America's 40 year war on cancer

[averagejoe]

Watching a show the other night on the war on cancer....started by then President Richard Nixon,

The 40-year war on cancer

By Dr. Otis Brawley, Special to CNN
On December 23, 1971, President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act of 1971 into law. The legislation had tremendous bipartisan support and came at a time of great optimism. Many thought its passage would lead to a cure for cancer within a few years.

The legislation never mentioned the word "war," but some considered it the country's "declaration of war on cancer." The law, and the movement supporting it, brought cancer out of the shadows and put a focus on it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/23/health/forty-year-war/

[vegas1500]

Average Joe....I, as many of us have been personally affected by this dreadful disease. IMO I believe there is a cure but it will never surface. Cancer is a multi-multi billion dollar industry that if a cure came out, would have huge and long reaching implications. Would,be amazing but will never see it....

[Queen K]

Vegas, I too am of this belief.

Why the war on cannabis oil?
Why the war on alternative healing?
Why the negativity on vitamin therapy and chelation?
Why the war on scientific findings regarding radio waves, preservatives, herbicides, and all other artificial concoctions?
Why is tobacco still even legal?
And on and on.

There's no "war" on cancer, just a search to find expensive medicines to charge, charge, charge.

That's the way I see it.

[averagejoe]

Vegas, I too am of this belief.

Why the war on cannabis oil?
Why the war on alternative healing?
Why the negativity on vitamin therapy and chelation?
Why the war on scientific findings regarding radio waves, preservatives, herbicides, and all other artificial concoctions?
Why is tobacco still even legal?
And on and on.

There's no "war" on cancer, just a search to find expensive medicines to charge, charge, charge.

That's the way I see it.

Totally agree Queen K! It's all about the money.....make more money keeping us sick with no cures.

[LoneWolf_53]

I agree too.

There's billions to be made treating symptoms, but nothing to enhance the bottom line of big Pharma if cured. The same applies to some other afflictions as well such as arthritis.

Big Pharmaceutical and big oil are of the same ilk as far as I'm concerned, and unfortunately so big that they pull the behind the scenes strings of government, in the USA, and to some degree, in many other places as well, including Canada.

This whole concept of democracy is little more than a farce and illusion, perpetuated by those two bullies, to keep the minions appeased.

[John500]

So agree with the posts on this subject. Just imagine a world with a treatment to cure cancer. Or in my case RA. But unfortunately the world, western world, money is more important then people.

[The Green Barbarian]

So agree with the posts on this subject. Just imagine a world with a treatment to cure cancer. Or in my case RA. But unfortunately the world, western world, money is more important then people.

or spending money "fighting" an unproven hypothesis like "man made climate change" is more important that eradicating malaria in Africa, that is actually killing hundreds of thousands of people every year. Political ideologies are more important than actual people.

[rustled]

So agree with the posts on this subject. Just imagine a world with a treatment to cure cancer. Or in my case RA. But unfortunately the world, western world, money is more important then people.

We've had great success with many cancers. Good summary here: http://www.cancer.org.au/news/blog/prev ... tence.html

The word ‘cancer’ covers around 200 different types of disease, which makes it highly unlikely there will ever be a magic bullet cure for them all. It’s far more likely that advances in treatment will result in more cancers becoming ‘manageable’ chronic diseases. People will live with their cancer, and maintain a good quality of life.
...
There was a time when, as a patient diagnosed with ‘the big C’, your first question would have been: ‘How long have I got?’ Now, and increasingly so, the first question a patient should ask is ‘What are we going to do about it?’

I don't doubt politics does play too much a part in where the money goes for cancer research, but if we're going to complain about the politics of where our money goes in relation to solving pressing health issues, I agree this should be our greater concern:

or spending money "fighting" an unproven hypothesis like "man made climate change" is more important that eradicating malaria in Africa, that is actually killing hundreds of thousands of people every year. Political ideologies are more important than actual people.

[zzontar]

The war seems to be against curing people of cancer. Even though there are many alternative treatments with good results, doctors will always prescribe chemo and radiation. Although that may be beneficial to some it will most likely give you cancer if you didn't have it already and most will experience unpleasant side-effects from it. There should be a choice presented.

