back in the.com days, i do very profitable business, i raised $13 million from one of the most -- my partner was john sculley of apple. about eight months into it the company was change and since we're trying to posture it. i saw my hard work starting to change the no longer that being customer service oriented but isn't getting as much product out the door. it was crap. we've got to increase the number so we could foster a self for wall street. i didn't like that at all. i hated that. and i walked away from that. i started another one. i walked we because i just could not continue to lie. i couldn't live a life. >> host: we are all out of time. dennis michael lynch come you can go to dmldailey.com (202) a9 -- theycometoamerica.com for more information.

>> here on c-span2 its more booktv. our focus is on iran with three books do with the persian nation including matthew crane x. a time to attack. >> one of the recent researchers at cdc to investigate is the emerging diseases in people are often traced back to animals. one of these situations occurred in 2003. the first hit we had the something had gone terribly wrong, you can see in this picture up here. this is a three year-old girl who lives in wisconsin and she

developed these very odd, very disturbing skin lesions. i'm too young to have been vaccine for smallpox. i was the first generation of kids who didn't get a smallpox vaccine but there many researchers at cdc who dedicated their early careers to eradicating this disease from the world and they took one look at this picture and said, that's smallpox. so we were very, very worried, especially when a second case was reported just a few days later from another part of wisconsin to these two patients didn't know which of the what is a three year-old girl, one is a businessman, but had one piece of history in common. they both been bitten by sick pet prairie dogs. >> and that the bush of tonight's special presentation looking at the centers for disease control's disease detectives. you can see the entire program beginning at eight eastern on our companion network c-span.

>> "scientific american" of july edition focus on cancer research and treatment. earlier today we spoke with a senior editor from the magazine. this segment is about 45 minutes. >> host: on wednesday in the last hour of the watch ginger we take a look at reason magazine articles as part of our spotlight on the magazine series. today we want to show you a recent edition of "scientific american" and a special report on cancer. the title of the piece, a march on malignancy. joining us is christine gorman, senior editor at "scientific american." let's begin with the headline here, the march on malignancy. why do the special report? >> guest: well, i think you're a number of reasons to do the special report and as you said it's out in the july issue of "scientific american," done in partnership with nature, the research journal. the reasons to do it includes

the fact that now that we have the human genome project, when we've learned how to sequence the genes that are found in people we can also sequence of the genes that are found in cancers, in tumors. at base, chances are genetic diseases, not necessarily the genes you got as a child, but they did changed for their expression, the way they work and the soviets changed in bad ways and those changes accumulate over time, creating a sound that grows out of control and becomes what we call a tumor. so the amazing revolution in genetic sequencing and figure out what genes have changed, the ability to figure that out now for a specific tumor, after getting to the point of telling

which genes have changed, which changes are more important of which are actually driving the growth of any particular tumor, which genes are sort of along for the ride if you will, passenger genes. so there's an incredible amount of information just in the past five, even less years, has come out about the genetics of cancer. at the same time we're getting much more precise in terms of targeting of tumors with different kinds of treatments, and in terms of looking at, personalizing it. this is all still five, 10, in some cases actually already here, but in terms of general application, it still into the future. but we are sort of on a hilltop if you will and can see where these things are going. finally, the third thing i would say is that we're learning about

how the body itself reacts to a tumor and how it can be boosted, say, in the immune system to fight off cancer better than it was prior. so those three things are really kind of just blowing open. i mean, the world of cancer research is learning so much that i think that was the excitement that motivated the editors at nature, and that "scientific american" to bring out this special report. and i know you've shown the issue but it's the july issue of "scientific american." and if you look inside its nature outlook and about a dozen or so articles that are full of, you know, sort of ripped from the front lines of cancer research. >> host: you note in the article that it's been more than

40 years since a war on cancer was declared. so where does the war stand? >> guest: it's funny, in the 1970s when the war on cancer was declared, that was that kind of war metaphor that works really well. in the same way that there had been the moonshot challenge but it seemed like you could declare a target and go after it. it turns out that cancer is much more like a really weird dance. when you think about what the cells in the body, there's this incredible orchestration of, you know, the cells in the liver talking to the cells in the pantry is talking to the cells -- pancreas, talking to the cells in the intestines. they are all orchestrated, all in tune with each other. cancer is a real disruption of that extraordinary coordination.

