recentpopularlog in

Quercki : cancer   27

Is Sunscreen the New Margarine? | Outside Online
Sunny Australia changed its tune back in 2005. Cancer Council Australia’s official-position paper (endorsed by the Australasian College of Dermatologists) states, “Ultraviolet radiation from the sun has both beneficial and harmful effects on human health.... A balance is required between excessive sun exposure which increases the risk of skin cancer and enough sun exposure to maintain adequate vitamin D levels.... It should be noted that the benefits of sun exposure may extend beyond the production of vitamin D. Other possible beneficial effects of sun exposure… include reduction in blood pressure, suppression of autoimmune disease, and improvements in mood.”
sun  VitaminD  hypertension  depression  cancer 
10 weeks ago by Quercki
‘For 30 years I’ve been obsessed by why children get leukaemia. Now we have an answer’ | Science | The Guardian
“It is a feature of developed societies but not of developing ones,” Greaves adds. “The disease tracks with affluence.”

Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is caused by a sequence of biological events. The initial trigger is a genetic mutation that occurs in about one in 20 children.

“That mutation is caused by some kind of accident in the womb. It is not inherited, but leaves a child at risk of getting leukaemia in later life,” adds Greaves.

For full leukaemia to occur, another biological event must take place and this involves the immune system. “For an immune system to work properly, it needs to be confronted by an infection in the first year of life,” says Greaves. Without that confrontation with an infection, the system is left unprimed and will not work properly.”
germs  immune  leukemia  medicine  cancer  microbes 
january 2019 by Quercki
Beyond Just a Cells Unit by Gretchen Kraig-Turner
Every year when I distribute The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot to my biotechnology class, I am greeted with “Turner, this isn’t English class!” And every year I tell my students, “I promise you: This book is going to change the way you think about science. Give it a chance.”

I make this promise to my students because I know the beginning of the story will pique their interest. Skloot brilliantly describes the beginnings of both Henrietta Lacks, the woman, and HeLa, the first immortal cell line, in a way that gains the interest of a wide swath of students. Henrietta’s daughter, Deborah, is quoted on the first page: “When I go to the doctor for checkups I always say my mother was HeLa. They get all excited, tell me stuff like how her cells helped make my blood pressure medicines and anti-depression pills . . . but they don’t never explain more than just sayin, Yeah, your mother was on the moon, she been in nuclear bombs, and made that polio vaccine. . . . But I always thought it was strange, if our mother’s cells done so much for medicine, how come her family can’t afford to see no doctors? I used to get so mad. . . . But I don’t got it in me no more to fight. I just want to know who my mother was.”
cancer  HeLa  science  education  BlackLivesMatter 
december 2017 by Quercki
Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial | The BMJ
Main outcome measure Deaths from breast cancer.

Results During the five year screening period, 666 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed in the mammography arm (n=44 925 participants) and 524 in the controls (n=44 910), and of these, 180 women in the mammography arm and 171 women in the control arm died of breast cancer during the 25 year follow-up period. The overall hazard ratio for death from breast cancer diagnosed during the screening period associated with mammography was 1.05 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.30). The findings for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 were almost identical. During the entire study period, 3250 women in the mammography arm and 3133 in the control arm had a diagnosis of breast cancer, and 500 and 505, respectively, died of breast cancer. Thus the cumulative mortality from breast cancer was similar between women in the mammography arm and in the control arm (hazard ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.12). After 15 years of follow-up a residual excess of 106 cancers was observed in the mammography arm, attributable to over-diagnosis.

