In today’s day and age, we do not have to worry about that much as American citizens. We are all in decent standings, almost everyone has a roof over their heads and most do not have to worry about going hungry. Most of us have more technology power in our pockets today than the space shuttle used by NASA to land men on the moon. And with vaccines we do not have to worry about polio, the flu, or yellow fever killing us. With this all said there is a certain disease that no matter how many medical advances we seem to make, we can just never seem to truly beat, Cancer. Cancer affects millions of people and their families every day, and cancer does not discriminate between races, socio-economic standings, or backgrounds. It effects anyone, in fact “Approximately 39.6 percent of men and women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes (based on 2010-2012 data).” (Cancer.Gov) The traditional methods of treatment have been around since the sixties. The treatments are known to skeptics as, Cut, Poison, Burn, technically known as surgical removal, chemotherapy, and radiation. They are becoming increasingly advanced, but since we already know they are not the definitive answers why do we keep refining useless methods.  This raises more questions considering the unthinkable amount of money that circulates in the treatment and research of cancer. How do we not have more answers when there is 125 plus billion dollars being spent on its treatment and research. I want to address the issues surrounding these common treatment methods; mainly, how did they come to be, what are the effects, when why and how does the medical industry suggest these treatment options, why do we keep using these treatments, and what can we do to move away from these ‘treatment’ methods. 

When addressing the issue of why did cancer treatment become such a booming and profitable industry, you have to go back to the days of Richard Nixon. It all started on this grand scale on December 23, 1971, President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act, launching a well-funded, full-scale attack on the “Dread Disease.” (Moss 449-450) The goal was to have a cure to completely eradicate cancer within 5 years. The country was supposed to take as much interest in solving this problem as we did as getting to the moon. This meant a giant redirection in funding, the total amount went from 250 million dollars to an astronomical 5 Billion dollars annually, approximately 20 times the original federal budget. Thus, the so called “war on cancer” had begun. Little did we know it would blossom into the multibillion dollar a year industry it is today.  So how did we do on the deadline? Seeing as I am writing on the issue, that is a pretty simple question to answer. Well somebody must have noticed back in 1976 right? Wrong. And the all of a sudden, the mass majority of the country stopped caring about the fact that we set out to cure cancer in five years and her we were continuing to watch the anniversaries tick past, but how long would it take? 15 years? 25? Well obviously, someone either very egregiously miscalculated, or somebody saw the chance to get in on a steady 5 plus billion dollar a year industry. These days the industry is spurred mainly by private donations and the overwhelming costs. However what we are interested in is who is doing most of the treatment. Some of the most prominent cancer treatment facilities for adults are the MAYO clinic and the Cancer Treatment Center of America, and for children it is St Jude’s Children’s Hospital. Others include many university hospitals such as the university of Pennsylvania and the university of Texas. The main appropriator of funds for research on new treatments, and the betterment of current treatments is the National Cancer Institute who send funds to more than 260 different organizations. 

 Let us not completely throw out these ‘treatments’ just yet, in fact they are called treatments (and not failures), and they do in fact help in the treatment of some cancers. what do these ‘treatments’ do. Well, let us take a look at chemotherapy, considered at one time to be a miracle drug. The idea behind it use is this “Chemotherapy is the use of anticancer drug designed to slow or stop the growth of rapidly dividing cancer cells in the body. It may be used: 1. As a primary treatment to destroy cancer cells 2. Before another treatment to shrink a tumor 3. After another treatment to destroy any remaining cancer cells 4. To relieve symptoms of advanced cancer” (Cancer Treatment Center of America) In some cases it is very successful and a good option, however as shown by multiple studies chemotherapy has many side effects that makes one question the reasoning as to it use. In an article published by Healthy Lifestyle they reveal a dark truth about a side effect of chemotherapy. This article gives us evidence of chemotherapy causing a rise is a certain protein called WNT16B that is proven to directly cause cancer cells to metastasize, or grow rapidly. (Torres) This means that if the cancer is not completely removed, you will see growth of the cancer much more rapidly than if treated in a different manner or simply left alone.  “Something known as anti-angiogenesis is the primary function behind many such widely-used cancer drugs that were analyzed in the study.” (Gucciardi) Anti-angiogenesis is the process of the inhibition of growth of blood vessels, essentially cutting off the blood supply to tumors which causes them to not be able to get what tumors need to grow, causing them to deteriorate. “When study researchers induced anti-angiogenesis in mice, there was an initial 30% decrease in the volume of the tumor over 25 days. Afterwards, however, the tumors that had metastasized to the lungs tripled” (Gucciardi) Another side effect is even scarier, In an article describing a study conducted by the University of Rochester Medical center published in Science Daily they reveal a very different side effect. They reveal that information from the University of Rochester Medical center that showed how chemotherapy has been shown to kill healthy brain cells long after administration of the drug has ended. (University of Rochester Medical Center) The sad part of it is, is that nothing is really being done to try and get over those side effects, the fine print just over glosses them. Companies still administer the same drug to thousands of individuals who have no idea of these such side effects. Which is a sign of gross negligence and complete willing maltreatment of a large number of individuals for what we can assume the only reason as being economic gain. 