so the dance gets totally messed up. it becomes totally uncoordinated. some players sort of takeover, and that more systemic approach of how do you coordinate, how do you bring that coordination, how do you persuade cells that have gone rogue to either die -- psychos that is your war metaphor -- or even go quite isn't so that they -- why is it so they simply causing trouble. and it turns out you need agents on the outside. you need drugs. you need those kinds, but you don't just need to kill. you also can boost the response of the immune system, as i mentioned earlier. you can change the environment. it turns out, this is something very new that is being worked on in the last few years. what's called a microenvironment, a healthy

cells that surround a tumor actually support the tumor. you know, there are blood cells. the blood vessels that are attractive to a solid tumor. to nourish it. there is an oxygen core environment in the middle of the tumor that is normally not a hospitable place, but some of cancer cells have figured out how to survive there. so there's this old microenvironment, that if you can when they put a microenvironment we might be able to stop tumors from growing. so to get back to your original question about the war on cancer, we've done a lot in terms of early detection. we really haven't made much progress and prevention, i would

say, when i think about the 1970s versus not in terms of sunbathing, smoking, various dietary issues, we've made progress in terms of understanding the lifestyle changes we can make with respect to prevention. we have done a lot in terms of early detection in order to stop cancers from going on. i mean, you hardly hear about advanced cervical cancer anymore. but what has not happened in the past four years, of tackling cancer, particularly with a solid tumors, cancers are divided into two groups. the liquid tumors, those are your lymphomas, your leukemias, things like that. a lot of progress, childhood leukemia which used to be an almost 99-100% of the time fatal

in a very short period of time, is now exactly the opposite, almost always survivable. but we haven't had as much success with advanced forms of solid tumors, lung cancers, breast cancers. >> host: on that point i wanted to show our viewers inside the magazine to attacking epidemic, huge amount of funding and research. individual differences and cancer trends making it hard easy to wipe out. look at the global map. the darker regions including the united states or the death rate per 100,000 people, the darkest, more than 116. annex, which is predominately the united states, looking between 99-116 deaths of 100,000 people. let's get a phone calls. crownsville, maryland. independent code to your up first transfer good morning and thank you for c-span but i wanted to ask if she has gone to the residence the institute and

stafford texas adopted dr. brzezinski? he is managed to sit -- cure every type of cancer that is with his therapy. i'm not saying he cares everybody but he's doing it at a rate far greater than conventional methods that are been used. is care is not defined as five you cancer free but cancer free for life. >> guest: okay, the brzezinski institute. as the call and turn those is a very controversial operation, and mainstream researchers do not credit it with the claims that dr. brzezinski has made. so i would rather not comment too much more on that. what i'm talking about and what we are talking about in the special report in nature and in "scientific american," it's actually been both magazines, is

reproducible and multiple institutions across -- not only across the united states but around the world. and so i'm going to keep my money with methods that have been shown to work and are being shown to work all around the world. >> host: here's a tweet from one of our viewers. i am glad she emphasized the importance of immune system in fighting cancer, and also aging. pompano beach, florida, go ahead. >> caller: thank you for c-span. might ask, is there any group of things that must happen before there is changes in the genes, as you mentioned earlier? >> guest: yes. that's a great question. this is part of the excitement, is that now the combination of

geneticists and cell biologists and all of the different specialist in different areas of medicine and biology and immunology are putting together a kind of script if you will of the different changes that must occur. the changes are different depending on the organ in which the particular sale is, and the environment in which you are. environment is and can we think of environment as what is outside, but the environment is also the near environment, if you will, what food you are putting into your mouth, whether or not you smoke. smoking still the biggest modifiable environmental factor. air pollution. in china dashed that we are very lucky in the united states. we've gotten a lot of our air pollution issues under control.

