Analysis: In war against cancer, progress is in the eye of the beholder

Comments (6)
kiwibird wrote:

I was told in my own country by a leading specialist and someone who refuses to work in the public health sector as they insist on using certain drugs, that chemotherapy works reasonably well with only 3 types of cancer. He said the cancer must be cut out but radiation and chemo add nothing in the majority of cancer situations. There is I gather a therapy where they pump the body full of vitamin C(via drip)but this has to be done strictly by medical professionals and no big surprise the main stream medical profession don’t use it. So you have to pay! No drug company is going to make money on Vitamin C.

Jan 07, 2013 6:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MightyCasey wrote:

“If the American public really wants fewer people to die from cancer, then there will need to be major changes in lifestyle,” said MIT’s Weinberg, such as declines in tobacco use and obesity. The biggest reductions in cancer mortality “will come from prevention rather than treatment.”

Until the US healthcare system shifts from a fee-for-service model, rewarded for dx-ing and treating sickness, to one that is remunerated based on population health, we’ll keep throwing epic amounts of cash at stuff like wars on cancer. Which have some ROI, but nowhere near what effective prevention would deliver.

Jan 07, 2013 8:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dkbaz wrote:

There is a lot of money to be made by “fighting” cancer, so it’s better to not eradicate it, but to have an ongoing war. Same principle as with The War on Terror and The War on Drugs.

Very little research is conducted in the US on prevention and on treatment that uses non-proprietary substances which can’t yield high profits.

Jan 07, 2013 8:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dkbaz wrote:

There is a lot of money to be made by “fighting” cancer, so it’s better to not eradicate it, but to have an ongoing war. Same principle as with The War on Terror and The War on Drugs.

Very little research is conducted in the US on prevention and on treatment that uses non-proprietary substances which can’t yield high profits.

Jan 07, 2013 8:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mrqfarm wrote:

We need to look at natural cures for cancer. So many out there that work and big pharma does want want you to know about then because they can not make money off them. Do a search on natural cures for cancer and save a life of a loved one or friend. Also do something about the dead food we eat.No nutritional value in our food today our bodies are wasting way because of this. Big money in keeping us sick why do you think the war on cancer is still going 50 years later

Jan 07, 2013 9:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jim_Kress wrote:

When you read the “report” it is basically a propaganda sheet pushing people to get their female children HPV vaccination coverage. That is virtually all that is discussed. The information concerning other types of cancer is lightly glossed over or ignored.

Labelled “A Report To The Nation On The Status Of Cancer” this “document is a travesty.

Jan 09, 2013 7:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.