Blood Cancer Report Pdf Form: Fill & Download for Free

I dunno, maybe.I started offering web-research help to friends back in the late 90s, when we were attending our family’s old church in Boston. My wife and I were amongst the youngest couples in that congregation, and I was one of the church's go-to guys for computer-related stuff. Somebody'd get sick with something serious, and I'd offer whatever web help they wanted: explanation of the diagnosis, finding second opinions, sussing out alternative therapies, as much or as little as they wanted. Back then, not everyone knew how to make Google sing to them. And then as now, most people weren't really comfortable with sifting through intricate medical jargon, looking for the high points.When our friend L got diagnosed in 2000, she accepted my offer of help, so I asked for the most precise eight-syllable diagnosis she could give me, and I asked how much material she wanted in return: 2 pages, or a quarter- inch of paper, or 3/4 inch, as much or as little as she wanted. Her hospital had told her she had multiple myeloma, so I asked her for copies of the lab work and their pathology report.When I looked up her diagnostic details, and looked up multiple myeloma, the diagnosis didn't add up. For example, MM is characterized by low red- cell & white-cell counts, while L's labs showed greatly elevated whites. She did have through-the-roof immunoglobulin, which kind of resembles MM, but overall, her symptoms and labs didn't match the MM diagnosis at all well. I double-checked a lot, because second-guessing a trained MD isn't what I originally offered to L. But really, it was alarming. I finally told her, "Look, I'm sorry, I dunno what you have, but I'm pretty sure it's not multiple myeloma. You really really need a second opinion."Now, L's kids were 6 & 10 back then, so the idea of a misdiagnosis must have seemed to her about as welcome as her initial cancer diagnosis. But she didn't say, as she might reasonably have said, "Thank you, Seraphim, but get lost." Instead, she said, "I don't know where to start, I don't know how to find a better oncologist. Can you help me find an oncologist?"So God help me, I said, "OK, I'll try," though I didn't yet have a plan. Back then, hospitals didn't yet have websites with doctor bios, and vitals.com didn't exist, either. So for me, it was a high-risk moment. But here's how I did it.While reading up on L's illness, I somehow stumbled upon a big decision-tree for blood cancers, a 100-page instructional document for oncologists. Using her symptoms, labs, and pathology report, I worked my way through the diagnostic criteria: "If platelet count is less than x, then go to page N," etc. When I was done going through the decision-tree, I had two possible diagnoses, both being subtypes of non-Hodgkins lymphoma: Mantle cell lymphoma, or Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (eleven syllables).Soon after this, L did get a better diagnosis, confirming my Waldenstrom's guess. This made sense to me. You see, in Waldenstrom's the patient's cancerous B-cells produce so much antibody that the blood becomes viscous, making it hard for the heart to force this thickened blood through the capillaries. Two overt symptoms of this difficulty are headaches, and a very characteristic rash of yellowish spots around the nose and forehead, both of which my dear friend L had at the time. So this new diagnosis was real progress, and I had some confidence that it might be right this time.With this better diagnosis, I was able to proceed. On Google, I looked up "Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia", together with "conference program." I wanted to find conferences in which researchers had presented papers about L's disease. This Google search gave me a half-dozen PDF documents, each describing all of the papers that had been presented at some recent medical conference. Now, I wasn't particularly interested in the papers themselves, because it takes ten years to translate research results into new drugs. I just wanted to know who was working on L's disease, and where were they doing the work. So, I tallied a list of researchers' names, each with a hospital.I knew that none of these researchers treats cancer patients. That wasn't my game. Rather, I called up each doctor's secretary, to ask for a call back. The first such call, I explained that I was hoping to ask the doctor for referrals to Boston doctors who treat patients with this disease. "Oh, so you're looking for a referral consult?" "Why yes, that's exactly what I'm hoping for, thank you." Thereafter, I just asked each secretary for a referral consult.Some of the doctors called back the same day, others took two weeks. Some