but china where air pollution is just horrific as people are going around wearing masks all the time, they just weaselly, i think last year, had -- a child of eight years of age was diagnosed with a primary lung tumor. a tumor of the lungs, that started in the lungs. it didn't jump there from someplace else. and as we know, lung cancers of course most lung cancers are caused by smoking. this child was not a smoker, but about 20% i believe of lung cancers are in non-smokers who have some sort of environmental exposure, people in new jersey, for example, know a lot about radon exposure. radon being a naturally occurring radioactive substance that increases the risk for lung cancer. but this child at the age of

eight, i think it's the youngest case of lung cancer we've ever seen in the world, developed primary lung cancer. it's pretty obvious what's different is the toxic toxic levels of air pollution there. so you have some sort of change, some from the private or some hereditary predisposition. something happened that causes a refugees in particular sale to go haywire, to either change, have something dropout. and then it all works normally and the feeling is this probably happens all the time, nobody notices, the immune system says there's danger here. and immunologists even talk about danger signals the can actually find the proteins that say something bad is happening, something is not working right.

and the immune system will send a signal to that sal, and it's fairly complicated, but researchers are tracing it in minute detail, telling that so what, sorry, but for the good of everyone else, you have to commit suicide. it's called cell suicide or the more technical term is a pertussis. so that sal buys and that's the end of it. but in some number of cases, this is one of the reasons why cancer is an issue of aging, you know, you just run the roulette wheel, the genetic roulette wheel long enough and one time as the immune system gets older it's not so good at keeping watch. >> host: let's show our viewers the graphic from your store the age-old problem. a dramatic change happened around the age of 20 when the

main cancer being diagnosed in the unite united states starts o shift from a leukemia to become only digestive, prostate, lung and breast cancer. people can go to the website, "scientific american.com" and you can see the numbers that you all have put together. we have a lot phone calls or ask for some short questions and some short answers. we'll go to dale in st. charles missouri. democratic caller. go ahead. >> caller: i work in health care. i've lost every member of my family to cancer. it's probably going to get me. regarding the war on cancer, what we've seen is billions of dollars of public and private money spent, and they are largely on treatments but that seems to be where the money is, is the treatment. i don't know how many times we heard there was a cure right around the corner, but in reality that has not happened. except in very few cases but

those are mostly vaccines and so forth like cervical cancer. give me feedback on how much research is being done for a cure in the private sector versus the public sector. >> host: and before you do that, let's show our viewers the money from your special. in 2013 views national institute of health spent $2.6 billion on cancer research and more than one quarter of that went to breast cancer but you can set breaks down. -- you can see how it breaks down. >> guest: okay. so a short answer about the cure for cancer but my shortest answer is there is no cure for cancer. there is no single cure for cancer. because there is no one disease called cancer but there are many cancers.

unfortunately, in the case, your family is going to probably a set of cancers. so what will work in your families case will be different from what works for somebody who, say, develops breast cancer at the age of 75. in terms of treatment, yes, there is a lot of money being spent on treatment, but i think that what you will see with the money that is now being spent on genetics, on immunology, that we will have new insights. we will have to develop new ways of testing trucks. one of the articles in this issue is about redesigning the ways that drugs are tested so that syndicate tested at once and you can actually change the study based on the feedback you get as to which drugs seem to be working better win. so i think you're probably right, the design of studies has

to change in order to take advantage of the new research coming out so we are not all waiting so long for answers. >> host: here is the headline from a special report in "scientific american." more trials, fewer tribulation. clinical studies that group of patients according to their molecular profile can make for better and faster drug approvals decisions. maryland, independent caller. >> caller: there's been a lot of research all over the world showing that the cdc's in the cannabis plants and that includes -- to that of thc to make you buy my very effective in helping all kinds of cancers in getting rid of them. one doctor reported an eight -month-old baby with a brain tumor, they put on his pacifier and a tumor went completely away. the doctors said it couldn't be too. could you please comment on what we can do to get the government to make this legal?

