner you have a mesothelioma diagnosis, the sooner treatment can begin. Here's what you can expect if you see a doctor to pursue a mesothelioma diagnosis.

Medical History
The doctor or a nurse will take a complete medical history to determine the symptoms you're experiencing and discover any risk factors. The history will include questions about when and where you might have been exposed to asbestos in the past. Among the symptoms the doctor will be looking for are frequent, painful cough, difficulty breathing and a history of lung function problems like pneumonia, emphysema and bronchitis.

Physical Examination
The doctor will also do a physical examination to discover any symptoms of mesothelioma. The examination will include listening to your breathing and heartbeat, as well as feeling (palpating) your abdomen. Patients with mesothelioma often have fluid buildups, known as effusions, in the tissues and cavities around the heart, lungs or in the abdomen.

X-rays and Imaging Tests
The next step in making a mesothelioma diagnosis is usually a series of chest X-rays. The X-rays may show any thickening of the lung tissues, irregularities in and around the lungs and mineral deposits or calcifications on the lung or pleural tissues. X-rays will also show any fluid buildup around or in the lungs. Any of these can suggest a mesothelioma diagnosis.

The doctor may then order other imaging tests, specifically CT scans and MRI scans. Together, the CT and MRI can help doctors to locate any lesions or tumors, and determine the extent and stage of the cancer. The imaging tests will tell the doctors what they need to know to suggest a course of treatment or further diagnostic testing.

Tissue and Fluid Samples
Your doctor may also want to take samples of fluid from around your lungs, heart or abdomen to determine if there are cancerous cells in it. This is usually done by inserting a needle into your chest cavity and withdrawing a small amount of the fluid for testing. The doctor may also recommend doing this to relieve uncomfortable pressure on the lungs and make breathing easier.

If the X-rays or other images show abnormal areas, your doctor may also want to take a tissue sample to examine for cancerous cells. Getting a sample for biopsy used to invariably involve surgery, but newer methods and equipment make it possible to obtain tissue samples without actually opening your chest. Only your doctor can determine if these methods will be appropriate in your case.

A thoracoscopy is performed with the help of an instrument called a thoracoscope - a telescope like instrument connected to a video camera. The doctor will make a small incision in your chest and insert the thorascoscope through it into your chest cavity. The video camera will allow the doctor to view and examine the tumor without opening your entire chest. He or she can then use a small, specially designed forceps to collect tissue from the tumor for testing. Doctors may also use the occasion of a thoracoscopy to remove fluid surrounding the lungs or pericardium.

Two other methods use similar instruments to obtain tissue samples and view close-ups of tumors and tissue. In a bronchoscopy, the doctor will insert a flexible, lighted tube through your mouth and thread it down through your trachea into the bronchia to find any masses or growths that may indicate pleural mesothelioma. Mediastinoscopy uses a lighted tube that is inserted beneath the sternum and into the chest cavity to view the lymph nodes in that area and examine them for growths abnormal appearance. In both of those procedures, doctors can remove tissue samples for testing.

Surgery is the most invasive method used in determining a mesothelioma diagnosis, but is sometimes the only way to remove a larger sample of the tumor. In some cases, if the cancer is still localized enough, the doctors may remove the entire tumor.

SOURCE

Asbestos scare at sheltered home

An asbestos alert at sheltered homes in Lowestoft has left elderly and disabled tenants without toilet facilities in their flats for two days.

Environmental health officers halted refurbishment work on the toilets at Hildesley Court on Stradbroke Road when an anonymous tip-off alerted them to the presence of asbestos insulating boards in pipe ducting.

They said contractors working on behalf of building managers Housing 21 had disturbed the dangerous substance, creating airborne fibres which can cause cancer and lung diseases if inhaled.

The bathrooms of 18 flats were immediately sealed, leaving pensioners to face a difficult journey to the toilets at the far end of the ground floor - some even resorting to using buckets in their rooms.

Last night, Housing 21 bosses apologised to tenants and said a specialist asbestos cleaning firm was working to contain the problem and they expected the toilets to reopen today.