How do we know we need to treat someone for cancer? Seems like a pretty simple question right? Well like all complicated things worth studying, yes and no. One might simply say prostate exams or perhaps a mammogram, CT, or MRI. Well what if I told you even the tests can be harmful, specifically mammography. Studies have indicated that mammography may actually cause the growth of cancer cells. Mammography actually increases risk of cancer too, “for every case of breast cancer diagnosed each year, 5 to 10 women will undergo a painful breast biopsy. This means that if a woman has an annual mammogram for 10 years, she has a 50 percent chance of having a breast biopsy.” (Northrup) instead Thermograms prove to be much more effective at detecting signs of breast cancer many years earlier, this allows individuals showing signs to simply be smart and take measures to prevent any such cancer from causing any real medical issues. Another very sad revelation  in cancer detection is that cancer is over diagnosed and over treated, Studies have shown that when detected, simply doing nothing in many cases will cause no problems at all, and that patients will simply pass away from natural causes long before they feel any effects of the cancer itself. In this article describing a study done by Dartmouth medical college Robert Langreth reveals many interesting facts on the diagnosis of prostate cancer, 

One million American men since 1986 have been treated for prostate tumors that may never have killed them or even caused symptoms, according to a new study by Dartmouth College. 

The study, in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, provides the first numerical estimate about how the prostate-specific antigen test has led to a vast over-diagnosis of harmless tumors that would never have spread outside the prostate. 

The study is disturbing because it shows the big downside of screening millions of healthy men for cancer using a test that has no ability to discriminate between the tiny minority of cancers that will spread rapidly and the large majority that grow slowly and may never do harm. (Langreth)

The sad part is that this is not only true for prostate cancer, but many main types of cancer. This example makes similar claims for breast cancer, “x-ray based breast screenings are not only highly carcinogenic but are also causing an epidemic of ‘over diagnosis’ and ‘overtreatment’ in US women, with an estimated 1.3 million cases in the past 30 years alone.” (Ji) These are shocking statistics that make me wonder yet again, why? 

Well as the old saying goes, money is the root of all evil, and as we have proven there is a lot of money floating around in the cancer industry. In fact, “Did you know, When you are diagnosed with cancer you are suddenly worth (a minimum) of $300,000 (on average) to the cancer industry.” (RSS) The corruption in the cancer industry is a very interesting topic to try to discuss and research. It is easy to see why as no one wants to openly admit that they are becoming extremely rich because they are exploiting those who are ‘dying’ of a disease and their families. This is scary when we start to realize that all the factors start coming together to form a frightening picture of the realities of the cancer industry. If treatment cost much less would it be diagnosed as extremely harmful and over diagnosed? The answer is overwhelmingly no. We can  also show that if treatment did not cost so much we would find a cure faster, but why? Well the answer is simple, who funds a majority of the research, the big drug companies. And they determine where to send a majority of that money, and do you think that they would like to toss aside the golden goose that bring them record profits. In fact their average profits are so high that they are two and a half times that of the average profits of all of the fortune 500 companies. This is shown in a study done in 2006 shown here, 

This industry profit comparison is based on 2006 figures (Fortune magazine, April 30, 2007):