Conclusion Annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care when adjuvant therapy for breast cancer is freely available. Overall, 22% (106/484) of screen detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, representing one over-diagnosed breast cancer for every 424 women who received mammography screening in the trial.
breast  cancer  research 
november 2017 by Quercki
Overdiagnosis in mammography screening: a 45 year journey from shadowy idea to acknowledged reality | The BMJ
Accepted 28 January 2015
Alexandra Barratt summarises and debates overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening and discusses how myriad uncertainties might be resolved so we can move forward

Summary box
Clinical context—Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide with a significant burden of morbidity and mortality in developed and developing countries.
Diagnostic change—Mammography screening has provided expanded opportunities to detect breast cancer over the last three decades, and more recently through incremental improvements in detection provided by digital mammography and tomosynthesis
Impact on prevalence—Breast cancer incidence has increased significantly in recent decades, most strikingly among women aged 50-69 years in countries where there is good uptake of mammography screening
Evidence of overdiagnosis—Strong increases in the incidence of early breast cancer without proportionate reductions in advanced cancer incidence, and evidence from randomised trials and observational studies showing excess cancers detected among women during screening which are not compensated by decrements in incidence once women cease screening
Harms of overdiagnosis—All women diagnosed with early breast cancer are treated comprehensively for breast cancer, even though some have overdiagnosed (harmless) cancers; these women cannot benefit from treatment but are exposed to the physical and psychosocial harms of cancer treatments
mammogram  cancer 
october 2016 by Quercki
Breast-Cancer Tumor Size, Overdiagnosis, and Mammography Screening Effectiveness — NEJM
After the advent of screening mammography, the proportion of detected breast tumors that were small (invasive tumors measuring <2 cm or in situ carcinomas) increased from 36% to 68%; the proportion of detected tumors that were large (invasive tumors measuring ≥2 cm) decreased from 64% to 32%. However, this trend was less the result of a substantial decrease in the incidence of large tumors (with 30 fewer cases of cancer observed per 100,000 women in the period after the advent of screening than in the period before screening) and more the result of a substantial increase in the detection of small tumors (with 162 more cases of cancer observed per 100,000 women). Assuming that the underlying disease burden was stable, only 30 of the 162 additional small tumors per 100,000 women that were diagnosed were expected to progress to become large, which implied that the remaining 132 cases of cancer per 100,000 women were overdiagnosed (i.e., cases of cancer were detected on screening that never would have led to clinical symptoms). The potential of screening to lower breast cancer mortality is reflected in the declining incidence of larger tumors. However, with respect to only these large tumors, the decline in the size-specific case fatality rate suggests that improved treatment was responsible for at least two thirds of the reduction in breast cancer mortality.
Although the rate of detection of large tumors fell after the introduction of screening mammography, the more favorable size distribution was primarily the result of the additional detection of small tumors. Women were more likely to have breast cancer that was overdiagnosed than to have earlier detection of a tumor that was destined to become large. The reduction in breast cancer mortality after the implementation of screening mammography was predominantly the result of improved systemic therapy.
mammogram  cancer 
october 2016 by Quercki
Even More Evidence That Mammograms Have Been Oversold | FiveThirtyEight
A study published online today by the The New England Journal of Medicine added to a growing body of evidence that for every woman who has been helped by a mammogram screening1 for breast cancer, many more have been harmed.

This latest study examined data from 1975 to 2012 on women ages 40 and older taken from a national program that tracks cancer cases. The researchers’ goal was to determine whether this type of screening, which became widespread in the 1980s, was really catching cancer earlier and thus reducing the number of big tumors that were being diagnosed later.

The results were sobering, as H. Gilbert Welch, a physician at Dartmouth and the study’s lead author, explains in this short video. The idea behind cancer screening is that it saves lives by identifying cancers when they are more treatable — i.e., earlier, when they are smaller. If it works, then we should see a rise in the number of small tumors being detected and a commensurate drop in the number of large cancers, as treating the small cancers would eliminate them before they become big ones, in the same way that picking small zucchini from your garden prevents you from developing humongous ones. But the new study found that although the incidence of cancers smaller than 2 centimeters rose quite dramatically after widespread mammography was introduced, by 162 cases per 100,000 women, the incidence of larger tumors fell by a much smaller amount — only 30 cases of cancer per 100,000 women.
mammogram  cancer 
october 2016 by Quercki
Ionizing Radiation and Breast Cancer Risk
Does x-ray mammography put women at an even higher risk of developing a radiationinduced breast cancer?