gave me 15 minutes, others more like an hour. One guy was in France. In each call, I asked about preferred treatments, and what did the doctor think of the new drugs that were in clinical trial. And always, by the end of the call, I asked, "Who are three clinicians in Boston who treat patients with this disease?" I was running a little popularity contest: I knew I'd eventually start hearing the same names over again from these researchers. In the end, I had a list of four names that I'd heard more than once: two names that I had heard three times, and two that I'd heard twice. I sent this short list to L. It was kindof funny, to condense 80 hours of work into a list of four names.At that time, in 2000, the median survival from diagnosis for non-Hodgkins Lymphoma was 11 years. That means, half of all NHL patients live longer than 11 years, half not. Unlike multiple myeloma, NHL wasn't particularly treatable; NHL was then accepted to be a slow but implacable killer. But, as I told L at the time, the name of the game was to buy time: to stay alive until later research delivers a more-effective treatment.From my list, L chose a doctor at Dana-Farber. He knocked the disease back for a few years, then when her blood work started looking bad again, he recommended an autologous bone-marrow transplant, which until recently was the state of the art for a B-cell cancer like L's. I looked into the transplant, and I urged L to do it. But she was unwilling to undergo that much chemotherapy; she felt she'd had as much as she could bear, and by that time, her kids were older, so she felt she could accept death if necessary. So she refused the transplant. I was bummed.But crucially, L had learned how to catch fish on her own. She found various alternative treatments on the web, some of which, amazingly, worked well enough. I remember her telling me something about a red yeast preparation, and a Japanese mushroom extract. She took a lot of Chinese herbs, too. In this way, L herself kept the cancer at bay for an extra eight or nine years. Two years ago, her IgG numbers were climbing again, seemingly inexorably. This was after my wife was diagnosed, but I was reluctant to tell L. I waited about six weeks, before I finally called her house. Not a fun phone call.My breaking-the-news conversation with L ran to 90 minutes. Some of the time, we talked about my wife's prospects, and of course, we talked about L's dwindling prospects, too. But, y'know, L is religious, and so am I, so it wasn't actually that grim. But she really brought me up short, early in the conversation, and again, just before we hung up, by telling me both times, with a lot of verve, "Seraphim, I want you to know, you saved my life. If you hadn't found Dr. T for me, I'd be dead now." I tried to demur, but she wasn't having any of that. And I got off the phone, not really believing it. I mean, I'd like to believe it's true, but objectively, there were other names on that list, and she might have ended up with one of those doctors anyway, without my help.It was two winters ago, just after my wife's metastasis showed up, that L started taking a very new drug, one of the same class of drugs that I was trying to get for my wife. L had found out about it on her own. And all this year, her new drug has been working. So my effort to buy L some time, maybe enough time, is still working, too. L's kids are both tall and strong now, well-grown, and out on their own. I guess that kinda matters a lot in this story.1454 words.This answer is part of a book that I’m writing.All of my longer answers are here.

OBSERVATION of May 18, 2015 : After spending significant time researching this topic for the individual posing the question, and writing an extensive answer, there have been 196 views and zero upvotes in 6+ month's time. Please, Quorans, would some of you comment regarding why this is not a good answer so I can do better in the future? Is it the actual content? Is it the length? Is it because I included a few abstracts? Thank you very much for your help!