Are We Retreating In The War On Cancer?

Research Money Is Down, And Scientists Are Leaving In Droves

(CBS)  Nearly half of all men and more than one-third of all women in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. And yet, since 2004, federal funding for research into the four most common kinds of cancer - lung, colon, breast and prostate - has been cut by $102 million. Is enough is being done to stop this killer? This is the first in a series, "The War on Cancer: Where We Stand."

---

They are America's foot-soldiers in the war on cancer - young scientists whose research may someday lead to better treatments and even cures.

But experts worry this small elite army is leaving the field in droves because government funding, which once allowed cancer research to flourish, is now drying up, CBS News anchor Katie Couric reports.

How bad is it?

"I think we're at very high risk for losing some of our best and brightest people," said Dr. David Nanus, co-chief oncologist at New York's Presbyterian Hospital at Weill Cornell Medical Center. "It's very disheartening, between all the economic problems in the United States, the continuation of the Iraq war, the low-levels of funding. Short-term, it's not good."

The statistics are staggering. Between 1998 and 2003, Congress doubled the National Institute of Health budget, allowing research to thrive. But since 2004, funding has flatlined.

Today, only one-in-10 promising cancer research proposals gets funded. And on average, researchers are 43 years old when they get their first grant.

It frustrates doctors.

"Some of your best ideas need to be funded at an earlier point in your life - when you have the energy and the drive to continue," said Dr. Joseph Mancius.

"Is this going to be very damaging to our efforts to lead the pack in terms of novel cancer treatments?" Couric asked.

"America has been the unquestioned leader in biomedical research for a long time, but that primacy is at risk now," said Dr. Hearn Cho of the New York University Cancer Institute.

Cho, who specializes in blood plasma cancer, graduated from medical school 12 years ago. Since then, he has struggled to fund his research.

And he makes half of what his colleagues earn in private practice.

"I reached a point where I was concerned about the future and I had to consider practical matters of staying employed," he said. "I had to consider the possibility that I might have to take a job in industry."

By "industry," he means pharmaceutical companies. And while they are doing research, it's focused on moving drugs into clinical trials instead of basic research, where the creation of new drugs and approaches takes place.

Some researchers are getting out of the field altogether to pursue more lucrative careers - sometimes on Wall Street.

Still others are heading overseas, where governments and companies in Asia and Europe are creating a brain drain in this country - attracting young Americans like Duncan Odom, who left MIT to go to Great Britain's Cambridge University.

"The feeling within Europe itself is that there's a very positive, forward-thinking, optimistic feel about the future of not just cancer research, but science research in general," Odom said.

At 38, Odom runs his own lab, has a staff of three and has secured financial backing to the tune of more than $1.2 million a year.

"The difference is that cancer research U.K. has core-funded me indefinitely. Which means there are expenditures that I don't have to think about," he said.

That's something his fellow researchers back in the United States struggle with.

Why do American researchers do it?

"'Cause this is what we love," Cho said. "We've dedicated our lives to advancing the understanding of cancer as a disease and developing new ways of treating it. This is our passion."

"I'm excited by the prospect of finding something that will actually make a difference," said Gabrielle Rizzuto of the Tri-Institutional M.D.-Ph.D. program.

And that could be a difference for the more than 10 million Americans currently living with cancer. And when it comes to research dollars, they have the most to lose.

[rational_1]

Cancer has a cure already and has been around for some time. If you have some time please do some research on vitaming B-17 and that isn''''t the bommer. Also look up Death by Doctoring and this story just may surprise just open your eyes.
Posted by gmabaity at 07:06 PM : May 22, 2008

Vitamin B-17 is laetrile. You may remember there was a fad of people going to Mexico a couple of decades ago to get laetrile treatment because it wasn''t available in the States. Didn''t work for Steve McQueen for his mesothelioma. Probably lots more examples.

By the way, B-17 is isolated from apricot pits, a really good source of cyanide, so if you''re planning on making your own...

Frankly I can''t blame anyone for desperate measures if conventional oncology tells you your condition is hopeless. Know however that it''s not going to be the magic bullet gmabaity is making it out to be.

[gmabaity]

Cancer has a cure already and has been around for some time. If you have some time please do some research on vitaming B-17 and that isn''t the bommer. Also look up Death by Doctoring and this story just may surprise just open your eyes.