>> guest: so there were lots of questions in your question. and i think the most important of which to reiterate is that you have -- size is the art or science of reproducing. one result as magnificent as it was if it did happen in that baby does not a proof create. and so you have the reproduce, the same with the collar about the texas cancer. they have to be able to sure i can never say his name right. that you have to be able to reproduce. so in the case of cannabinoids, there are lots of cannabinoids. so which one is the one that

purportedly is making the difference quick believe it or not there is research on this. the trick is to figure out which part to sort of target in on any show that there is an effect in larger studies that can be reproduced elsewhere. >> host: republican, go ahead. >> caller: how are you? i wanted to know what you think about these e-cigarettes? did you know that albert einstein predicted those, that we would have them someday? >> guest: i didn't know about albert einstein, but i'm actually kind of leery about e-cigarettes. i think i'm the one hand if you are a smoker of traditional cigarettes and you're trying to quit, and e-cigarettes on the way that you cut down or even

cut out traditional cigarettes, then i think that's good. what i worry about is people taking up smoking with e-cigarettes who have never smoked traditional cigarettes at all. i worry if we don't know much about e-cigarettes. we don't know about the propellants about or in the liquid. they are considered generally recognized as safe for ingestion, for eating, but we don't know if they did anything when you inhale them. there is for example, one of the reasons people -- one of the reasons people worry about air pollution is to find particulate matter the kids in the lungs. that causes cancer. similarly, the propylene glycol that's in the fluid that is used

to her by the flavor and all that and e-cigarettes, it's unclear. there's some metal in the coil that gets hot. does that go into the paper? we actually -- "scientific american," national correspondent wrote a lovely piece on e-cigarettes on a "scientific american" in outlining some of these concerns. so i'm a little on the fence about e-cigarettes. >> host: from your piece, infections cost 60% of all cancers in 2016, with the exception of sub-saharan africa. lung cancer is one of the top three cancer killers in all regions. the red bubble is lung cancer. you can see the statistics for north america. 28% for male. females 26%. cottondale alabama, democratic caller. >> caller: hate. i want to ask the lady about a program that's going on in emory university in atlanta.

this program, i know a lady participate in it and the implant something in their body. and what does it cuts the blood circulation to the cancers and often the cancers die. this lady had seven catches, had been given up for death and was scheduled to go to hospice. they intervene and after to participate at every. today she is cancer free. so there is a cure for some cancers. i dispute -- but me and my friend had made a commitment to make this treatment known throughout the country and ask why it can't be taken out of the experimental stage and used, because it is effective and is used i think in france pretty often. >> guest: okay.

if i understand you right, the program at emory actually attacked the blood vessels that support and nourish the tumor, and this is something that's been sort of a holy grail among cancer researchers for a long time because if you could somehow destroy the blood network, the blood vessel network, the cancers will shrivel up and die. and get to the point where the body can take care of them by itself. so here are the issues. your friend had a miraculous recovery. what was it about her particular biology that made her really responsive? i'm sure that there were others in the trial who, unfortunately, did not respond as well to usually you hear about the successes before you hear about the failures. this is why we need to change the way research studies are done so that we can understand,

you know, at the same time do a genetic scan of her, not just of her tumor, but of her, to find out what it is that she responded to. what about her biology responded to this treatment? that didn't happen to somebody else. this is where we need to change the way research studies are done. we also need to figure out, and this is not yet -- no one has yet figure out how to do this. we need to figure out how to do with all this data. we're not talking about terabytes of data just from one person. if you do a genetic scan of a person, get their whole genome sequenced, and the genome of the cancer, the way it's been changed, people estimate that would be a terabyte of data, which i looked it up, is a one followed by 18 zeros. then you put all that into the computer and you ask how do you

analyze that? how do you compare my terabytes of data to your terabyte of data to this woman's terabyte of data? the sheer scale of the amount of information we're talking about, we don't yet know how to deal with. and so i understand the frustration, believe me, because like someone others i've also had people, friends and family with cancer, and some have responded to treatment and others haven't. so we need to know why. one person's tremendous success, as laudable and as life-changing as that is for one person, is not the scientific answer, is not going to help us all across the board. >> host: judy, royal oak michigan republican caller. >> caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i just love c-span. i just want to quickly say i'm half of dr. brzezinski with all