*********************************************************Answer: unknown at this time.Thank you for asking since the research undertaken to find an answer has been an interesting journey!I realize this is a long answer but hope you will take the time to read it in full.First and most importantly, there are many different kinds of cancer, each responding to different treatment modalities in different ways. Also, there are between-patient differences in responses to treatment of the same type of cancer.Second, many in vitro and animal studies have been conducted with Ganoderma lucidum (reishi mushroom), providing some promising results. These in vitro and animal studies are what is needed to justify moving into human studies. The reader should understand that the majority of in vitro and animal study findings DO NOT translate to the human condition. This is one of the reasons why it’s so expensive to develop new drugs - many candidate compounds drop out at each level of study, including when going from the most sophisticated animal studies into humans. There are many reasons for this but that’s not the topic here.Very few studies have been conducted with Ganoderma lucidum in human cancer patients. An overview of these studies (Reishi Mushroom (Ganoderma lucidum): Systematic Review by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration) was published in 2010 in the Journal of the Society for Integrative Oncology (8: 148-159). The pdf file is available online (click on hot link) at no cost. The abstract is as follows, but for anyone interested in this topic, I strongly recommend reading the full article.“The objective of this study was to evaluate the scientific evidence on reishi, including expert opinion, folkloric precedent, history, pharmacology, kinetics/dynamics, interactions, adverse effects, toxicology, and dosing. This review serves as a clinical support tool. Electronic searches were conducted in 10 databases, 20 additional journals (not indexed in common databases), and bibliographies from 50 selected secondary references. No restrictions were placed on language or quality of publications. All literature collected pertained to efficacy in humans, dosing, precautions, adverse effects, use in pregnancy/lactation, interactions, alteration of laboratory assays, and mechanisms of action. Standardized inclusion/exclusion criteria are used for selection. Grades were assigned using an evidence-based grading rationale. There was a lack of systematic study on the safety and effectiveness of reishi in humans. However, based on popular use and supportive scientific data, three indications are discussed in this review: cancer, diabetes, and immune stimulation. Despite the lack of scientific evidence, reishi mushroom remains a popular agent in commercial products. Future randomized controlled trials are warranted.”Third, I found many, many articles similar to the example given below, which makes statements in the abstract such as, “Ganoderma lucidum, commonly referred to as Lingzhi, has been used in Asia for health promotion for centuries. The anti-cancer effects of G. lucidum have been demonstrated in both in vitro and in vivo studies. In addition, the observed anti-cancer activities of Ganoderma have prompted its usage by cancer patients alongside chemotherapy.” Many people do not bother to read past the abstract of a paper. However, reading the article shows that only in vitro or animal study data are put forward for discussion - no clinical data. [Anti-cancer activities of Ganoderma lucidum: active ingredients and pathways. Functional Foods in Health and Disease 2013; 3(2):48-65, by Chi H.J. Kao, Amalini C. Jesuthasan, Karen S. Bishop, Marcus P. Glucina, Lynnette R. Ferguson]Fourth, the public database of clinical trials in the US (Home - ClinicalTrials.gov), which helps patients find studies into which they may be able to enroll, lists 5 studies of Ganoderma lucidum, only 2 of which were for cancer patients.The first study began enrolling in 2002, was completed in 2007 and enrolled 58 patients aged 2-18 years in 3 hospitals in Hong Kong. To be included in the study, a patient had to 1) have acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and have completed induction chemotherapy, pending maintenance chemotherapy, 2) have a solid tumor and have completed chemotherapy, or 3) have acute myeloid leukaemia and have completed induction and consolidation chemotherapy treatment. Patients were not allowed to join the study if the cancer was in relapse.The principle investigator was Dr. Matthew MK Shing, who presented the data only in abstract form at the 2008 ASCO Meeting, and did not publish the findings in a journal article, at least as indicated by a thorough online search. The abstract (below) states that patients were treated for 6 months and then followed for an average of approximately 3 years. Certain immune responses were observed in the active group, while the survival was not different between the two groups at study end (average of 2.9 years).Randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study of the immunomodulatory effects of Lingzhi in children with cancers.