In 1977, the US National Cancer Institute held its first “consensus” conference and the topic chosen was mammography screening of healthy women for the early detection of breast cancer. Since that time, there have been notable improvements in the imaging capabilities of the x-ray units and an appreciable lowering of radiation dose to breast tissue - by more than ten times. The controversy today surrounding screening of healthy women is not whether the radiation exposures are hazardous, but whether young women, under the age of 50, benefit from mammograms. A 30 percent reduction in death from breast cancer has been convincingly demonstrated in randomized trials of women over the age of 50. The benefit for younger women is less clear, but apparently lower. The possible hazard from mammography x-rays is very low and should not be a factor in individual decisions to undergo this procedure. The same is true for most diagnostic x-ray procedures. Nonetheless, unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided and continued vigilance is required to ensure that the benefits associated with specific procedures outweigh the future risks.

When the mammography is performed because of symptoms that may be cancerous or because risk factors place a woman at especially high risk of breast cancer, such as known genetic conditions or prior high dose radiation to the chest, the benefit from the low dose radiation procedure substantially outweighs the possible future risk. And if you are over the age of 50, the riskbenefit equation is clearly in your favor since radiation exposures at these ages are thought to have little connection to increases in breast cancer later in life. In other words, the small presumed risk is more than offset by the benefit of the procedure, and this is especially true for women at high risk for breast cancer.
mammograms  cancer 
october 2015 by Quercki
Promotion of variant human mammary epithelial cell outgrowth by ionizing radiation: an agent-based model supported by in vitro studies. - PubMed - NCBI
Most human mammary epithelial cells (HMEC) cultured from histologically normal breast tissues enter a senescent state termed stasis after 5 to 20 population doublings. These senescent cells display increased size, contain senescence associated beta-galactosidase activity, and express cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, p16INK4A (CDKN2A; p16). However, HMEC grown in a serum-free medium, spontaneously yield, at low frequency, variant (v) HMEC that are capable of long-term growth and are susceptible to genomic instability. We investigated whether ionizing radiation, which increases breast cancer risk in women, affects the rate of vHMEC outgrowth.
Pre-stasis HMEC cultures were exposed to 5 to 200 cGy of sparsely (X- or gamma-rays) or densely (1 GeV/amu 56Fe) ionizing radiation. Proliferation (bromodeoxyuridine incorporation), senescence (senescence-associated beta-galactosidase activity), and p16 expression were assayed in subcultured irradiated or unirradiated populations four to six weeks following radiation exposure, when patches of vHMEC became apparent. Long-term growth potential and p16 promoter methylation in subsequent passages were also monitored. Agent-based modeling, incorporating a simple set of rules and underlying assumptions, was used to simulate vHMEC outgrowth and evaluate mechanistic hypotheses.
Cultures derived from irradiated cells contained significantly more vHMEC, lacking senescence associated beta-galactosidase or p16 expression, than cultures derived from unirradiated cells. As expected, post-stasis vHMEC cultures derived from both unirradiated and irradiated cells exhibited more extensive methylation of the p16 gene than pre-stasis HMEC cultures. However, the extent of methylation of individual CpG sites in vHMEC samples did not correlate with passage number or treatment. Exposure to sparsely or densely ionizing radiation elicited similar increases in the numbers of vHMEC compared to unirradiated controls. Agent-based modeling indicated that radiation-induced premature senescence of normal HMEC most likely accelerated vHMEC outgrowth through alleviation of spatial constraints. Subsequent experiments using defined co-cultures of vHMEC and senescent cells supported this mechanism.
Our studies indicate that ionizing radiation can promote the outgrowth of epigenetically altered cells with pre-malignant potential.
mammograms  cancer 
october 2015 by Quercki
It’s official: Mammograms Cause Breast Cancer : Dr. Leonard
It’s official: Mammograms cause breast cancer by inundating tissues with ionizing radiation that causes DNA mutations.