Median Annual American Pharmaceutical Company Profits:    20%

Median Annual Profits for ALL of the Fortune 500 Companies:  6.3%. (RSS)

This shows that the cancer industry makes more than the top international companies internationally, and if that is not convincing nothing would be. This reveals a new side to the story, one where we start to unravel the complexities of the issue. Not only would the big companies be giving up these astronomical profits, but they would be taking a huge loss on not only physical capital, but human capital. Robert Ryan, a graduate student studying the paper trail of the cancer industry, states “a solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested.” (Ryan) When looking at this quote from a moral viewpoint, one can almost justify the corruption. Yes, it is terrible thing to say, but we start to think about how many different people have dedicated their lives to the treatment, research, screening, and diagnosis of cancer. The thousands of nurses and oncologists who spent a great deal of money and time educating themselves who work with cancer patients who would lose their jobs practically overnight. The staff who work at hospitals specializing in cancer care, as well as anyone who makes their living working in the field. So now how do we go about answering the question of do we cure cancer? Is it morally right to destroy the lives of many to save the lives of many? Well, we should start to reform the screening and diagnosis of cancer, the over diagnosis and over treatment of individuals with benign tumors needs to stop. That is the first step, where we go from there is a question in which only time will reveal the answer. 

There is an answer to this extremely complex and sensitive issue that the everyday citizen can help to answer for themselves, prevention. The prevention of cancer is actually a much simpler step than one might think. Most of the time simple lifestyle choices will reduce an individual’s risk of cancer by an astronomical amount. “In fact, half of all breast cancers could be prevented through a combination of lifestyle changes, starting as late as age 50 – and there's a number of ways you can lower your risk.” (Weiss) This is actually an even better statistic than one might think, the quote states half of all breast cancers, not have of all cancer cases. The ones that can be prevented make up a much larger part of the breast cancer diagnoses. Of those diagnosed with breast cancer more can be prevented than one might think, “Only about 10 percent of breast cancers are associated with an inherited gene, such as the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations. The other 90 percent of breast cancers are mostly due to lifestyle causes, reproductive choices and environmental exposures.” (Weiss) The interesting thing about preventing cancer, is that you do not need to become an Olympic athlete or resemble conan the barbarian in order to reduce your risks. Simply making healthy diet choices, consuming less alcohol, getting better sleep, and trying to maintain a healthy weight will all help towards allowing your body to be healthy and happy enough to help prevent cancer growth. The Mayo Clinic says other ways we can help reduce our risk of cancer is to reduce our exposure to direct sunlight, to not use tobacco products, and to practice safe habits like safe sex and try to lower if not stop recreational drug use seeing as many can lead to certain diseases that increase you risk of certain types of cancer. Now we know prevention itself will not solve the problem of cancer, but we have shown that the cancer drugs of the day are inefficient and may do more harm than good, so how do we get treated. Interestingly enough there are two common everyday things that can actually treat cancer effectively. Vitamins C and D ( more importantly D) have been linked to the treatment of cancer cells. It is shown that individuals with cancer need levels around a  “base of 40 ng/ml with ideally figures over 70 ng/ml and up to 150 ng/ml.” (Downing) This has not been proven by a vast amount of formal studies but we do see this working in many cases where individuals just want to treat themselves and it seems to in fact treat their cancer. 

When trying to conclude a paper on this issue, I am having a difficult time. After all we are asking to draw a conclusion on  topic that really has no definitive answer at this time. The only real conclusion I can draw is that at this time the issue is one of morals and ethics over hard scientific data. We have to answer this question as a society and our standards, not necessarily a data driven analysis. We must ask which side of this argument is the worst which no one can put a number to. Do we go after big drug companies and rid the medical industry of these practices and cost many their entire livelihoods possibly killing those suffering from the disease in the long painful process? Or do we just turn our heads and allow these companies to exploit the public and allow them to try and treat cancer with the treatments that are effective when looking through tunnel vision, yes they work at their goals, but how can we justify that with the destruction of healthy cells and possibilities of killing patients in other ways instead.  

Before another treatment to shrink a tumor

After another treatment to destroy any remaining cancer cells

To relieve symptoms of advanced cancer