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2008 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings. M. K. Shing, T. F. Leung, Y. L. Chu, C. Y. Li, K. W. Chik, P. C. Leung, V. Lee, P. M. Yuen and C. K. LiBackground: Lingzhi (Ganoderma lucidum) is a traditional Chinese medicine which is widely used to ‘strengthen immunity’ among patients with cancers. However, there is no published randomized controlled trial on its efficacy and safety despite the many in vitro studies showing its anti-viral and anti-oxidative. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel- group clinical trial recruited cancer patients aged 2–18 years from Children's Cancer Centre of a university-affiliated teaching hospital. These patients were recruited either during maintenance (for leukemias) or within weeks following (for solid tumors) chemotherapy. Stratified by underlying cancers, they were randomized to receive 4–6 capsules daily of Lingzhi or matched placebo, which were manufactured by our Institute of Chinese Medicine according to GMP standard, for 6 months. The changes in subjects’ lymphoproliferative responses to mitogens during study were compared between Lingzhi and placebo groups. Results: 29 patients were assigned to each of Lingzhi or placebo groups, with mean (SD) age being 8.9 (4.4) years and 9.6 (5.2) years respectively (P=0.553). Sixteen subjects in Lingzhi group and 17 subjects in placebo group suffered from leukemias, and others had solid tumors (P=0.791). The mean (95% CI) changes in stimulation indices (SI) of purified peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) to phytohemagglutinin (PHA) and pokeweed mitogen (PWM) were 364 (42–687) and 83 (44–121) for Lingzhi group and -134 (-580–311) and -1 (-56–54) for placebo (P=0.046 for PHA and 0.028 for PWM). The result for lymphoproliferative response to concanavalin A was marginally significant (P=0.074). None of the subjects had significant hematologic or biochemical derangement. Patients were followed for a median of 2.9 years (IQR 2.3–3.8 years), and 20 from Lingzhi group and 21 from placebo remained disease-free. Conclusions: A 6-month treatment with Lingzhi augments mitogen-induced lymphoproliferative responses in immunocompromized children with cancers.The second study, based in Taiwan (Chang Bing Show Chwan Memorial Hospital) and titled, "The Effect of Ganoderma on Patients With Head-and-neck Cancer", is currently recruiting patients between the ages of 20 and 80 years "with head-and-neck cancer after complete treatment for at least 3 months (including surgery and/or radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy)". They will measure quality of life and status of the immune system.Fifth, in the study of science and medicine, no conclusions can be made unless 1) the experiment is performed under controlled conditions so that one may have confidence that the results are due to the applied experimental conditions, and 2) the work can be repeated independently by other groups. In clinical trials, it is impossible to know whether an experimental material is responsible for an observed effect, unless 1) the trial is truly blinded to the patients AND the healthcare team, 2) the measures applied are adequate for answering the question(s) being posed in the trial, and 3) there is a control group (even if this has to be an active control for ethical reasons).Sixth, the possible active ingredients in reishi mushrooms (Ganoderma lucidum) include 1) a group of triterpenes, called ganoderic acids, which have a molecular structure similar to steroid hormones, 2) other compounds often found in fungal materials, including polysaccharides (such as beta-glucan), coumarin, mannitol, and alkaloids; and 3) sterols such as ganoderol, ganoderenic acid, ganoderiol, ganodermanontriol, lucidadiol, and ganodermadiol.If, at some time in the future, Ganoderma lucidum is found to be effective in the treatment of one or more cancers, the identity of the effective component(s), or whether all were necessary together as made by nature’s recipe, would be unknown.ABSTRACTS FROM ADDITIONAL EXAMPLE PAPERS OF INTEREST ARE GIVEN BELOW, ALL OF WHICH CONCLUDE THAT INSUFFICIENT DATA ARE AVAILABLE AND THAT ADDITIONAL, WELL CONTROLLED STUDIES SHOULD BE CONDUCTED.Clinical Trials for Medicinal Mushrooms: Experience with Ganoderma lucidumInternational Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms 2005, 7:111-117S Zhou, Y Gao, E ChanDespite the popularity of medicinal mushrooms, most are not well researched in terms of clinical efficacy and toxicity. We have completed seven clinical trials of Ganoderma lucidum in several diseases including cancer, Type II diabetes, coronary heart disease, chronic hepatitis B, and neurasthenia. Most of these studies were randomized, double-blind, multi-centered and placebo controlled. The results arising from these studies are promising. For example, treatment with Ganopoly for 12 weeks showed