Researchers sound the alarm after new study reveals link between common water contaminant and cancer — here's what you need to know
The evidence of the health risks posed by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as "forever chemicals" or PFAS, is building up, much like how they accumulate in our environment.
A study published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, summarized by News Medical, looked at the link between PFAS-contaminated drinking water and cancer incidence in United States counties.
Data was collected from 1,080 counties, representing around half of the U.S. population. Cancer incidence information was gathered from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, while information on PFAS levels was obtained via the Environmental Protection Agency's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.
It was determined that digestive, endocrine, respiratory, and oral cavity and pharynx cancer could be associated with increased PFAS levels.
Certain types of PFAS were linked to specific cancers. For example, perfluorononanoic acid and perfluoroheptanoic acid caused an increased risk of thyroid cancer, while perfluorobutanoic acid and perfluorooctanoic acid were associated with lung cancer.
PFAS have been used in the manufacture of various products, including nonstick cookware and waterproof clothing. Companies that have employed these chemicals have been accused of knowing the risks they pose for years but continuing to use them regardless.
In areas located next to factories that utilized PFAS, water sources have been heavily polluted with forever chemicals. And because of their widespread use, many drinking water supplies across the U.S. and the world have had forever chemicals detected in them.
As their name suggests, it's almost impossible to break down forever chemicals naturally, and they accumulate over time — in water sources and the human body.
Previous studies have linked PFAS to metabolic problems, childhood obesity, and immune system deterioration.
Do you worry about having toxic forever chemicals in your home?
Majorly
Sometimes
Not really
I don't know enough about them
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, work is ongoing to further understand the impact of these chemicals. The organization has also partnered with the U.S. government to reduce public exposure to PFAs.
In the meantime, water filtration devices can help to reduce exposure at home, while fish caught in contaminated waterways should not be eaten. You can also avoid the purchase and use of products that contain PFAS, including stain-resistant items, single-use plastics, and artificial turf.
Scientists are working on ways to combat forever chemicals, and local and national governments are working on bans that should help keep communities safer.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
34 minutes ago
- Fast Company
5 lessons on finding truth in an uncertain world
Adam Kucharski is a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and an award-winning science writer. His book, The Rules of Contagion, was a Book of the Year in The Times, Guardian, and Financial Times. A mathematician by training, his work on global outbreaks has included Ebola, Zika, and COVID. He has advised multiple governments and health agencies. His writing has appeared in Wired, Observer, and Financial Times, among other outlets, and he has contributed to several documentaries, including BBC's Horizon. What's the big idea? In all arenas of life, there is an endless hunt to find certainty and establish proof. We don't always have the luxury of 'being sure,' and many situations demand decisions be made even when there is insufficient evidence to choose confidently. Every field—from mathematics and tech to law and medicine—has its own methods for proving truth, and what to do when it is out of reach. Professionally and personally, it is important to understand what constitutes proof and how to proceed when facts falter. Below, Adam shares five key insights from his new book, Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty. Listen to the audio version—read by Adam himself—in the Next Big Idea App. 1. It is dangerous to assume something is self-evident. In the first draft of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers wrote that 'we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal.' But shortly before it was finalized, Benjamin Franklin crossed out the words 'sacred and undeniable,' because they implied divine authority. Instead, he replaced them with the famous line, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident.' The term 'self-evident' was borrowed from mathematics—specifically from Greek geometry. The idea was that there could be a universal truth about equality on which a society could be built. This idea of self-evident, universal truths had shaped mathematics for millennia. But the assumption ended up causing a lot of problems, both in politics and mathematics. In the 19th century, mathematicians started to notice that certain theorems that had been declared 'intuitively obvious' didn't hold up when we considered things that were infinitely large or infinitely small. It seemed 'self-evident' didn't always mean well-evidenced. Meanwhile, in the U.S., supporters of slavery were denying what Abraham Lincoln called the national axioms of equality. In the 1850s, Lincoln (himself a keen amateur mathematician) increasingly came to think of equality as a proposition rather than a self-evident truth. It was something that would need to be proven together as a country. Similarly, mathematicians during this period would move away from assumptions that things were obvious and instead work to find sturdier ground. 