New developments in the war on cancer

To answer the question in your blog "Do you think the U.S. government needs to spend more on cancer research? If so, at what cost to other health initiatives?" The answer is a flat out of course the government should! Cancer is the No. 1 killer in the world, why not target it so that millions of victims of cancer don't die? Researchers are inching towards finding treatments and cures for numerous diseases, and by cutting the research funds, they will no longer be able to ultimately find that treatment or that cure. The government shouldn't focus all of their attention towards cancer research, but should put enough attention so that the research funds don't decrease year by year, and at the least, stay the same year by year.

In response to the question "Do you think the U.S. government needs to spend more on cancer research? If so, at what cost to other health initiatives?" My answer is a resounding yes. We have learned through the research conducted prior that early diaganosis and prevention are key to so many types of cancers. I know from personal history that cancer is indiscriminant and takes young and old alike. If through research we can decrease the number of diagnosis and ultimately deaths then we are making gains on this global killer. Research dollars are spent on so many other things that are positive, but maybe by taking monies that are spent on creating new killer viruses or the newest super weapon and use it instead to fund research into saving lives we would be a much better place. Funding needs to be there at comprable levels to account for increase in costs and to offset the expenditures which are not directly involved in the research iteself.

Why is the focus on a cure and not on stopping cancer before it starts?
Articles are written daily about the ingredients in our personal care products, household products, our water, food and environment. Pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries are multi billion dollar profit making machines, at the expense of our health, the health of our children and even our pets!
Where has all the money gone and how is it accounted for?
Non profits focus on TOBACCO, OBESITY and LIFESTYLE. Children don't smoke. Sponsors for Cancer related events are tied to pharmaceuticals companies...WHY? Granted, drugs are needed once diagnosed but what about PREVENTION? Where is the information on products to avoid and ingredients like PARABENS, found in breast tumors?
The FDA and USDA are helpless.With little regulation on ingredients and no warnings required for genetically engineered food and milk, we are guinea pigs.Pharmaceuticals control our demise.
Put money into research proving there are links to cancer in the toxic, synthetic ingredients we use daily, put money into researching why children are getting cancer in the first place. Research for drugs means the focus is never going to be on PREVENTING CANCER because it is too profitable. We have to demand accountability . Our lives depend on it.

It seems some kind of survey or poll should be performed to ask a lot more questions on the priorities of spending tax money. I believe most Americans would obviously choose more funding for healthcare prevention AND on stopping of many diseases and especially the number 1 killer, cancer.

Terry: excellent answer!
There will never be a cure for cancer. It is way too profitable right now.
Society needs to be "educated" not "medicated". But FDA and all of the other corrupt group wants people to get sick, and be on drugs.
Sad, but true.

I have to agree with everyone so far. I am myself a cancer researcher, getting my phd at one of the top cancer institutes in the us, and I have a first-hand view of the lack of funding and its effects. I've seen cancer labs shut down because they just can't get funding. And most people don't realize just how much research COSTS. It's astronomical. I especially like the comment on spending more to SAVE lives and less on learning new ways to end them, like with viruses or bombs. Sad our government can't figure that out, too. Also with the idea of spending more on prevention, yes more needs to be done, but again, that's not an area that gets as much funding. When you see the patients every day in the clinic, and then hear that 1.4 MILLION more people will get this disease in the next year alone, it's depressing. We need more money and more people to make the advances. And a lot of people don't understand what's so big about a 1 month increase in lifespan, but in the life of a cancer patient, that 1 month can be a big deal

It's true that many people don't understand what's so big about a 1 month increase in lifespan, but it is.
I wish I would have been able to have my husband with me for one more month. He died of Multiple Myeloma (not much research goes to that cancer) only 5 months after being diagnosed. He was only 51 with 10 kids and 6 grandkids.
We need money for research for cures as well as for prevention.
We need both..

The ongoing "war" on cancer is an exercise in continued frustration, suffering, and dread for the patients and families involved. And as this latest report from the ASCO conference shows... there is no silver bullet. There is no solution. There is only guess work and unrealistic reliance on "one-size fits all" chemicals (which undoubtedly make the pharmaceutical industry happy). It really makes you wonder how, after we continue to pour BILLIONS of dollars into cancer research, we are no closer to finding real solutions. It's a difficult problem, to be sure. But what we really need to emphasize is fighting the CAUSES, not the symptoms. Cancer treatment remains an exercise in slash and burn therapy: cut off the offending tissue (breasts, ovaries, uterus, etc.) and burn out the rest with drugs so toxic you can't get them on your skin. I speak from personal experience. I recently lost a sister (41 years old) to ovarian cancer and have another (44 years old) battling breast cancer. Both carry the BRCA1 gene mutation. One doctor all but lied to us about one sister's chances (we were kept in the dark until the very end when he finally decided to spring the word "terminal" on us). Another doctor chose to use a chemo drug that was known to only be effective in 20% of "some" cancers. That's an 80% failure rate! No surprise, it didn't work and my other sister continues her fight. This nonsense of one-size-fits-all pharmaceuticals needs to end. We are a chemically addicted society. We see more drug commercials on TV these days than almost anything else. Cancer patients need a treatment for the CAUSE. Treating the symptoms is an act of futility. Doctors today are guessing. They do not know the answers. They "try" drugs. When one doesn't work, they "try" another. Meanwhile the patient is suffering and the clock is ticking. Oncologists know nothing but the standard mechanical responses they were indoctrinated with in medical school. "Got cancer? Push toxic chemicals." One doctor had the audacity to recommend another round of chemo to my sister, even though he had declared her terminal with "days" to live. Why? What good would it have done at that point other than make her miserable? Unfortunately, that doctor represents so many in the medical community today. They can't think beyond their limited chemical training. Cancer treatment needs to be a patient by patient exercise: find the exact nature of that person's cancer cells (everyone is different), determine what would stop those specific mutated cells from multiplying, and apply a treatment to halt the progression. Give the body's short-circuited immune system a chance to do what it is supposed to do all the time: kill off cancer cells. This requires much more than the traditional Western medical style of thinking (i.e., "push drugs"). It needs to be a holistic approach: diet, exercise, life style, and some drugs if necessary. Only when medical science is mature enough (in both thinking and technical approaches) will we begin to really "fight" cancer. Alas, but reality has shown we are far from that point.

Wanted to know if Dr. Gupta would cover a treatment called, in lay terms, gamma knife surgery. Also known as steriotactic surgery. My husband was diagnosed with a brain tumor in 1992. Had surgery. Had MRI's very year for 3 years and then showed small growth in the residual tumor left. Drs. wanted radiation. He refused. I searched the web frantically for alternate treatments. Found that Hermann Hospital in Houston, TX performed gamma knife surgery on his types of brain tumors. Did more research on this treatment. We opted to "go for it". The best choice we ever made. It is now 2008 and, so far, no more growth. Could you possibly cover this some day and also tell us why more doctors don't look at this type of treatment. It seems so much less invasive than radiation. I know there are limitations on the parts of the body that can be treated this way but it seems as if patients should be offered this choice when in consultation.

My very best regards,

Becky Trant
Kingsville, Texas