hypoglycemic activity in Type II diabetes, improved the symptoms/signs of patients with coronary heart disease or neurasthenia, and produced some antiviral and liver protective effects in patients with chronic hepatitis B infection. However, the same treatment regimen did not result in any objective response in late-stage cancer patients, although some stable disease status was observed. Ganopoly appeared to enhance immune functions in some cancer patients, but the results have yet to be confirmed. Ganopoly was generally well tolerated. Overall, the findings from all these clinical studies suggest that Ganopoly may have multiple pharmacological activities, although the activities are minor, moderate, or lacking as a result of many factors, such as inappropriate dosage regimen, difficulties in finding suitable biomarkers and end points, large interpatient variability in responses to the treatment, and unknown mode of action. Well designed clinical studies are needed to explore the mode of action, efficacy and safety of G. lucidum in patients.Anticancer Effects of Ganoderma lucidum: A Review of Scientific EvidenceNutrition and Cancer 2005, 53: 11-17John W. M. Yuen, Mayur Danny I. Gohel“Lingzhi" (Ganoderma lucidum), a popular medicinal mushroom, has been used in China for longevity and health promotion since ancient times. Investigations into the anticancer activity of lingzhi have been performed in both in vitro and in vivo studies, supporting its application for cancer treatment and prevention. The proposed anticancer activity of lingzhi has prompted its usage by cancer patients. It remains debatable as to whether lingzhi is a food supplement for health maintenance or actually a therapeutic "drug" for medical proposes. Thus far there has been no report of human trials using lingzhi as a direct anticancer agent, despite some evidence showing the usage of lingzhi as a potential supplement to cancer patients. Cellular immune responses and mitogenic reactivity of cancer patients have been enhanced by lingzhi, as reported in two randomized and one nonrandomized trials, and the quality of life of 65% of lung cancer patients improved in one study. The direct cytotoxic and anti-angiogenesis mechanisms of lingzhi have been established by in vitro studies; however, clinical studies should not be neglected to define the applicable dosage in vivo. At present, lingzhi is a health food supplement to support cancer patients, yet the evidence supporting the potential of direct in vivo anticancer effects should not be underestimated. Lingzhi or its products can be classified as an anticancer agent when current and more direct scientific evidence becomes available.Effects of Water-Soluble Ganoderma lucidum Polysaccharides on the Immune Functions of Patients with Advanced Lung CancerJournal of Medicinal Food 2005, 8: 159-168Yihuai Gao, Wenbo Tang, Xihu Dai, He Gao, Guoliang Chen, Jinxian Ye, Eli Chan, Hwee Ling Koh, Xiaotian Li, Shufeng ZhouPreclinical studies have established that the polysaccharide fractions of Ganoderma lucidum have potential antitumor activity. Recent clinical studies have demonstrated that G. lucidum polysaccharides enhance host immune functions [e.g., enhanced natural killer (NK) cell activity] in patients with advanced solid tumors, although an objective response was not observed. This open-label study aimed to evaluate the effects of water-soluble G. lucidumpolysaccharides (Ganopoly®, Encore International Corp., Auckland, New Zealand) on immune functions in patients with advanced lung cancer. Thirty-six patients were enrolled and treated with 5.4 g/day Ganopoly for 12 weeks. In the 30 cancer patients who completed the trial, treatment with Ganopoly did not significantly alter the mean mitogenic reactivity to phytohemagglutinin, mean counts of CD3, CD4, CD8, and CD56, mean plasma concentrations of interleukin (IL)-2, IL-6, and interferon (IFN)-γ, or NK activity in the patients, but the results were significantly variable. However, some cancer patients demonstrated markedly modulated immune functions. The changes in IL-1 were correlated with those for IL-6, IFN-γ, CD3, CD8, and NK activity (P < .05), and IL-2 changes were correlated with those for IL-6, CD8, and NK activity. The results suggest that subgroups of cancer patients might be responsive to Ganopoly in combination with chemotherapy/radiotherapy. Further studies are needed to explore the efficacy and safety of Ganopoly used alone or in combination with chemotherapy/radiotherapy in lung cancer patients.Chinese Herbal Medicine and Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled TrialsIntegr Cancer Ther 2005, 4: 219-229X Shu, M McCulloch, H Xiao, M Broffman, J