More Cancer Treatment Failure

At the recent meeting of the American Associationquestion, he had to admit he had no idea.
of Clinical Oncologists (ASCO), some 25,000 doctorsThat’s the first and most obvious question that
met to discuss advances in cancer therapy. Overshould be asked before submitting to any potentially
10,000 scientific abstracts were presented.toxic or invasive therapy. Those were not the sorts
Surely now, after countless billions have been spentof answers that came out of the ASCO meeting
on research since President Nixon’s war onhowever.
cancer was declared in 1971, there must be someYou see, the medical and patient imperative is to
dramatic cures. Something must have emerged from‘do something,’ meaning medical intervention.
this meeting to reverse the growing cancer epidemicNever mind that the disease may be self-limiting or
and justify the skyrocketing medical costs for cancerreversible by simple life style, dietary or natural
treatment.treatment options. Why, it would be unethical to do a
Surely.study where a comparison group was not treated!
But not so.Do you see the failed logic here? Can you see that
The meeting highlighted how that cancer therapy isthe bias that cancer is a disease that
shifting from conventional cut-burn-poison to a more‘strikes’ us ignores real causes—lifestyle
technologically sophisticated, molecularly targetedand dietary changes that put us out of sync with our
pharmaceutical approach. It’s a cash cow heydaygenetically adapted to environmental roots?
for drug companies and a wonderful fix for theIf you are struck with any disease, before
addicted Rx generation.submitting, ask the question and demand the
A new fleet of drugs include tyrosine kinase inhibitorsevidence: “What is the proof, my good doctor,
such as Gleevec and Iressa. Tarvesa is an ingeniousthat the treatment you are recommending is superior
pharmaceutical that targets the epidermal growthto no treatment at all or to safe and natural lifestyle
factor receptor (EGFR) in neoplasms. Anotherand dietary changes"?
category is antiangiogenic drugs, such as Avastin,Modern allopathic medicine is just too risky,
that inhibit the growth of blood vessels in tumors.dangerous and expensive to just roll over and
There have been some qualified ‘successes’expose your soft underbelly to them.
but not without downside serious side effect risks.One also has to make the decision that if fatality is
For example, Avastin causes serious and even fatalinevitable, whether extending life in a hospital bed,
bleeding into the lungs (hemoptisis). In one instancebeing a pin cushion, living your last moments in misery
31% of patients experienced this side effect.from drugs and expending your family’s entire
But, you might say, so what if there is a goodsavings is worth a couple of months or weeks of
chance of cure? Surprisingly, during this meeting, littlelife… if even that is true.
discussion could be heard about meaningful results.The cure for cancer is to prevent it. Learn how to
Everyone was giddy about the science (like kids withlive life healthily and get at it. If it strikes, don’t
new toys), but the take away for the cancer victimpanic and fall victim to the ‘something must be
was sobering and depressing.done’ mania. ‘Fighting’ cancer is also not
There was a lot of talk about mechanisms of actionsurrender to the medical establishment.
and theory. There was also many numbers andTrue health care means patients must be active
charts about the effectiveness of the new drugspartners, not mere passive recipients. The paradigm
used alone or in various combinations with others,must be changed such that primacy is given to
including conventional chemotherapy. The packageself-responsibility for prevention, and respecting and
presented to attendees was impressively wrapped inencouraging the innate capacity for self-regulation and
science, but what about the results.healing. By engaging, patients gain a feeling of control
In one instance it was found that the new therapiesand emotional strength. The psychological stress of
increased survival from 10.8 months to 12.9 months.the disease combined with essentially no coping
Progression-free-survival (PFS) was changed instrategies is a primary reason for recurrence.
another comparison from 7.2 months to 7.6 months.Modern tumor-based cancer care, on the other hand,
In another comparison overall survival was changedis about a love affair with biomedicine and its
from 10.2 to 12.5 months and PFS changed from 4.5fragmentation and overspecialization. More attention is
to 6.4 months. In yet another comparison the overallpaid to lymphocyte counts than to the patient. The
survival changed from 5.91 to 6.37 months-- aboutresult is dehumanization, dependency and
two weeks. One week was added to remission-freedisempowerment for patients, and more machines,
survival.pharmaceutical reps and money for medicine.
These pathetic results did not dampen theThis is not to say there have not been therapeutic
enthusiasm of pharmaceutical purveyors out in forcesuccesses. Surgically debulking tumors (although
at the meeting with product booth displays rivalingsurgery can also incite benign to malignant),
those at the super bowl half time. One companychemotherapy for some forms of leukemia and skin
called their drug a “breakthrough… providingcancer, are such examples. But that is an
new hope for patients with advanced… cancer."embarrassing result in terms of the overall scale of
Doctors, looking at only the statistical numbers,the disease. For the 10 major killing cancers, survival
concluded that the results were “important" andhas not improved over the past 50 years.
“exciting" because they were “not due toYour best hope, as always, begins with thinking.
chance". Of course the mainstream media jumps rightLearn think about what there is about your life that
on with wild claims about how the cure is now justcaused the disease. Change your life and investigate
around the corner.alternative approaches (See Wysong Resource
Please. One week!Directory).
What’s the cost benefit of this “exciting"There is hope, but as with anything else in life it
new progress? In just two years, spending on cancerresides in what you do to yourself, not what others
drugs will increase from 22 billion dollars to 32 billion.do to or for you.
Just adding one of the new drugs, Avastin, to aRefs.
treatment regimen will increase costs to the patientCancer – The Missing Point
of $8,000 per month. While these miracle lifeIs Common Sense or Research Needed to Cure
extensions of a couple months or a week are goingCancer
on, costs are escalating 500 fold. If you submit toResearch on Pancreatice Cancer….
this leading edge cancer treatment miracle, expect toWysong e-Health Letter Archives
pay about $250,000.Wysong Resource Directory “Cancer"
Recently I was talking to a pharmaceutical salesmanR. Moss, PhD., Townsend Letter for Doctors, Aug,
who was excitedly detailing the benefits of the drugs05, p. 44
he represented. He had impressive numbers of how“New Cancer Drugs Are Driving Up Cost of
his drug produced results better thanCare," LA Times, May 14, 2005
competitor’s drugs. I asked him how his resultsRamirez, A.
compared to no treatment at all. Stunned by the