That’s why mammography is a brilliant business model for the cancer industry: If women get annual mammograms, sooner or later they’ll find a tumor caused by the mammography! (And then they’ll say “Good thing we caught it early, huh?”)
mammogram  cancer 
october 2015 by Quercki
Association of Nut Consumption with Total and Cause-Specific Mortality — NEJM
During 3,038,853 person-years of follow-up, 16,200 women and 11,229 men died. Nut consumption was inversely associated with total mortality among both women and men, after adjustment for other known or suspected risk factors. The pooled multivariate hazard ratios for death among participants who ate nuts, as compared with those who did not, were 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 0.96) for the consumption of nuts less than once per week, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93) for once per week, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.90) for two to four times per week, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.91) for five or six times per week, and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.86) for seven or more times per week (P<0.001 for trend). Significant inverse associations were also observed between nut consumption and deaths due to cancer, heart disease, and respiratory disease.
Full Text of Results...
In two large, independent cohorts of nurses and other health professionals, the frequency of nut consumption was inversely associated with total and cause-specific mortality, independently of other predictors of death. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research and Education Foundation.)
research  nuts  heart  death  cancer  respiratory  lung  health  cholesterol 
december 2013 by Quercki
Nut consumption reduces risk of death | Harvard Gazette
“The most obvious benefit was a reduction of 29 percent in deaths from heart disease — the major killer of people in America,” said Charles S. Fuchs, director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Treatment Center at Dana-Farber, who is the senior author of the report and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

“But we also saw a significant reduction — 11 percent — in the risk of dying from cancer,” added Fuchs, who is also affiliated with the Channing Division of Network Medicine at Brigham and Women’s.

Whether any specific type or types of nuts were crucial to the protective effect could not be determined. However, the reduction in mortality was similar both for peanuts (a legume, or ground nut) and for tree nuts — walnuts, hazelnuts, almonds, Brazil nuts, cashews, macadamias, pecans, pistachios, and pine nuts.

Several previous studies had found an association between increasing nut consumption and a lower risk of diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, colon cancer, gallstones, and diverticulitis. Higher nut consumption also has been linked to reductions in cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, inflammation, adiposity, and insulin resistance. Some small studies have linked an increase of nuts in the diet to lower total mortality in specific populations. But no previous research studies had looked in such detail at various levels of nut consumption and their effects on overall mortality in a large population that was followed for more than 30 years.
heart  cancer  cholesterol  nut  almond  health  medicine  research 
december 2013 by Quercki
A big win for consent, privacy, and genome data - Boing Boing
The family of Henrietta Lacks — a woman whose cervical cancer cells were harvested and used in scientific research for decades without her knowledge or consent — will now play a role in deciding who has access to the Lacks' cell genome data, and for what purposes. There are loopholes in the new system. For instance, the agreement only applies to scientists who receive National Institutes of Health funding. And the genome of the cells has been sequenced so many times, at this point, that anybody who wasn't NIH funded and didn't want to voluntarily abide by the agreement essentially wouldn't have to.

But it is a big step forward, both for the Lacks family (whose own genetic information is contained in those genome sequences) and for the idea that human genetic information belongs to the people it comes from — not to whoever happens to sequence it.
privacy  DNA  cancer  patent 
august 2013 by Quercki
GLOBOCAN 2008. Global Cancer fact sheets
Welcome to the GLOBOCAN project. The aim of the project is to provide contemporary estimates of the incidence of, mortality, prevalence and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from major type of cancers, at national level, for 184 countries of the world. The GLOBOCAN estimates are presented for 2008, separately for each sex and, for incidence and mortality data, for ten age groups. 1-, 3- and 5-year prevalence data are available for the adult population only (ages 15 and over). DALYs, life years lost due to premature mortality (YLLs) and years lived with disability (YLDs) are available for all ages only. Please note that:
These estimates are based on the most recent data available at IARC and on information publically available on the Internet, but more recent figures may be available directly from local sources.
Because the sources of data are continuously improving in quality and extent, estimates may not be truly comparable overtime and care should be taken when comparing these estimates with those published earlier. The observed differences may be the result of a change in the methodology and should not be interpreted as a time trend effect.
cancer  statistics  distribution  *** 
july 2013 by Quercki
My Grandmother’s Body « Culturally Disoriented
My grandmother could not make choices about her own medical care, since she did not know what her actual medical conditions were.  Certain procedures must have been unavailable to her, since they would have forced doctors to reveal the secret (there aren’t a lot of reasons to get chemotherapy except cancer).