GaoBackground: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), one of the most common malignancies worldwide, is highly resistant to standard therapy. It is unclear whether chemotherapy, arterial embolization, or arterial chemoembolization improve survival advantage enough to justify their high toxicity. Treatment with Chinese herbal medicine has been explored, combining herbs that stimulate host immune response with those that have cytotoxic activity against HCC cells. The authors sought to evaluate the effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine combined with chemotherapy. The hypothesis was that Chinese herbal medicine added to chemotherapy for the treatment of HCC would improve survival and tumor response, when compared to treatment with chemotherapy alone. Methods:The authors searched the databases TCMLARS, PubMed, and EMBASE as well as the bibliographies of studies identified in the systematic search for potentially relevant titles or abstracts of studies in any language. They retained those that (1) treated only HCC patients, (2) were described as randomized or reported that there was no statistical difference between treatment groups, (3) gave patients either Chinese herbal medicine therapy combined with chemotherapy in the treatment group or chemotherapy alone in the control group, and (4) provided data on the number of enrolled subjects and responders and nonresponders for tumor response and survival. The authors used random effects meta-analysis to combine data. Results:Twenty-six studies representing 2079 patients met the inclusion criteria. Chinese herbal medicine combined with chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy alone, improved survival at 12 months (relative risk [RR], 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-1.72;P< .000), 24 months (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.75-2.64;P< .000), and 36 months (RR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.95-3.91;P< .000). Tumor response increased (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.24-1.56;P< .000). Conclusions:These findings provide promising evidence that combining Chinese herbal medicine with chemotherapy may benefit patients with HCC. Because of the low quality of these studies, these findings should be confirmed through conducting high-quality, rigorously controlled trials.Monitoring of immune responses to a herbal immuno-modulator in patients with advanced colorectal cancerInternational Immunopharmacology 2006, 6:499–508Xiao Chen, Ze-Ping Hu, Xiao-Xia Yang, Min Huang, Yihuai Gao, Wenbo Tang, Sui Yung Chan, Xihu Dai, Jinxian Ye, Paul Chi-Liu Ho, Wei Duan, Hong-Yuan Yang, Yi-Zhun Zhu, Shu-Feng ZhouMany herbal medicines are widely used as immuno-modulators in Asian countries. Ganoderma lucidum(Lingzhi) is one of the most commonly used herbs in Asia and preclinical studies have established that the polysaccharide fractions of G. lucidum have potent immuno-modulating effects. However, clinical evidence for this is scanty. The present open-labeled study aimed to evaluate the effects of G. lucidum polysaccharides on selected immune functions in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Forty-seven patients were enrolled and treated with oral G. lucidum at 5.4 g/day for 12 weeks. Selected immune parameters were monitored using various immunological methods throughout the study. In 41 assessable cancer patients, treatment with G. lucidum tended to increase mitogenic reactivity to phytohemagglutinin, counts of CD3, CD4, CD8 and CD56 lymphocytes, plasma concentrations of interleukin (IL)-2, IL-6 and interferon (IFN)-γ, and NK activity, whereas plasma concentrations of IL-1 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α were decreased. For all of these parameters, no statistical significance was observed when a comparison was conducted between baseline and those values after a 12-week treatment with G. lucidum. The changes of IL-1 were correlated with those for IL-6, IFN-γ, CD3, CD4, CD8 and NK activity (p < 0.05) and IL-2 changes were correlated with those for IL-6, CD8 and NK activity. The results indicate that G. lucidum may have potential immuno-modulating effect in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Further studies are needed to explore the benefits and safety of G. lucidum in cancer patients.