due respect to your guest, that my husband was really, his life was saved 17 years ago by dr. brzezinski. and apparently dr. brzezinski discovered that the urine of cancer victims lacked certain chemicals that healthier and is. .. people have. he was able to synthesize it. frank --, if basically, frank took capsule six times a day. the only side effect is he had to spend more time in the bathroom because of drinking all the water. he is alive today because of dr. brezinski. guest: i am glad that your husband is alive today. success could be multiplied many times, but we are just going to have to disagree as to -- agree to

disagree as to whether or not dr. brezinski had anything to do with it. lee, gainesville, democratic caller. caller: it seems your guest is deflecting results that have been studied where people are being short from cancer. i do not know her background in regards to who she is. it seems like it seems like a lot of the pharmaceutical companies. >> host: respond to that charge. over 25 years i do not own any single shares in any

pharmaceutical companies. i don't take speaking fees because i'm too busy doing the editing and i don't have time to do speaking. but what i mean to be saying is that people get very excited about finding the cure for cancer and my main point was that individual diseases will be cured. i do the leave that what happened but there won't be a single cure for all cancers that will work as well for various types of brain cancers and stomach cancer or leukemia or liver cancer. in the case of liver cancer we already have the hepatitis b vaccine which helps a large number of large cancers before

they even happen. and i think that there will be. that's been known for over 100 years that in some cases if you get a really bad infection after having had a cancer that revs up the immune system where the body can take and get rid of the tumor itself. a single instance of somebody being cured is not proof of an entire method that's all i'm saying. >> host: she has worked for more than 20 years in the

business at "time" magazine before that and working on science and health issues. from the special report in scientific america and the march of the leaders. what is the nano particle part of that? >> guest: they've got short answer is. the nanoparticles are really small and because the one particle that most of us know something about, certainly i do is some block. when you put sunblock on your nose those are the blocks.

we can get into places. if you can put some drugs, something that's toxic to a cancer cell and get it into the body with the delivery system that will go to the cancer and hopefully there is a mechanism to release it only in the vicinity of the cancer and as you know those two now chemotherapies hit the dividing cells and that's every dividing cell in the body whether it is cancerous or not. the possibility without causing

as much elsewhere and with every new system you have new side effects and the nanoparticles have a tendency to accumulate in the liver which is the big detoxifying organ so you can have liver problems. i try to make it as short as i can. >> susan you are on the air. >> thanks for taking my call. the american people maybe are getting a little discouraged about the scientific community. we've been told for years we are heating up and then a couple of years ago it came out of no we are not heeding. the temperature hasn't risen. so just like the government people are losing faith in these institutions.

losing faith in science, i think that -- i'm not losing faith in science. i think that if you really do look at the main point of science which is working by consensus and by the reproducibility not by having opinions and just stating things over and over again and calling that affect in fact if you look at the fact of the global warming average temperatures around the globe are increasing and there is very good data going back really far on that and it's not just in the air. if you look at the deep ocean, the temperature is very deep in the ocean as, you know, away from the cities that you wouldn't expect even those

temperatures of water deep under the ocean surface are going up. to get into global warming as a wholis awhole other issue in tef cancer and research, and i think what you have to focus on is that unfortunately progress is not as fast as we would like. so you can't look at just this study were that. you have to look at a group of studies and randomized controlled trials. there's a whole sort of 30,000-foot view you have to look at and not what one says or another. >> via july edition of the scientific living in a connected world is the cover story of the magazine for the july edition and inside of that is the special reports the outlook on cancer. senior editor with scientific

american think you very much for your time. here is a preview. >> each decade or each period of time people were studying at the sociologists primarily were assuming that it would be over. they were looking at what is the impetus. the economics of the north would remain an impetus and yet that was a factor but ultimately once the door had been opened by the north because world war i was the beginning of the. world war i was the time because the war in europe and immigration had come to a halt

and all of the work force in the steel mills and the boundaries and all of the factories of the north then had no labor. and they try to recruit them to go north.

according to the centers for disease control childhood it