[democrat122]

lol, this board is such a fascinating little piece of Americana. We''ve got crazy conspiracy theorists who have to invent a ''special'' world of their own to make up for their own inadequacies, loonies who know a magical cure for "cancer" as though it were actually a single entity - who, by the way, will decry the Big Bad Pharma industry for being money-hungry but think you should buy their their special cure instead, and the ever-present faux-politicos who somehow always seem to pin the fault for all their ills on one of the major political parties. What pitiful little enclosed worlds you all must live in. Props to the few educated responses on here...

[rational_1]

rational_1, there are cures for cancer, but they will seem to dissapear just like there is ways to run cars on other means other than oil..
Posted by Gaye5 at 02:22 AM : May 22, 2008

But this really doesn''t make sense. Let me use a computer analogy. Intel & AMD are in such a vicious arms race with their processor technology that they''ll sometimes try to sell their hardware for less than it''s worth (for a time) just to add extra pressure on the other guy. If some guy working on his own came up with a cure for cancer (and it just isn''t going to be this simple, since there isn''t just one type of cancer), why wouldn''t a big company buy him out - for two reasons: 1) so he couldn''t sell his cue to their competitors, and 2) so they now have unfettered access to this new technology/approach. Putting it bluntly, I see no reason why any company that gains a massive competitive advantage wouldn''t immediately take advantage of it. Right now the pharmaceutical companies are doing that already. They are all all trying to convince physicians that their products are more efficacious than their competitors'' and/or they have fewer side effects. Imagine how convincing a cancer cure argument would be to physicians, in comparison to the competitors offering treatments that at best delay death?

And regarding Holt, read this.
http://www.cancertreatmentwatch.org/reports/holt.shtml

[gaye5]

Have you ever noticed how many appeals there are for cancer research, and yet after more than three decades, there is no cure?
Ever noticed how every cancer cure ultimately gets swept under the carpet?
Cancer is a multi-billion dollar global industry that will not recognise any cure that cannot be manufactured as a patentable drug.
It''s about money. Check it out on the web. It makes very interesting reading.
Medical history is peppered with similar examples of important discoveries, which were ignored and decades later, were acclaimed as a wonderful new treatment or preventive measure, with somebody other than the original pioneer getting the credit. This occurred after thousands, maybe millions had suffered or died needlessly.
Drugs and Dr''s are the fourth cause of death in America and still the people dont wake up.. I can remember reading when the scare came out about HRT and profits dropped for the pharmacutical companies they said that they would have to find another way to get their profits back up again. hmmm.. yep

[gaye5]

rational_1, there are cures for cancer, but they will seem to dissapear just like there is ways to run cars on other means other than oil..
There is a dr here in Australia who has now retired who has cured (sorry cant say that word now) people who were vertually on their death bed.

In 2005 a Current Affair aired a story on Perth-based Australian surgeon, Dr John Holt, who many believe, has the cure for cancer, he used a Microwave Cancer Therapy.
The NHMRC is was supposed to conducting a review of Dr Holt''s method of cancer treatment Microwave Cancer Therapy.
The original date for this review to be submitted to the Minister for Health was December 21, 2004. It was not submitted. A further date was set.
Again, the review was not submitted. It has still not been submitted.
Strange when considering Dr. Holt''s claim that he could train any doctor to apply his therapy in a day. Dr Holt, who is 83 years of age, has cured
thousands of people of many forms of cancer but he closed his practice on June 30, 2005 because his method of treatment is considered by our government to be unorthodox.

What a heartache for the Dr..

[gaye5]

OldThought you are so right there is no money in a cure... one of your presidents 25 years ago said that within 20 years cancer would be stamped out, instead it is far far worse.. And I think some on here know why..

[pseudo-orbit]

The fact that the Establishment doesn''t really want to minimize cancer is made abundantly clear by its habit of suppressing awareness of substances which are very important in preventing it. For information on one of these, see The Critical Importance of Dietary Iodine by Mitchell A. Fleisher, MD at http://www.narichmond.com/critical_importance_of_dietary_iodine.html, which states that "Iodine is an essential micronutrient required not only by the thyroid gland but by every cell in the entire body, including muscle, fat, brain and nerves, the immune system and endocrine hormone glands, etc. Iodine is most highly concentrated in the thyroid gland and breasts."