Probably.I have all sorts of problems after being around sidestream smoke in my family. I've never smoked.Secondary sidestream smoke is not the only risk from smoking.Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer along with many other severe risks.I tried to include some information here in this answer if you don't want to follow the links because there are several. It's a pretty frightening picture and I don't see how anyone can deny it.I have had bronchitis all of my life. My dad smoked and he died of lung cancer where his tumor wrapped around his aorta and was inoperable. He slowly suffocated over 5 years.My best friend of 38 years died of lung cancer in May of 2013. she only lived one year after Her diagnosis.My late husband died of bladder cancer linked to smoking. He was given 18 months to live and lasted a little over 6 years but the treatment was awful. Again, November of 2013.BarbThe following is some information and Live links regarding sidestream smoke…some of the results are as follows:Sudden infant death syndrome SIDSAsthmaLung cancer in people who have never smoked.Cardiovascular disease/heart attackStrokeBronchitisPneumoniaThe World Health Organization/WHO has a fact sheet.World Health Organization › respiratory Facts.According to WHO estimates, 235 million people suffer from asthma. ... Over 80% of asthma deaths occurs in low and lower-middle income countries. Asthma is under-diagnosed and under-treated, creating a substantial burden to individuals and families and possibly restricting individuals' activities for a lifetime.The United States CDC/Center For Communicable Disease out of Atlanta has a lot of information on what happens to people who are around sidestream smoke. It might be a good thing to go read it.Live Links below.http://CDC.comSkip directly to A to Z listSkip directly to navigationSkip directly to page optionsSkip directly to site .Smoking & Tobacco UseHealth Effects of Secondhand SmokeSecondhand Smoke Causes Cardiovascular DiseaseSecondhand Smoke Causes Lung CancerSecondhand Smoke Causes SIDSSecondhand Smoke Harms ChildrenReferencesSecondhand smoke is the combination of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette and the smoke breathed out by smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer.Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke.There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.Secondhand smoke causes numerous health problems in infants and children, including more frequent and severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).1,4Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually.4Some of the health conditions caused by secondhand smoke in adults include coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer.1,4Health Consequences Causally Linked to Exposure to Secondhand SmokeNote:The condition in red is a new disease causally linked to secondhand smoke in the 2014 Surgeon General’s Report4Secondhand Smoke Causes Cardiovascular DiseaseExposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and can cause coronary heart disease and stroke.Secondhand smoke causes nearly 34,000 premature deaths from heart disease each year in the United States among nonsmokers.4Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25–30%.Secondhand smoke increases the risk for stroke by 20−30%.Secondhand smoke exposure causes more than 8,000 deaths from stroke annually.Breathing secondhand smoke can have immediate adverse effects on your blood and blood vessels, increasing the risk of having a heart attack.Breathing secondhand smoke interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of having a heart attack.Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can damage the lining of blood vessels and cause your blood platelets to become stickier. These changes can cause a deadly heart attack.People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk of suffering adverse effects from breathing secondhand smoke and should take special precautions to avoid even brief exposures.Secondhand Smoke Causes Lung CancerSecondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adults who have never smoked.Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20–30%.2Secondhand smoke causes more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year.Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers.Even brief secondhand smoke exposure can damage cells in ways that set the cancer process in motion.As with active smoking, the longer the duration and the higher the level of exposure to secondhand smoke, the greater the risk of developing lung cancer.Secondhand Smoke Causes SIDSSudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is the sudden, unexplained, unexpected death of an infant in the first year of life. SIDS is the leading cause of death in otherwise healthy infants.Secondhand smoke increases the risk for SIDS.Smoking by women during pregnancy increases the risk for SIDS.Infants who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are also at greater risk for SIDS.Chemicals in secondhand smoke appear to affect the brain in ways that interfere