Burzynski, the Movie
Click on the link above to watch the movie.
Cancer research shows cancer is curable without the torture patients go through currently. This has been known for years, but the powers that be, helped by your government, will not let this research come to the forefront. Please take the time to watch this documentary and share it with your friends and family. The goal is to spread this knowledge throughout the general public in order to facilitate not only progress on this issue, but also another facet of how the government does not work in the best interest of it’s citizens.
I would like to update this post by including a letter I received today:
Here is a copy of the letter I am sending to my Government Representatives at the state and national level. I also plan on sending this to as many agencies as possible that use taxpayer dollars to fund their cancer research operations, whether it be public or private. The main ones are the FDA, the NCI, the CRI, theMemorialSloan-KetteringCancerCenter, the Mayo Clinic, the CDC, the Surgeon General, and the President of theUnited States.
This letter is by no means extensive. So many stories can be told. I just reported on a few of the many issues in healthcare, for the sake of making my point, which I’ve been wanting to do for the last 10 years, but could put off no longer. Hundreds, even thousands of cases could easily be included to present the case against the fraud we call the “The War on Cancer.” Please read, then ACT!
Dennis M. – Spouse of two-time cancer survivor.
Cancer strikes fear in everyone because it is an exceedingly complex disease, compounded by layers of dysfunction, toxicity, and immune compromise. Cancer is a collection of many different kinds of uncontrolled cellular growths: leukemias, solid tumors, cancers from a variety of tissues and more. There are hundreds of cancers, each with a diverse array of treatments tailored by research. Some cancers can be surgically removed, others require chemotherapy, but most often are treated by a combination of “cut/burn/poison.”
Since the latest trend in cancer treatment is focused on triggering an immune system response, the following will explain how the body specifically kills cancer cells. It is known, and has been for a long time, that cancer cells can only grow in an acidic environment, and cannot grow in the presence of oxygen. One way the body rids itself of out of control cancer cells, is through cytotoxic killer T cells, which specifically kill the cancer cells, always present in the human body, very easily by attaching sacs of hydrogen peroxide to the cancer cell’s wall, which, when released, flood the cancer cell with oxygen. When the body’s immune system is missing any needed component, because of a compromised or defective immune system (diet, lack of exercise, defects within the body’s DNA, environmental toxins, etc.) and can no longer keep up the task, cancer takes over. What all the drugs, all the therapies, both Allopathic and Homeopathic, and all the research models are attempting to do, to help the cancer patient survive, is to mimic something the body does naturally, on it’s own, but can’t because of a malfunctioning immune system. The most commonly used mainstream approach is to cut the cancer out surgically, burn and cook the infected area with radiation, and poison the entire body, but not to the point of death, by injecting a chemotherapy solution of mixed chemicals through a surgically installed port in the chest, gaining access to the main artery above the heart. They choose this port installation because the chemicals used would severely burn or melt off the skin if the intravenous method should leak. Usually, with most chemo treatments, the patient is so nauseated, they need to take an anti-nausea drug, costing upwards of $250 per pill. Along with nausea, various other medications are prescribed for infections, and various other reasons, totaling 16 different medications or more, and, to help the patients further cope through this difficult time, they are even prescribed psychotropic drugs, to bring the patient into a state capable of tolerating the treatment, of which these various protocols might go anywhere from 12 weeks, to even 9 months, and longer. If the patient survives the first series of treatments, and the cancer returns, they have to go through the same protocols again, only more intense, or at the very worst, sent home to die, because the cancer has metastasized throughout the entire body, leaving the doctor and the patient with no further options. It’s even worse for brain cancer patients. Most lose quality of life with their treatments – permanent loss of hearing, loss of sight, loss of brain function, leaving them in a vegetable state, the last months of their lives. It’s especially troubling when a little child has to endure all this at the young age of 2 or 3. The more severe cancer treatments can run upwards of $250,000 dollars or more. Every day, more than 1,500 Americans die from the different forms of cancer, and at the present time over 12,000,000 Americans are coping with the disease. In the worst case scenarios, cancer patients are given only weeks to live and sent home to die, with no hope of recovery or life extension. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. The National Cancer Institute estimates that more than 240,000 men in the U.S.were diagnosed in 2011. About nine out of 10 of those cases were diagnosed with localized tumors and survived at least five years after diagnosis. Roughly 1 out of 10, or about 24,000 victims succumb to the disease. As for women, the most common form of cancer is in the breast, of which 1 in 8 women will have the disease during their lifetime. Over 230,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed this year alone, and about 40,000 women will die of the disease, about 1 in every 6.
The data concerning death rates according to disease, obtained from several sources, including the 1900-1970, U.S. Public Health Service, Vital Statistics of the United States, annual, Vol. I and Vol II; 1971-2001, U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, annual; National Vital Statistics Report (NVSR) (formerly Monthly Vital Statistics Report); and unpublished data, indicate that death rates, per 100,000, from all forms of Tuberculosis dropped from 194, in the year 1900, to 0.2 in 2005. Influenza and Pneumonia dropped from 202.2 to 21.3, and Cardiovascular disease dropped from 345.2 to 288.8. Malignant Neoplasms or Cancer, was the only one that skyrocketed, from 64 in 1900, to over 188 in 2005.