2. In practice, proof means balancing too much belief and too much skepticism. If we want to get closer to the truth, there are two errors we must avoid: we don't want to believe things that are false, and we don't want to discount things that are true. It's a challenge that comes up throughout life. But where should we set the bar for evidence? If we're overly skeptical and set it too high, we'll ignore valid claims. But if we set the bar too low, we'll end up accepting many things that aren't true. In the 1760s, the English legal scholar William Blackstone argued that we should work particularly hard to avoid wrongful convictions. As he put it: 'It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.' Benjamin Franklin would later be even more cautious. He suggested that 'it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.' 'We don't want to believe things that are false, and we don't want to discount things that are true.' But not all societies have agreed with this balance. Some communist regimes in the 20th century declared it better to kill a hundred innocent people than let one truly guilty person walk free. Science and medicine have also developed their own traditions around setting the bar for evidence. Clinical trials are typically designed in a way that penalizes a false positive four times more than a false negative. In other words, we don't want to say a treatment doesn't work when it does, but we really don't want to conclude it works when it doesn't. This ability to converge on a shared reality, even if occasionally flawed, is fundamental for science and medicine. It's also an essential component of democracy and justice. Rather than embracing or shunning everything we see, we must find ways to balance the risk that comes with trusting something to be true. 3. Life is full of 'weak evidence' problems. Science is dedicated to generating results that we can have high confidence in. But often in life, we must make choices without the luxury of extremely strong evidence. We can't, as some early statisticians did, simply remain on the fence if we're not confident either way. Whether we're sitting on a jury or in a boardroom, we face situations where a decision must be made regardless. This is known as the 'weak evidence' problem. For example, it might be very unlikely that a death is just a coincidence. But it also might be very unlikely that a certain person is a murderer. Legal cases are often decided on the basis that weak evidence in favor of the prosecution is more convincing than weak evidence for the defendant. Unfortunately, it can be easy to misinterpret weak evidence. A prominent example is the prosecutor's fallacy. This is a situation where people assume that if it's very unlikely a particular set of events occurred purely by coincidence, that must mean the defendant is very unlikely to be innocent. But to work out the probability of innocence, we can't just focus on the chances of a coincidence. What really matters is whether a guilty explanation is more likely than an innocent one. To navigate law—and life—we must often choose between unlikely explanations, rather than waiting for certainty. 4. Predictions are easier than taking action. If we spot a pattern in data, it can help us make predictions. If ice cream sales increase next month, it's reasonable to predict that heatstroke cases will too. These kinds of patterns can be useful if we want to make predictions, but they're less useful if we want to intervene in some way. The correlation in the data doesn't mean that ice cream causes heatstroke, and crucially, it doesn't tell us how to prevent further illness. 'Often in life, prediction isn't what we really care about.' In science, many problems are framed as prediction tasks because, fundamentally, it's easier than untangling cause and effect. In the field of social psychology, researchers use data to try to predict relationship outcomes. In the world of justice, courts use algorithms to predict whether someone will reoffend. But often in life, prediction isn't what we really care about. Whether we're talking about relationships or crimes, we don't just want to know what is likely to happen—we want to know why it happened and what we can do about it. In short, we need to get at the causes of what we're seeing, rather than settling for predictions. 5. Technology is changing our concept of proof. In 1976, two mathematicians announced the first-ever computer-aided proof. Their discovery meant that, for the first time in history, the mathematical community had to accept a major theorem that they could not verify by hand. However, not everyone initially believed the proof. Maybe the computer had made an error somewhere? Suddenly, mathematicians no longer had total intellectual control; they had to trust a machine. But then something curious happened. While older researchers had been skeptical, younger mathematicians took the opposite view. Why would they trust hundreds of pages of handwritten and hand-checked calculations? Surely a computer would be more accurate, right? Technology is challenging how we view science and proof. In 2024, we saw the AI algorithm AlphaFold make a Nobel Prize-winning discovery in biology. AlphaFold can predict protein structures and their interactions in a way that humans would never have been able to. But these predictions don't necessarily come with traditional biological understanding. Among many scientists, I've noticed a sense of loss when it comes to AI. For people trained in theory and explanation, crunching possibilities with a machine doesn't feel like familiar science. It may even feel like cheating or a placeholder for a better, neater solution that we've yet to find. And yet, there is also an acceptance that this is a valuable new route to knowledge, and the fresh ideas and discoveries it can bring.