Hildesley Court resident Alec Cooper, 92, said he was concerned about the hazardous dust, but more affected by the difficulty of not having a toilet in his first-floor flat.

“I am crippled and I have to go four or five times a night. There are toilets downstairs but I use a bucket during the night.

“It doesn't upset me - I have been in the army so I've roughed it before, but it is the women I worry about.

“The manager and his wife offered to help empty it but I have a walker and if you can't do that for yourself then you might as well stay in bed, and I'm not going to do that.”

An 80-year-old woman, who did not wish to be named, said: “I am very annoyed we have to go all the way to the end of the building. It is very inconvenient.”

A Housing 21 spokesman said a short-term solution to seal any exposed asbestos would be completed today and longer-term work to remove the material would begin “in the next few days”.

“No residents are at risk, but have been offered alternative accommodation either with relatives or in local hotels,” he said.

“Most residents have chosen to stay on the court, but our apologies go to all of them for the disruption and inconvenience caused. We will obviously resolve this problem just as soon as we can, and hope that everybody will be back in their homes by Thursday afternoon.”

Britain banned the import and use of most asbestos products in 1999 because airborne fibres, released if the material is disturbed, can cause mesothelioma - a type of cancer - and other lung diseases.

A Waveney District Council spokesman said: “A prohibition notice was issued because, in the opinion of the environ-mental health officer, the refurbishment work was disturbing asbestos and would present an imminent risk to health.”

SOURCE

EPA refused to warn of asbestos dangers

Congressional investigators will hammer the Environmental Protection Agency in a soon-to-be-released report for its flawed examination and cleanup of hundreds of factories that once processed asbestos-contaminated vermiculite into insulation.

But public health specialists say the investigation ignores an even greater failure: the EPA's refusal to adequately warn millions of homeowners that they may be exposed to cancer-causing asbestos in that insulation.

The Government Accountability Office conducted the investigation for Congress. The report, expected to be made public later this month, will say that the EPA's examination of sites in Spokane, Portland and 264 other communities that processed ore from Libby, Mont., used outdated criteria and underestimated or completely missed the dangers to people who worked there or lived nearby.

But the report will not address the EPA's failure to warn homeowners about the risks they face from the insulation.

"It is unconscionable that EPA would not inform the American public of the danger they live with by having this potentially lethal material in their homes," said Dr. Richard Lemen, former assistant U.S. Surgeon General, and acting director of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.

The hazard from exposure to the tremolite asbestos contaminating the vermiculite insulation is well known, Lemen said, "and for EPA to basically keep it a secret from homeowners for all these years is outrageous."

The ore and the finished vermiculite product were sold by W.R. Grace & Co., often under the brand name Zonolite.

It's impossible to know how many homes contain insulation made from the ore. The government and lawyers who have brought a class-action suit against Grace use a formula that calculates the peak years of Zonolite sales, the percentage of the market those sales represented and the number of homes built during that period.

In Washington state, 230,000 to 300,000 homes fall into that matrix, out of as many as 35 million nationwide.

"The EPA knows that people throughout the country continue to encounter this dangerous insulation in their day-to-day activities," said Dr. Aubrey Miller, a U.S. Public Health Service physician.

For eight years, he has worked with the EPA team investigating hazards of the asbestos in the insulation.

"Kids continue to play in it," Miller said. "Workers continue to work in it. Residents continue to be exposed to it and few, if any, have a clue of the hazardous nature of this material.

"For years scientists have documented that the most minor movement, slightest disruption of this Zonolite insulation will unleash millions of fibers into the air. For the child playing in the attic or the cable or telephone installer, or anyone doing renovations, the risks are enormous."

Keven McDermott, manager of EPA's Environmental Services Unit for the Pacific Northwest region, says she continues to get calls asking about the safety of the insulation, seven years after her office did the first analysis of the risks posed by consumer products made with ore from Libby.