My grandmother could not make informed choices about how to live her life, since she did not know crucial facts ABOUT her life. She did not know she was living with a deadly illness. She did not know that her prognosis was severe; that doctors thought she would survive a few months or a year, at most. Maybe my grandmother would have made different choices. Maybe there were things she would have wanted to do. But she did not have the information necessary to make those choices. Tragically, she could not even decide how to prepare (or not prepare) her youngest daughter, who was a very young child when my grandmother was diagnosed.

And, although she did not know it, the lie made my grandmother utterly dependent on her husband and her doctor. They were now in complete control of her medical future. They could have chosen not to treat her. They could have chosen to use highly experimental drugs. Her husband could have withheld medication. He could have used his knowledge to manipulate her into making big financial decisions that she would not have made knowing her prognosis.

As far as I know – and I do not know a lot – the doctors and her husband did not abuse their power. I mean, except for the part where they lied to my grandmother for TEN YEARS. Other than that.

But they could have. From the time her doctor and her husband decided to lie to her, to the time she died, my grandmother did not have bodily autonomy. She could not control her own life, or her own body. Other people had that control.

My grandmother died of pancreatic and liver cancer two days before I was born.
choice  abortion  cancer  death  consent 
november 2012 by Quercki
Naked mole rats: Can they help us cure cancer? - Slate Magazine
There's a problem with the colonies of naked mole rats that Rochelle Buffenstein carted down to her new lab in Texas four years ago. Unlike mice, which die of cancer by the crateful, not a single one of her animals has ever developed a naturally occurring tumor. Nor has any other naked mole rat seen anywhere in the world.
If you want to know how cancer grows and how it kills, then it helps to have a case in front of you. Most researchers don't wait for tumors to pop up by chance: They irradiate their animals, or transplant tumors from one to another, or inject carcinogens directly into their bellies. In 2004, Buffenstein and her students tried one of these shortcuts. They placed some mole rats in a gamma chamber and blasted their pale, pink bodies with ionizing rays. The animals were unimpressed. When I visited Buffenstein’s lab this past July, many were still alive, skittering through the plastic tubes of their basement habitat at the Barshop Institute for Longevity and Aging Studies.
Four years later, Buffenstein tried again. This time she infected cells from a naked mole rat with a virus designed to corrupt their nuclei with the cancer-causing genes SV40 TAg and Ras. Then she slipped those cells into a live mouse, under the skin behind its ear. If you do the same using infected material from a mouse or a rat, or even a cow or a human, the transplant quickly grows into a deadly tumor, invading nearby fat and muscle tissue. But when Buffenstein and her colleagues used cells from a naked mole-rat, nothing happened.
science  cancer  mice  naked-mole-rats 
january 2012 by Quercki
Dichloroacetate and cancer : Pharyngula
It's like a game of telephone: you can actually trace the account from the sober science paper to the enthusiastic press release to the web account with its extravagant claims of a simple, cheap cure for cancer, and see how the story is gradually corrupted. It would be funny if the final result wasn't going to dupe a lot of desperate people.

But there is a germ of truth to the story, in that DCA does have potential. Here's how it works.
cancer  cure  solutions 
may 2011 by Quercki
Vitamin D and Prevention of Cancer — Ready for Prime Time? — NEJM
The committee's comprehensive review of the evidence regarding vitamin D's role in preventing cancer, however, revealed that the research is inconsistent and doesn't establish a cause–effect relationship. Other recent reviews have reached similar conclusions.2,3 No large-scale randomized clinical trial of vitamin D has been completed with cancer as the primary prespecified outcome. Most evidence is derived from laboratory studies, ecologic correlations, and observational investigations of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in association with cancer outcomes. Although this serum measure is a useful marker of current vitamin D exposure, associational studies have important limitations. Specifically, low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are also linked with confounding factors related to higher cancer risk, including obesity (vitamin D becomes sequestered in adipose tissue), lack of physical activity (correlated with less time outdoors and less solar exposure), dark skin pigmentation (less skin synthesis of vitamin D in response to sun), and diet or supplementation practices. Reverse-causation bias may also occur if poor health reduces participation in outdoor activities and sun exposure or adversely affects diet, resulting in lower vitamin D levels. Association therefore cannot prove causation. Many micronutrients that seemed promising in observational studies (e.g., beta carotene, vitamins C and E, folic acid, and selenium) were not found to reduce cancer risk in randomized clinical trials, and some were found to cause harm at high doses.4
VitaminD  cancer  diet 
march 2011 by Quercki
Study: Many Sunscreens May Be Accelerating Cancer - AOL News
WASHINGTON (May 24) -- Almost half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may actually increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A or its derivatives, according to an evaluation of those products released today.