[rational_1]

Corp America is what is keeping America off the cutting edge. Why? because there is NO $$$$$ in a cure, but there is a HUGE CASH COW in ''''treatment''''. Multi billion $$ facilities are goin up on every corner you see, for ''''treatment'''' So why would they even look, as long as they are lining there front pockets with ''''treatment'''' $$$ and have all the politicians they can buy lining there back pockets that halt funding?
Posted by OldThought at 03:57 PM : May 21, 2008

There''s one major flaw in your argument and it''s something you yourself brought up - greed. Imagine there are ten pharmaceutical companies all providing cancer treatments at exorbitant cost and sharing the bounty of all those cancer patients. If I was the CEO of one of those companies and one of my researchers told me he had found a cure, why wouldn''t I want to corner the market and get all the dollars? I''d patent the cure, leave my competitors peddling their inferior treatments while I offer the much better cure, and watch my company''s stock price skyrocket. This is what happens in all sorts of other industries, so why would cancer be any different? Anything wrong with my logic?

[talkingham]

the virus SV-40 that was introduced to the American public in the polio vaccines of the 60''s is now a permanent part of the American genome and it''s cropping up in all kinds of cancers at an alarming rate. It''s called SV-40 or semian virus 40 because it was the 40th virus contaminant identified in the vaccines that were so wisely grown on monkey kidneys for you and your children. For more fun reading search SV-40 but don''t believe the NIH version, they funded the vaccines afterall.

u clowns act like there is one type of cancer and one cure, simpletons. for the most part, after a century of research from around the world we don''t even have a clue as to what causes a cell to become cancerous. we don''t know why cancer happens except there seem to genetic and environmental components that come together to start the process. we know for example that some virus types set the stage for cancers. in many ways we are still in the dark ages especially when all you get on these forums is a bunch mental dwarfs trying to spray their neo-conservatism on everyone who has a constructive thought.

[talkingham]

mburch u really don''t have a clue do you? private industry will not make the investments on investigating cures for diseases until a relatively low-paid university professor and his low-pay crew of student researchers working on $20K a year stipends lays the groundwork. the govt itself does very little research except through funding grants to universities. I agree that many professors are little more than parasites in system but thankfully enough of them are truly dedicated to research and education and they are the ones making the discoveries. not the Pzfizers of the world. so, it''s a synergistic scenario where industry, govt and education overlap in ways that can ultimately produce results not your lousy "free market" approach to science.

[mbburch06]

The fundamental flaw of this article is the assumption that all research funds must be stolen from taxpayers: if government doesn''t do it, no one will.

There is PLENTY of reason for private companies to fund cancer research. Imagine the TRILLIONS that Pfizer or GSK could make if they found a cure. The difference is that government will throw money at anything that moves (most of it ends up wasted) while the private sector is more cautious and only funds projects that have a reasonable chance of success.

Here''''s a novel idea: get government out of the way and let these companies fund their own research.

[mbburch06]

The fundamental flaw of this article is the assumption that all research funds that have been stolen from taxpayers. There is PLENTY of reason for private companies to fund cancer research. Imagine the TRILLIONS that Pfizer or GSK could make if they found a cure. The difference is that government will throw money at anything that moves (most of it ends up wasted) while the private sector is more cautious and only funds projects that have a reasonable chance of success.

Here''s a novel idea: get government out of the way and let these companies fund their own research.

[Netterz]

Corp America is what is keeping America off the cutting edge. Why? because there is NO $$$$$ in a cure, but there is a HUGE CASH COW in ''treatment''. Multi billion $$ facilities are goin up on every corner you see, for ''treatment'' So why would they even look, as long as they are lining there front pockets with ''treatment'' $$$ and have all the politicians they can buy lining there back pockets that halt funding? I have cancer, been in ''treatment'' for over a year now. Corp America spends all its time buying up politicians and doctors. They dont want a cure found, because that puts them out of business. Especially when the most common treatment, being Chemo, is nothing more than a basic form of rat posion, taken from posionous plants.

[forparity]

Perhaps,you missed a bit that has been shifted elsewhere,which if you were not such a biased little partisan, you would be pumping the news up once or twice a month;because it''s something you claim you care about.

