The Great Cancer Myth: War on Cancer

In 1961, John F. Kennedy boldly declared that the United States would put a man on the moon in the next decade. The US poured $170 billion (in 2005 dollars) into a project that delivered success in the NASA moon landing and safe return in 1969. In contrast, Richard Nixon declared ‘war’ on cancer with the National Cancer Act in 1971 with the goal of a cure by 1976, but after some 40 years and $200 billion spent, we can safely say that cancer has kicked our collective butts a distance equal to that traveled by Apollo 11– nearly one-half million miles.

This year, cancer is slated to surpass cardiovascular disease as the country’s leading killer. In fact, since Nixon’s pronouncement, cardiovascular related mortality has fallen 70% against a drop of just over 7% for cancer deaths. To be sure, people are living better with cancer than earlier times, but they ultimately die of it in disappointing numbers, nonetheless. Even the reported progress, in terms of a cure, is a bit misleading, as much of the advancement comes in the form of additional longevity measured in months, after a diagnosis. A new drug that prolongs a cancer patient’s life by a few months is deemed a success, by profit-hungry drug companies who pay doctors to prescribe particular drugs.

There are recurring areas of cancer research that are often cited as contributing to the dismal results. The first is that scientists are not recognized and rewarded for saving lives, per their research efforts. The rate of useful therapies per research discovery is very poor compared to other diseases. Cancer research has also stuck for too long with animal models that many people say are irrelevant to humans with cancer. The National Cancer Institute, a major research funder, is known for preferring ‘safe’ research, study that is more status quo and less innovative. The leading complaint is that private funders of research are focused on ‘home run’ solutions that can be patented and will deliver boatloads of money, rather than training their focus on something much more doable, but less profitable - preventing cancer from the outset.

The real tragedy of the war on cancer is that it effectively could have been won, if the objective of those involved was to simply save lives, rather than to profit from saving lives. The human immune system is evolved to keep cancer in check, if only it is kept healthy and strong to do the job. The problem with this approach is that no one gets rich from true prevention – people just go on with their lives. The cancer industry has substituted profit-making early detection and life-extending therapies, in exchange for a focus on nutrition and behaviors that would prevent up to 77% of all internal cancers (here). However, if the current industry took this better approach, ironically, we would have to start calling them the anti-cancer industry.

James C. Collier

READ MOST RECENT POSTS AT ACTING WHITE...

Technorati Tags: The Great Cancer Myth: War on Cancer, Nixon, Cancer Industry, War on Cancer, Acting Black, Acting White