Medscape
2 days ago
- Medscape
Sobering Figures: Alcohol's Link to GI Cancer
This transcript has been edited for clarity. In January 2025, the US Surgeon General released an important advisory that 'highlights alcohol use as a leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, contributing to nearly 100,000 cancer cases and about 20,000 cancer deaths each year.' This is in line with epidemiologic evidence for the carcinogenicity of alcohol. However, the advisory also noted that approximately 72% of American adults drink alcohol at least once a week, and fewer than half realize that alcohol use contributes to an increase in cancer risk. In this video, we will explore the research linking alcohol to gastrointestinal (GI) cancers and suggest ways that physicians and public health experts can help individuals dramatically reduce their alcohol consumption. Through careful discussions in the clinic and public health initiatives, we can hopefully prevent many cancer deaths related to alcohol use. The Toll of Alcohol-Associated GI Cancer The association between alcohol consumption and cancer risk was first appreciated during the late 1980s. Over time, a growing body of research has demonstrated 'a causal relationship between alcohol use and increased risk for at least seven different types of cancer, including breast (in women), colorectum, esophagus, liver, mouth (oral cavity), throat (pharynx), and voice box (larynx).' The advisory publication noted that in 2020, approximately 741,300 patients developed cancer in part due to alcohol. In the United States, there are approximately 20,000 cancer deaths annually related to alcohol consumption, more than the number of alcohol-related motor vehicle collisions each year, which totals 13,500. Breast cancer makes up 60% of cancer-related deaths for women, while liver cancer (approximately 33%) and colorectal cancer (approximately 21%) make up the most cancer-related deaths for men. These figures should be sobering. Although the risk of developing cancer in people who consume fewer than two drinks per day is lower compared with higher levels of alcohol ingestion, there are a greater number of people who consume one to two drinks per day. Therefore, the total number of cancer cases is similar. In 2020, 185,100 patients who drank one to two drinks daily developed cancer attributed to alcohol usage, compared with 153,400 patients who consumed four to six drinks per day and 192,900 patients who consumed more than six drinks per day. A standard drink of alcohol amounts to 5 fluid ounces of wine, 12 fluid ounces of beer, or 1.5 fluid ounces of hard liquor. Knowledge Gap The International Agency for Research on Cancer — a specialty arm of the World Health Organization — now classifies alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen along with tobacco, asbestos, and formaldehyde. In fact, 25 years ago, the US National Toxicology Program announced that alcoholic beverage consumption is carcinogenic. Yet, there remains a knowledge gap among the American public about the fact that alcohol is a strong cancer risk factor. A 2019 survey indicated that only 45% of Americans realized alcohol is a cancer risk factor, while those surveyed had higher awareness of the cancer risks posed by other factors, such as radiation exposure (91%), tobacco (89%), and asbestos (81%). Scientists have been studying alcohol as a potential risk factor for cancer over 20 years, using the same template of observational studies that researchers previously applied to studying smoking as a cancer risk factor. A large global meta-analysis comprising 572 research studies and 486,538 cancer deaths concluded that alcohol is indeed a cancer risk factor. A pooled analysis of 26 studies found the odds of developing oral cancer increased by 40% for those who drank one alcoholic beverage daily compared with those who did not. Furthermore, another meta-analysis showed the relative risk of cancer development compared with people who don't drink was 1.0 for light drinkers, 1.21 for moderate drinkers, and 1.52 for heavy drinkers (ie, more than four drinks per day). How Alcohol Causes Cancer Acetaldehyde is a breakdown byproduct of alcohol that can cause cancer by binding to DNA and damaging it. As a result, a cell can begin to grow uncontrollably and produce a cancerous tumor. In addition, alcohol can produce reactive oxygen species, which has the potential to create inflammation through oxidation, also damaging DNA, proteins, and lipids. Studies have shown that providing ethanol or acetaldehyde, which is the metabolic breakdown product of ethanol, led rats to develop more tumors in the body compared with controls. Alcohol can even increase estrogen levels, which can potentially predispose to breast cancer development. Smoking while drinking poses additional risks. Carcinogens from tobacco smoke can dissolve in alcohol liquid and more easily enter the body, which is especially concerning for the potential contribution to throat and oral cancers. Acetaldehyde can sometimes be used as a food