AOL News also has learned through documents and interviews that the Food and Drug Administration has known of the potential danger for as long as a decade without alerting the public, which the FDA denies.
sunscreen  cancer 
june 2010 by Quercki
Just when you thought it was safe at I Blame The Patriarchy
When I was going to have my mastectomy I tried to look up surgery photos online and couldn’t find any. This is understandable; women don’t often want to be photographed topless and especially not when they’re frightened and vulnerable. There’s also a very small window of opportunity to decide whether or not to photograph something like that and figure out how to make it happen. Since I couldn’t find photos when I wanted them, however, I decided to figure out how to make it happen. I had my entire mastectomy photographed as well as my hysterectomy and my port installation and a bunch of other things.

Julia does not lie; there are no mastectomy photos online. Veteran blamers may recall that I (and I’m sure I’m not the only one who has done this) uploaded a few gross post-operative pix featuring my staples and blood-bags and bruises and scars and so forth (see below), but it never occurred to me to document the actual surgeries.
breast  cancer  photos  feminism  medicine 
september 2009 by Quercki
Worried Sick: How Vulnerable Are You Really to Heart Attack, Stroke or Breast Cancer? | Health and Wellness | AlterNet
Here are the numbers: In order to prevent one cancer death among women over 55, 250 women have to be screened annually, beginning at age 55. But mammograms will also detect two other women with breast cancer who would not have died of the cancer. "In other words" Hadler says, "the screening will lead to the treatment of three women, for two of whom the treatment is unnecessary."
medicine  cancer  death 
november 2008 by Quercki
Did the study work? Consumers can find out | Booster Shots | Los Angeles Times
the nation's database for clinical trials,, will begin adding the results of trials of drugs, medical devices and biologic products (such as vaccines) conducted in the United States.
cancer  research 
october 2008 by Quercki
Less Than 1 in 5 Cancer Trials Are Published
This clinical trial blackout is a huge problem in cancer research, according to a paper just published in The Oncologist. Dr. Scott Ramsey and Dr. John Scroggins at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle downloaded the complete list of clinical trials in the National Institutes of Health's registry. Then they searched for scientific papers reporting the results of those trials.
Research Not Completed

The results were "disturbing," Ramsey says. Less than 1 in 5 clinical trials were published in peer-reviewed journals. "I knew that there was underpublication," but not to that degree, he says. And when it came to trials sponsored by industry, the rate was even lower: Just 1 in 20 is published. "We were really shocked by that," Ramsey says. But scientists say the more worrisome reason may be that trials are suppressed when results were negativeThat can be enormously valuable knowledge especially if the drug or treatment being studied is already in clinical use.
cancer  research 
october 2008 by Quercki
Many Cancer Trials Go Unpublished: Study - Science & Health news | Newser: Know More. Search Less.
Fewer than 20% of cancer trial results are published in peer-review journals, a new study says. And industry-sponsored trials only achieve publication one time in 20. The reason? Scientists seeking success and media-hungry journals don't want to publish negative results, analysts say—even if they would aid other cancer studies.

"I knew that there was underpublication," but not at such high rates, study author Dr. Scott Ramsey told BusinessWeek. "We were really shocked by that." Studies that negated a drug's effects may have gone unpublished, he said, while positive ones were. Then "not only are we wasting lots of money, but we'd be giving patients false hopes about the value of the products."
cancer  research 
october 2008 by Quercki

Copy this bookmark:

to read