The whole field of alternative cancer cures is one of the most controversial in the healthcare field because of the high stakes on both sides.
Imagine for a moment that a simple, common substance, available for home purchase without a prescription, and costing only pennies per day for a therapeutic dosage, has been demonstrated to cure cancer. Furthermore, it has no dangerous side effects, is completely safe when taken as advised, and doesn't harm the body in any way.
Those who have suffered the ravages of any form of cancer, or have sat helplessly watching as a loved one slowly succumbs to the disease, would welcome this announcement as the answer to their prayers. Such prayers, coupled with the determination to end the suffering caused by cancer, have lead to the establishment of a multitude of fundraising organizations that raise billions of dollars each year to fund the "war on cancer", which President Nixon declared in 1971.
However, if you believe that such a cure for cancer would also be the answer to the prayers of cancer researchers, I'm afraid you'll have to think again.
As wars go, the war on cancer has been a dismal failure. Philip Binzel, M.D., explains in his book Alive and Well, "...the survival time of the cancer patient today is no greater than it was fifty years ago." Even more disturbing is that, according to Dr. Samuel Epstein, Chair of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, "Over recent decades, the incidence of cancer has escalated to epidemic proportions, now striking nearly one in every two men, and over one in every three women in their lifetimes."
How is this possible, considering the billions of dollars spent on research annually? To answer this question, you need to consider much more than the simple medical challenge of finding a cure for cancer. You need to look at the economics and the politics of medicine.
A revealing article in The Washington Post, by Devra Davis, (Nov. 4, 2007) explains that "the war on cancer remains focused on commercially fueled efforts to develop drugs and technologies that can find and treat the disease -- to the tune of more than $100 billion a year in the United States alone."
There are two points here that must be considered in any discussion of alternative cancer cures. The first is that the cancer research industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and if it ever did succeed in finding a cure for cancer, it would put itself out of business. Not only is this very unlikely to ever happen, but any such threat to its survival from the field of alternative medicine is very likely to be met with intense resistance.
The second point is that all this research is focused on finding "drugs and technologies", in other words, patentable and profitable methods of treatment. It has succeeded brilliantly in this endeavor. According to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 22, No 17, treatment of cancer patients diagnosed with one of seven common forms of cancer, in the US, in 2002, generated revenues of $60.9 billion in direct medical costs. This number is substantially higher today.
What is very apparent from these numbers is that cancer research and cancer treatment have become enormous, and very profitable industries. I realize that many sincere people believe that the concern for saving lives would outweigh any commercial motives, and that it is only a matter of more time, and raising more research money, before an approved "cure for cancer" is found. These people are likely to remain suspicious of all alternative cancer cures, and will only put their faith in trusted medical authorities.
Some independent researchers, however, are not as convinced that the motives of these billion dollar industries are entirely altruistic. They point to a number of existing treatments , some having received US patents, that have already been demonstrated to cure cancer, but are rejected by the mainstream medical industry because they have not been put through the rigorous FDA approval process.
This argument is usually presented as "There is no clinical evidence to support the claims surrounding the effectiveness of such-and-such a treatment." Of course, clinical proof is necessary to protect the public from dangerous and ineffective treatments. No thinking person would advocate doing away with such a requirement.
However, the claim that there is no clinical evidence to support a treatment can give the impression that the treatment has been tested and proven to be ineffective. This is both misleading, and potentially detrimental to the public interest because there will never be sufficient "clinical evidence" to support alternative treatments, for one simple reason. The cost of compiling the clinical evidence required for FDA approval runs into many millions of dollars. This investment can only be recovered by treatments that can be patented and marketed at high prices.
This is the "inconvenient truth" which explains why alternative cancer cures will never be approved by the medical profession, and will likely be discredited, even when they are effective. The history of this controversy goes back over a hundred years, and contains tales of heroic research pioneers making medical breakthroughs, powerful political and financial forces, mysterious deaths and research-destroying fires that, for some, are evidence of conspiracies and cover-ups. There are passionate advocates on both sides of this debate, and it will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. As an area of research it is rich with new paradigms of medical research and treatment, as well as human drama and intrigue.
Most people become interested in alternative cancer cures, however, when they are diagnosed with cancer, or when someone close to them is. If you're in this situation I encourage you to get as much information as you can from both perspectives, to help you make the choices that will best support your healing. There is an abundance of information about alternative cancer cures and alternative health professionals, available today on the Internet. If you're willing to become your own authority you have all the resources available to you.
While you will never settle this heated debate to everyone's satisfaction, you will be much better informed to decide upon the treatments that are best for you and yours. When all points of view have been considered, it's your life that is on the line, and your right to choose.
Source by Mary Helen Sutherland
No comments:
Post a Comment