That would be Pres Bush''s concern over the Global Aids pandemic, he inherited from an uncaring and unwilling Pres. Clinton; Bush''s leadership with his twin HIV/Aids&Malaria programs for Africa & Indonesia. Since he became leader of the caring world topped $22 billion. See: Total US contrib to Global Aids 2001-2008; with most understanding that his efforts have easily saved over a million lives, prevented infections of millions more,and will result millions more less lives lost. Imagine the effect, alone, of the 1.9 billion condoms alone that he has distributed in 3rd world countries - a small part of the effort. Oh, right, you thought he put a hold on distributing condoms-most of the left wants to believe that spin.

A refresher on how your dear Bill Clinton performed as pres on the issue,read Corn''s(The Nation),Too little,too late-How many times is Clinton to apologize to Africa?http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/13632]

Also, Bush''s concern about the suffering and deaths caused by Malaria resulted in massive effort, with remarkable results. See: The President''s Malaria Initiative and U.S. Efforts to Fight Malaria.

The nation is moving forward in the world, Katie, and we''re doing it without you. [http://www.data.org/issues/governmentFunding_for_Malaria.html]

[elkc]

Get real! There is no money for cancer research because we are loosing the American-Iraq War. Every penny intended for health research, continued education, gang violence intervention, border control, reducing drugs in schools and neighborhoods,-America in general. All proceeds are funding Iraq. America can''t fight a battle at the expense of the Iraq war and remain on the cutting edge in anything. We got attacked by republicans in the year 2000 and that%u2019s where we remain. Better leadership could be found on a raw talent show on a really bad TV show. But the Gong Show is out of business, just like construction workers, auto industry workers, hell even the mob! You can%u2019t fund funding when your funds are funding surges, urges and Halliburton%u2019s Iraq.
By the way the funding for the presidents daughters wedding was terrible!

[cpaide]

why do you assume there is a cure? maybe cancer is a beneficial part of nature. it''s about to rid us of teddy kennedy, isn''t it?

[forparity]

If, of course, it had been Jimmy Carter or JFK, who had led on this historic effort, Couric would have led off with something positive about their legacy here:

National Cancer Act of 1971 {http://dtp.nci.nih.gov/timeline/noflash/milestones/M4_Nixon.htm}

"In 1970, the American people made clear their desire for a cure for the second-leading cause of death in the United States. President Nixon responded during his January 1971 State of the Union address: "I will also ask for an appropriation of an extra $100 million to launch an intensive campaign to find a cure for cancer, and I will ask later for whatever additional funds can effectively be used. The time has come in America when the same kind of concentrated effort that split the atom and took man to the moon should be turned toward conquering this dread disease. Let us make a total national commitment to achieve this goal."

And we did:

"On December 23, 1971, President Nixon followed through on his promise as he signed the National Cancer Act into law."

We''ve come a long way - without you, Katie.

[talkingham]

For more than 30 years the "leading" cardiologists were suggesting that you get off that nasty natural food butter and clog your heart with wonderful hydrogen-injected rancid corn oil - really great for the heart!

Along with the trans fats that the health and nutrition industry did nothing about for 30 years you can throw in the rest of the rancid vegetable oils that the "nutrition" and "edible" oils industry cram into every cookie and potato chip u eat, the toxic acids used to "unsweeten" the insanely sweet artificial sweeteners in your "diet" drink and the loads of corn syrup in everything else u buy.

The whole "low" fat conspiracy has been little more than a giant marketing farce now for more than 30 years and cancer & heart disease are killing more than ever. You would think that 30 years of low fats would make a diff right?

Well, it''s been shown by researchers not bought off by the food industry that the so-called poly unsaturated oils are a disaster for the immune system. In fact, the whole high-cholestoral issue is little more than a farce. Do a search on the Weston A. Price Foundation where you can learn more about the researcher, Dr. Mary Enig who blew the whistle on trans fats back in the early ''80''s but had her testimony stricken from the Congressional record by the edible oils industry controlled committees in Congress. It''s hard to accept I suppose that much of what they sell us is poison but perhaps it''s worth thinking about.

[beeasyonme]

Do you know how many people would be out of work if a cure for cancer was found? It''s a crying shame, but I believe it simply won''t be allowed to happen.