additive and aroma agent, and is a significant carcinogenic component found in cigarette smoke. The acetaldehyde concentration in cigarette smoke is 1000 times greater than that in other significant carcinogens such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or nitrosamines from tobacco. Drinking alcohol in combination with smoking cigarettes can have a synergistic negative effect on the risk for colorectal cancer, and the combination can have a sevenfold effect on the upper digestive tract's exposure to carcinogenic acetaldehyde. Additional research has focused on whether folate deficiency, sometimes caused by heavy alcohol use, might also place patients at risk through an alternative pathway. Esophageal and Liver Cancer According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), heavy alcohol consumption can increase esophageal cancer risk fivefold. Even light drinking can increase the risk by 1.3-fold, highlighting the importance of limiting alcohol consumption. The NCI also reports that heavy alcohol ingestion can multiply the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma by two times compared with the regular population. Although additional research needs to be conducted, it has been hypothesized that alcohol can cause liver cancer by altering the immune response, causing reactive oxygen species production, and producing changes in the immune response. Unfortunately, alcohol can act synergistically with hepatitis B and C to cause liver cancer. Also, consistently drinking two or more alcoholic beverages per day is associated with an increased risk for liver cancer. Gastric Cancer Recent studies have shown that alcohol consumption could increase gastric cancer risk. Acetaldehydes may act as a possible mechanism by creating a local toxic effect, and ethanol may also disturb gastric mucosal protection. A meta-analysis that reviewed 10 case-control studies investigating alcohol and gastric cancer risks validated it as a risk factor even at low levels of alcohol consumption. A Korean population-based retrospective cohort study found that 'the risk of GI cancer increased linearly with the frequency of drinking in a dose-dependent manner.' Pancreatic Cancer The same Korean study found that the risk for pancreatic cancer increased with weekly alcohol drinking. A meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Cancer also showed a 20% increase in pancreatic cancer risk with alcohol consumption. In a study of over 450,000 Americans living in California, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, the risk of developing pancreatic cancer in heavy alcohol users (at least three drinks per day) was 1.35 compared with light users (less than one drink per day) in never smokers. Another study, of over 33,000 patients in Sweden, found the relative risk of pancreatic cancer for intermediate and heavy alcohol use was 2.13 in former smokers. Colorectal Cancer In 2025, the NCI published a guide indicating that moderate to heavy alcohol consumption is associated with a 1.2- to 1.5-fold increased risk for colorectal cancer compared with patients who were abstinent. In an earlier review, from 2015, researchers showed that alcohol consumption of more than 30 grams per day was associated with an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. Estimates from the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research indicate that there was a 9% risk of developing colorectal cancer for every 10 grams of alcohol consumed daily. In addition, folate deficiency has been shown to worsen the effects of drinking alcohol on colorectal cancer risks. A 2022 meta-analysis published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology found that consuming alcohol was associated with a 1.71 relative risk of developing early-onset colorectal cancer. Interestingly, cigarette smoking was not statistically significant for establishing such an association. Consumption of processed meat and fried foods, as well as lack of exercise, also contributed to the development of early-onset colorectal cancer. As physicians, we should encourage patients to make lifestyle modifications to avoid those other risk factors. While additional research needs to be conducted, a cohort study in California and Hawaii, led by Dr Song-Yi Park, indicated that the relationship between alcohol and colorectal cancer might vary by ethnicity. In addition, it found that colorectal cancer risk was increased by wine and beer, but not liquor. The association with alcohol was greatest for rectal and left colon cancers. Public Health Approaches Alcohol is the most consumed drug in the United States, a statistic that requires validated approaches for addressing. In the future, Congress can vote to include alcohol warning labels on bottles and cans. There's evidence that health warning labels are effective in teaching the public about alcohol-induced health consequences. Interestingly, multiple studies have illustrated a decrease in alcohol consumption following viewership of alcohol warning labels. In