recent meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncologists (ASCO),
some 25,000 doctors met to discuss advances in cancer therapy. Over 10,000
scientific abstracts were presented.
now, after countless billions have been spent on research since President
Nixon’s war on cancer was declared in 1971, there must be some dramatic
cures. Something must have emerged from this meeting to reverse the growing
cancer epidemic and justify the skyrocketing medical costs for cancer treatment.
But not so.
meeting highlighted how that cancer therapy is shifting from conventional
cut-burn-poison to a more technologically sophisticated, molecularly targeted
pharmaceutical approach. It’s a cash cow heyday for drug companies
and a wonderful fix for the addicted Rx generation.
fleet of drugs include tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as Gleevec and Iressa.
Tarvesa is an ingenious pharmaceutical that targets the epidermal growth
factor receptor (EGFR) in neoplasms. Another category is antiangiogenic
drugs, such as Avastin, that inhibit the growth of blood vessels in tumors.
have been some qualified ‘successes’ but not without downside
serious side effect risks. For example, Avastin causes serious and even
fatal bleeding into the lungs (hemoptisis). In one instance 31% of patients
experienced this side effect.
you might say, so what if there is a good chance of cure? Surprisingly,
during this meeting, little discussion could be heard about meaningful results.
Everyone was giddy about the science (like kids with new toys), but the
take away for the cancer victim was sobering and depressing.
was a lot of talk about mechanisms of action and theory. There was also
many numbers and charts about the effectiveness of the new drugs used alone
or in various combinations with others, including conventional chemotherapy.
The package presented to attendees was impressively wrapped in science,
but what about the results.
one instance it was found that the new therapies increased survival from
10.8 months to 12.9 months. Progression-free-survival (PFS) was changed
in another comparison from 7.2 months to 7.6 months. In another comparison
overall survival was changed from 10.2 to 12.5 months and PFS changed from
4.5 to 6.4 months. In yet another comparison the overall survival changed
from 5.91 to 6.37 months– about two weeks. One week was added to remission-free
pathetic results did not dampen the enthusiasm of pharmaceutical purveyors
out in force at the meeting with product booth displays rivaling those at
the super bowl half time. One company called their drug a “breakthrough…
providing new hope for patients with advanced… cancer.” Doctors,
looking at only the statistical numbers, concluded that the results were
“important” and “exciting” because they were “not
due to chance”. Of course the mainstream media jumps right on with
wild claims about how the cure is now just around the corner.
Please. One week!
the cost benefit of this “exciting” new progress? In just two
years, spending on cancer drugs will increase from 22 billion dollars to
32 billion. Just adding one of the new drugs, Avastin, to a treatment regimen
will increase costs to the patient of ,000 per month. While these miracle
life extensions of a couple months or a week are going on, costs are escalating
500 fold. If you submit to this leading edge cancer treatment miracle, expect
to pay about 0,000.
I was talking to a pharmaceutical salesman who was excitedly detailing the
benefits of the drugs he represented. He had impressive numbers of how his
drug produced results better than competitor’s drugs. I asked him
how his results compared to no treatment at all. Stunned by the question,
he had to admit he had no idea.
That’s the first and most obvious question that should be asked before
submitting to any potentially toxic or invasive therapy. Those were not
the sorts of answers that came out of the ASCO meeting however.
see, the medical and patient imperative is to ‘do something,’
meaning medical intervention. Never mind that the disease may be self-limiting
or reversible by simple life style, dietary or natural treatment options.
Why, it would be unethical to do a study where a comparison group was not
you see the failed logic here? Can you see that the bias that cancer is
a disease that ‘strikes’ us ignores real causes—lifestyle
and dietary changes that put us out of sync with our genetically adapted
to environmental roots?
you are struck with any disease, before submitting, ask the question and
demand the evidence: “What is the proof, my good doctor, that the
treatment you are recommending is superior to no treatment at all or to
safe and natural lifestyle and dietary changes”?
allopathic medicine is just too risky, dangerous and expensive to just roll
over and expose your soft underbelly to them.
also has to make the decision that if fatality is inevitable, whether extending
life in a hospital bed, being a pin cushion, living your last moments in
misery from drugs and expending your family’s entire savings is worth
a couple of months or weeks of life… if even that is true.
cure for cancer is to prevent it. Learn how to live life healthily and get
at it. If it strikes, don’t panic and fall victim to the ‘something
must be done’ mania. ‘Fighting’ cancer is also not surrender
to the medical establishment.
health care means patients must be active partners, not mere passive recipients.
The paradigm must be changed such that primacy is given to self-responsibility
for prevention, and respecting and encouraging the innate capacity for self-regulation
and healing. By engaging, patients gain a feeling of control and emotional
strength. The psychological stress of the disease combined with essentially
no coping strategies is a primary reason for recurrence.
tumor-based cancer care, on the other hand, is about a love affair with
biomedicine and its fragmentation and overspecialization. More attention
is paid to lymphocyte counts than to the patient. The result is dehumanization,
dependency and disempowerment for patients, and more machines, pharmaceutical
reps and money for medicine.
is not to say there have not been therapeutic successes. Surgically debulking
tumors (although surgery can also incite benign to malignant), chemotherapy
for some forms of leukemia and skin cancer, are such examples. But that
is an embarrassing result in terms of the overall scale of the disease.
For the 10 major killing cancers, survival has not improved over the past
best hope, as always, begins with thinking. Learn think about what there
is about your life that caused the disease. Change your life and investigate
alternative approaches (See Wysong Resource Directory).
is hope, but as with anything else in life it resides in what you do to
yourself, not what others do to or for you.
Cancer – The Missing Point http://www.wysong.net/health/hl_956.shtml
Is Common Sense or Research Needed to Cure Cancer
Research on Pancreatice Cancer…. http://www.wysong.net/health/hl_898.shtml
Wysong e-Health Letter Archives http://www.wysong.net/archivesehl.shtml
Wysong Resource Directory “Cancer”
R. Moss, PhD., Townsend Letter for Doctors, Aug, 05, p. 44
“New Cancer Drugs Are Driving Up Cost of Care,” LA Times, May
Ramirez, A., et al, “Stress and relapse of breast cancer,” British
Medical Journal, 1989: 298: 291-293
Spiegal D., et al, “Effect of psychosocial treatment on survival of
patients with metastatic breast cancer,” Lancet 989: 888-889
For further reading, or for more information about, Dr Wysong and the Wysong
Corporation please visit www.wysong.net or write to email@example.com. For
resources on healthier foods for people including snacks, and breakfast
cereals please visit http://www.cerealwysong.com.
Dr. Wysong: A former veterinary clinician and surgeon, college instructor
in human anatomy, physiology and the origin of life, inventor of numerous
medical, surgical, nutritional, athletic and fitness products and devices,
research director for the present company by his name and founder of the
philanthropic Wysong Institute. http://www.wysong.net.
Also check out http://www.cerealwysong.com.