Diet is also a majority of the battle, with some claims that diet alone can even cure cancer

http://www.prevention.com/food/food-rem ... res-cancer

How A Doctor Healed His Own Cancer With Food

With the hundreds of billions of dollars that have gone into cancer research we've gone from chemo and radiation decades ago to chemo and radiation today, while they hardly glance at the alternatives that wouldn't make them a fraction of the money although they might be more beneficial to the cancer patients.It seems criminal that when you're diagnosed with cancer, they don't mention the alternative treatments even if those have a good track record, and months can go by before they even mention diet.

Why is it not law to look after the best interest of the public's health if that's the field you're in?

[zzontar]

In 1900, cancer was practically unheard of in this country. By 1950, there were about 150 cases of cancer per 100,000 population.

In 1971, Nixon introduced his War on Cancer, opening the floodgates of massive research funding backed by the government. This situation escalated until by the 1980s, over $50 billion per year was being spent to “find the cure.” A pittance, compared to the $300 billion today. [9]

Mortality from Cancer in the U.S.
year — deaths/ 100,000
1967— 157.2
1970— 162.9
1982— 187.3
1987— 198.2
1988— 198.4
1989— 201.0
1990— 203.2
1991— 204.1
1992— 204.1
2011 — 191.4
. source: Vital Statistics of the United States vol.II 1967-1992 [26]
National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 61, No. 6, October 10,2012
– http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
Don’t get too excited about the 2011 figure. In the government numbers game, it’s anything but pure science. The objective here is often to obscure reality, not necessarily to reflect it.
Independent analysis by the CA Journal for Cancer Clinicians, Jan 97, [16] put the 1993 death rate at 220 per 100,000. Does that sound like progress? Yeah, progress for the disease.

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/cancer/t ... r-patient/

You can't win a war that's being fought by traitors

[zzontar]

Here's another interesting story. If this drug works and India can produce it for 3% of what it sells for here, then should one's health or even life be determined by a corporation who's goal is maximum profit? Talk about a conflict of interest and again one I think is criminal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tment.html

The CEO of phamaceutical giant Bayer has sparked fury after announcing one of the firm's drugs was for 'western patients who can afford it'.
Marijn Dekkers made the inflammatory comments after the Indian company Natco Pharma Ltd. were granted a government licence to produce a copy of Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar which they will sell for 97 per cent less than the original product.

[Donald G]

I am quite surprised at the pessimism of some of the people commenting on this string. IMO, as per the following combined comment, there is headway being made against a bank of about 200 different cancers that require different approaches.

by rustled » Nov 23rd, 2015, 12:36 pm

We've had great success with many cancers. Good summary here: http://www.cancer.org.au/news/blog/prev ... tence.html
The word ‘cancer’ covers around 200 different types of disease, which makes it highly unlikely there will ever be a magic bullet cure for them all. It’s far more likely that advances in treatment will result in more cancers becoming ‘manageable’ chronic diseases. People will live with their cancer, and maintain a good quality of life.
...
There was a time when, as a patient diagnosed with ‘the big C’, your first question would have been: ‘How long have I got?’ Now, and increasingly so, the first question a patient should ask is ‘What are we going to do about it?’

[zzontar]

We've had great success with many cancers.

My idea of success is having the rate of cancer go down, not up. It wasn't that long ago that children rarely got cancer.

CANCER IN CHILDREN
Before the 1960s, cancer in children was virtually unheard of. With the skyrocketing number of vaccines and drugs given to children, and the proliferation of snack foods and processed foods in the child diet, by the year 2000 we have the astounding figure of 89.5 deaths per 100,000 population, for all types of cancer combined, below age 19. ([46] CDC website 2010)
Cancer is now the #1 cause of death in children, according to the CDC! [2]

[Donald G]

zzontar » Yesterday, 7:07 pm

My idea of success is having the rate of cancer go down, not up.

Do you really expect the cancer rates to drop while the population increases, life expectancy lengthens and methods of detection become more accurate ??

Is that not a bit unrealistic ??

[Bsuds]

Saw this today and found it very interesting and relevant to this discussion.

http://www.popsci.com/we-are-astonishin ... cancer-why