"This tells me that as an agency we have not done enough to educate the public about the hazards of Libby vermiculite, especially the insulation," she said. "I feel sick at heart when a young father tells me he just rewired his house, crawling through the vermiculite insulation in his attic day after day, tracking dust and asbestos throughout his home.

"When I explain about the asbestos in Libby vermiculite, there is a stunned silence. He wonders out loud what harm he may have done his family -- and himself.

"We have got to get the word out that they need to take precautions when they work around vermiculite attic insulation."

Almost everything related to the Libby ore and how it's to be dealt with has been mired in a quagmire of national politics, well-funded asbestos industry lobbyists and White House meddling.

The Justice Department has filed serious criminal charges against Grace and seven of its top executives for concealing the dangers of the ore it mined and sold. After two years of postponements, the trial may begin early next year.

In 2002, then-EPA Administrator Christy Todd Whitman agreed with her team of scientists and physicians working in Libby that a "Public Health Emergency" should be declared because of the severe toxicity of the asbestos contamination in the insulation. The declaration would have authorized and provided money for intensified health studies that would quantify the threat from the Libby asbestos, expand the cleanup of the town and the homes, and conduct an extensive publicity campaign to notify homeowners and workers of the dangers from exposure to Zonolite.

Thousands of pages of e-mails, letters and reports document intense efforts from the White House to block the declaration, especially the part that would require the government to tell millions of homeowners that they could be living with a toxic threat in their attic and walls.

In May 2003, EPA said it was launching a "national consumer awareness campaign to provide homeowners with important information on vermiculite attic insulation which may contain asbestos."

It promised extensive television and radio ads, a "blitz" of appearances on national and local news show, the distribution of "tens of thousands" of posters and warning brochures in home improvement stores.

It never happened.

In August, Sen. Max Baucus brought current EPA Administrator Steven Johnson to Libby for a hearing on why EPA headquarters thwarted efforts to institute the emergency declaration. When the Montana Democrat threatened to subpoena the documents showing what happened, Johnson agreed to provide them.

For decades, millions of pounds of the shiny vermiculite ore was shipped from Libby to processing plants throughout North America. High capacity ovens transformed the vermiculite into featherweight, silvery fluff used in scores of consumer and construction products from potting soil to insulation.

Grace documents show that the bulk of residential Zonolite sales were north of a line running from northern California through Denver and St. Louis to Philadelphia. Marketing, production and sales reports obtained by the government show heavy concentrations of Zonolite sold throughout Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, California and in Canada.

Exposure to tremolite asbestos in Libby caused asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer among the miners, their family members and people who lived in town but had no direct connection to the mine.

Hundreds have died and government testing has found that thousands of other people who live or worked near Libby have signs of the disease.

The Seattle P-I disclosed the deaths in Libby eight years ago. Within months government health specialists involved with the victims of the Grace mine insisted that the toxicity of the tremolite that contaminated the vermiculite was alarmingly different, but it continues to fall under the same government regulations and tolerances established for the less lethal chrysotile form of asbestos.

Grace said it stopped producing the insulation in the late 1980s and most of its sites had been sold to other businesses. EPA investigators say the new owners of former processing plants may not have known that tons of asbestos-contaminated waste may have been buried on the property or was clinging to dust-covered rafters.

EPA headquarters told its regional offices to determine how many sites were contaminated. Some regions did elaborate sampling of soil, air and dust. Others did "windshield surveys" without leaving their car. Some regional offices did nothing.

"Based on these evaluations, 19 sites were found to be contaminated ... and needed to be cleaned," the GAO will report. But, it noted, in evaluating the sites EPA used a decades-old "1 percent rule," which said an area was "safe" if the asbestos found didn't exceed 1 percent.

For years many scientists and physicians from EPA and the National Centers for Disease Control were largely ignored by agency chiefs when they argued that that the 1 percent threshold was just an arbitrary number that industry supported.

As to the insulation in homes, EPA has posted a warning on its Web site and produced a pamphlet that will be sent to anyone who asks.

Said Miller, the Public Health Service physician:

"This is not how a public health crisis should be handled."

SOURCE