addition, alcohol warning labels depicting liver cancer or negative alcohol consequences have been shown to reduce drinking and drunk driver situations. A 2024 meta-analysis showed with 'moderate certainty' that alcohol warning labels might decrease selection of alcoholic drinks and drinking before driving. However, there was 'low evidence' demonstrating that warning labels might reduce alcohol drinking per occasion, or alcohol drinking speeds, which would be important considerations at parties and social gatherings. A 2020 study showed that alcohol selection was lower for all kinds of alcohol warning labels compared with no warning labels. Specifically, alcoholic drink selection was 56% with warning labels that consisted of an image and text, 49% for image only, and 61% for text only. During the 1990s and 2000s, physicians and public health experts learned a lot about how to motivate patients to quit smoking. One successful public health approach was the use of the transtheoretical model, where patients go through various stages, such as precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance, when trying to decide when to quit smoking. This behavioral modification model could be used for alcohol prevention too. Key public policy interventions also helped, including a tobacco taxation, advertising bans, and tobacco marketing restrictions in smoke-free zones. Similar interventions could work well for alcohol. Alcohol taxation can be used to deter heavy drinkers and young drinkers who don't have as much money to spend, given that tobacco taxation was successful for smoking reductions. Furthermore, policies could be set to maintain minimum unit pricing to prevent the sale of ultracheap liquor. States could also limit the hours of alcohol purchasing or even the days, such as banning alcohol sales on Sunday. These public health strategies could work in tandem to help decrease alcohol drinking rates in the United States. Alcohol and smoking are very similar social activities that for years were depicted as stylish and cool in movies and on TV. Then smoking ads were banned on TV through the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1970. During the 1970s, cigarette companies shifted their advertising from TV to print. So, it would be important in the future to ban alcohol ads from all media and printed marketing. As highlighted by the World Health Organization, advertising bans and restrictions were helpful in Nordic countries with decreasing the per-capita drinking amount. Finally, physicians should screen patients for heavy alcohol consumption using the validated AUDIT- C questionnaire and biomarkers such as phosphatidyl ethanol. When needed, Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar 12-step program can be offered to patients who drink heavily to reduce alcohol consumption. Tips to Reduce Alcohol Consumption Here are some helpful tips to encourage patients and friends to reduce alcohol consumption. Set a quit date and avoid triggers such as meeting friends at bars. Drink mocktails at social gatherings and parties. Patients can also choose from a plethora of innovative and tasty alcohol-free beers when drinking with friends. Several beer companies, such as Heineken, Budweiser, Guinness, and Samuel Adams, have developed great alcohol-free beer alternatives, which are extremely helpful for patients trying to remain abstinent and also for those trying to prevent cancer. Mass media initiatives such as the Ad Council and celebrity public service announcement television spots could be used to shift social norms around alcohol consumption. Public service announcements could also be shared at sporting events and concerts where alcohol consumption is common. Public health campaigns could place posters in bars and liquor stores informing consumers about the link between alcohol and cancer. Social media could teach target populations about alcohol reduction in fun and engaging ways. By talking with patients in clinic and working on public health campaigns, gastroenterologists have a unique opportunity to inspire behavioral lifestyle changes in patients and to prevent many cancers.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
NeOnc Technologies Holdings, Inc. Appoints Dr. Josh Neman as Chief Clinical Officer to Advance Clinical Strategy and Translational Oncology Programs