with its regulation of infants’ breathing.Infants who die from SIDS have higher concentrations of nicotine in their lungs and higher levels of cotinine (a biological marker for secondhand smoke exposure) than infants who die from other causes.Parents can help protect their babies from SIDS by taking the following three actions:Do not smoke when pregnant.Do not smoke in the home or around the baby.Put the baby down to sleep on its back.Secondhand Smoke Harms ChildrenSecondhand smoke can cause serious health problems in children.Studies show that older children whose parents smoke get sick more often. Their lungs grow less than children who do not breathe secondhand smoke, and they get more bronchitis and pneumonia.Wheezing and coughing are more common in children who breathe secondhand smoke.Secondhand smoke can trigger an asthma attack in a child. Children with asthma who are around secondhand smoke have more severe and frequent asthma attacks. A severe asthma attack can put a child’s life in danger.Children whose parents smoke around them get more ear infections. They also have fluid in their ears more often and have more operations to put in ear tubes for drainage.Parents can help protect their children from secondhand smoke by taking the following actions:Do not allow anyone to smoke anywhere in or near your home.Do not allow anyone to smoke in your car, even with the window down.Make sure your children’s day care centers and schools are tobacco-free.If your state still allows smoking in public areas, look for restaurants and other places that do not allow smoking. “No-smoking sections” do not protect you and your family from secondhand smoke.ReferencesU.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Let’s Make the Next Generation Tobacco-Free: Your Guide to the 50th Anniversary Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health. [PDF–795 KB]Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014 [accessed 2016 Jan 11].U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General.Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006 [accessed 2017 Jan 11].U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A Report of the Surgeon General: How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: What It Means to You. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2010 [accessed 2017 Jan 11].U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014 [accessed 2017 Jan 11].Institute of Medicine. Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence. Washington: National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, 2010 [accessed 2017 Jan 11].American Academy of Pediatrics, Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The Changing Concept of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Diagnostic Coding Shifts; Controversies Regarding the Sleeping Environment; and New Variables to Consider in Reducing Risk. Pediatrics 2005;116(5):1245–55 [cited 2017 Jan 11].U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004 [accessed 2017 Jan 11].Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Features: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) [last updated 2013 Oct 25; accessed 2017 Jan 11].U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: What It Means to You. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2010 [accessed 2017 Jan 11].For Further InformationCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionOffice on Smoking and HealthE-mail: [email protected]: 1-800-CDC-INFOMedia Inquiries: Contact CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health press line at 770-488-5493.Fact SheetsAdult DataCessationEconomicsFast FactsHealth EffectsSecondhand SmokeSmokeless TobaccoTobacco Marketing and ProductsYouth Tobacco UseGet Email UpdatesTo receive email updates about Smoking & Tobacco Use, enter your email address:Email:Enter Email AddressWhat's this?SubmitQuick LinksFor help with quitting1-800-QUIT-NOW1-800-784-8669Related CDC SitesTips From Former Smokers®Division of Cancer Prevention and ControlLung CancerNational Comprehensive Cancer Control ProgramDivision of Reproductive HealthMore CDC SitesMultimediaFollow CDCTobaccoFreeSmoking & Tobacco Use MediaFile Formats Help:How do I view different file formats (PDF, DOC, PPT, MPEG) on this site?Adobe PDF filePage last reviewed: January 17, 2018Page last updated: January 11, 2017Content source: Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionEmailRecommendTweetYouTubeInstagramListenWatchRSSABOUTLEGAL1600 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30329-4027USA800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636), TTY: 888-232-6348Email CDC-INFOU.S. Department of Health & Human ServicesHHS/OpenUSA.govTOP