Are We Retreating In The War On Cancer?

(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.