USC brain tumor authority to accelerate four clinical trials including lead asset NEO100 nearing Phase 2a completion ahead of schedule Appointment bolsters FDA approval path while company explores AI and quantum computing to enhance drug delivery platform CALABASAS, Calif., June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- NeOnc Technologies Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTHI), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on innovative treatments for central nervous system (CNS) cancers and disorders, today announced the appointment of Josh Neman, PhD as its new Chief Clinical Officer (CCO). Dr. Neman brings with him a distinguished career at the intersection of cancer neuroscience, translational research, and academic medicine. Dr. Neman joins NeOnc Technologies Holdings Inc. (NeOnc) from the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California (USC), where he serves as Associate Professor of Neurological Surgery and Physiology & Neuroscience, and Scientific Director of the USC Brain Tumor Center. At USC, he also leads the Cancer Biology and Genomics PhD Program and serves as Director of Cancer Research Training and Education Coordination at the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center- a leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer research hospital. A nationally recognized leader in neurooncological sciences and cancer neuroscience, Dr. Neman's research has advanced the understanding of how brain microenvironments influence the progression of brain tumors and metastases. His pioneering studies on tumor-neuron interactions, GABAergic signaling in cancer, and mechanisms of leptomeningeal dissemination have helped shape new therapeutic paradigms for both adult and pediatric brain tumors. 'I am deeply honored to join NeOnc at this exciting time,' said Dr. Neman. 'NeOnc's commitment to developing innovative therapeutics, including Blood Brain Barrier-penetrant compounds like NEO212 and NEO100, aligns perfectly with my lifelong passion to improve outcomes for patients with brain tumors. I look forward to helping lead the translation of promising discoveries from the lab into meaningful clinical impact.' In his role as Chief Clinical Officer, Dr. Neman will lead NeOnc's clinical development strategy, including investigator-initiated trials and precision oncology partnerships. He will also play a key role in expanding NeOnc's research collaborations with academic institutions, regulatory agencies, and patient advocacy groups. 'Dr. Neman's appointment signals a major step forward in NeOnc's mission to transform the treatment landscape for patients with life-threatening cancers with poor outcomes,' said Amir Heshmatpour, Executive Chairman and President of NeOnc Technologies Holdings, Inc. 'His academic and clinical leadership, coupled with his deep expertise in brain tumor biology, will be instrumental in accelerating all four of our clinical trials—especially our lead asset, NEO100, which is approaching the completion of its Phase 2a trial with full enrollment achieved ahead of schedule. As we look to add AI and quantum computing into our expanding platform in drug delivery and bio-conjugation, Dr. Neman's appointment further strengthens our commitment to advancing precision therapies and driving toward FDA approval.' About NeOnc Technologies Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTHI): NeOnc Technologies is a publicly traded, clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing innovative therapies for brain and central nervous system cancers. Its lead programs—NEO100-01, NEO100-02, NEO100-03, and NEO212—utilize proprietary formulations to bypass the blood-brain barrier and target malignancies with precision. The company's IP portfolio includes 176 patents worldwide, reflecting a broad platform with strong commercialization potential. For more about NeOnc and its pioneering technology, visit Important Cautions Regarding Forward-Looking Statements All statements other than statements of historical facts included in this press release are "forward-looking statements" (as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). Generally, such forward-looking statements include statements regarding expectations, possible or assumed future actions, business strategies, events or results of operations, including statements regarding expectations or predictions or future financial or business performance or conditions and those statements that use forward-looking words such as "projected," "expect," "possibility" and "anticipate," or similar expressions. The achievement or success of the matters covered by such forward-looking statements involve significant risks, uncertainties, and assumptions. Actual results could differ materially from current projections or implied results. The Company cautions that statements and assumptions made in this news release constitute forward-looking statements and make no guarantee of future performance. Forward-looking statements are based on estimates and opinions of management at the time statements are made. The information set forth herein speaks only as of the date hereof. The Company and its management are under no obligation, and expressly disclaim any obligation, to update, alter or otherwise revise any forward-looking statements following the date of this news release, whether because of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. 'NEO100' is a registered trademark of NeOnc Technologies Holdings, Inc. Company Contact:23975 Sorrento Park Suite 205, Calabasas, CA, 91302info@ Investor Relations:James CarbonaraHayden IR369 Lexington AvenueSecond FloorNew York, NY 10017Office: (646)-755-7412James@ in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