While the overall expenditure on cancer care in general has remained relatively steady over the past 2 decades – encompassing 4.8% of the total $513 billion spent on medical care in 1987, vs 4.9% of the average $979 billion spent annually from 2001 to 2005 – the cost of oncology drugs has soared past all other classes of pharmaceutical agents (Cancer 116:3477-3484, 2010). According to the marketing firm IMS Health, sales of oncology drugs have skyrocketed from $5 billion in 1998 to $19.2 billion in 2008. According to Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Fojo T, et al: J Natl Cancer Inst 101: 1044-1048), 90% of cancer-fighting drugs or biologics approved by the FDA over the past 4 years cost more than $20,000 for a 12-week course of therapy, with many offering a survival benefit of only 2 months or less. The result of the rising cost of cancer treatment is threatening not just the financial solvency of patients – a poll by the American Cancer Society found that one in five families use up all of their savings paying for cancer treatment – but that of the country as well. With health-care spending projected to balloon to $4 trillion by 2015, outpacing the growth in the gross domestic product by 20% (up from 17.3% in 2009), health-care industry experts and government agencies are looking for solutions to rein in costs without stifling drug innovation or jeopardizing patient care. When a patient is charged $80,000 for a drug that gives an average of 1.2 months survival advantage, that just doesn’t make sense. At some point, a small percentage of patients in whom the drug would be really effective, could be identified. Then expensive drugs could provide a better benefit to patients who are getting not 1.2 months, but at least 1 to 2 years’ benefit from them. Unfortunately, these drugs aren’t harmless. The initial information gives the impression that these drugs target the tumor and not normal tissues. But, in reality, these drugs target every cell in the body, even normal tissues. Consequently, all cancer therapy drugs have toxicities, often as bad or even worse than those of cytotoxic agents. So too many patients are being given these drugs and experience no benefit, and, are in fact, being caused harm in the process. We have to reprogram ourselves and recognize that these agents are like all previous drugs – they have side effects. So the decisions for drug therapy are actually choosing between having any real benefit while considering how much harm it will cause. And the harm can either be a case of no activity and some level of toxicity or, as the majority of these drugs are proving, may actually worsen the disease they are intended to treat. Everyone hopes that the drug would perform better, but, unfortunately, it does not, and a 1.2-month survival benefit just isn’t worth $80,000. It is also not worth conducting additional large trials to extend the indications for these drugs. We need to move forward. We need to do better for the patients by providing better drugs.
The drug manufacturers in the United Statesessentially have no downward pressure on the cost of cancer drugs. They can choose to charge whatever they like. There’s been this long period where manufacturers are getting increasingly bold in terms of the prices they’re willing to charge. One of them comes on the market with a drug with a high price, and no one flinches. Then the next one has no hesitation to charge a similar price. So we see this almost lockstep progression in the rise of the cost of cancer drugs and no check on that. With our medical care system as it works today, can anything really be done to substantially lower the cost of cancer care? There’s no question that the challenges ahead are sizable. But the reality is that anything that drives down the cost of drugs or decreases utilization will decrease the incentive for innovation, and if the incentives are decreased, it will tamp down on the total amount of beneficial innovation. That’s the expectation at least. How big an effect that will have in a negative direction, or how large the changes have to be to reimbursement, payment, and costs to really suppress pharmaceutical innovation, and even technologic innovation- that’s harder to know, but that is one tension here.
Everyone would agree that the rising cost of health care is economically unsustainable in theUnited States. And it seems that the cost problem we have in cancer care is just a reflection of the broader ills we have in our overall health-care system.
So the questions to ask are not only “Can all forms of cancer be cured” but also “Can all cancer patients afford the treatments?” The war on cancer has raged on since President Nixon enacted it, and the U.S.government has spent well over $200 billion dollars of taxpayers’ money in the last 25 years on research for finding “the cure.” Why is it then that cancer remains “undefeated” and conventional medicine’s war on cancer is a “qualified failure,” according to the New England Journal of Medicine? The Journal reported that the cancer death rate is not lower, but 6% higher in 1997 than it was in 1970. And what’s worse, two of the tools used by the professional medical mainstream, which were approved and endorsed by the FDA, the National Cancer Institute, and used throughout all hospitals in the U.S., include x-rays, and CT scans. Medical radiation, particularly the large radiation dose delivered by CT scans, is the single most identifiable cause of breast cancer in the U.S. today. NBC News said in 2009 that each whole-body CT scan can deliver as much radiation in 10 minutes as 440 chest X-rays. And CT Scans may have caused more than 29,000 cancers and 15,000 cancer deaths every year, which means that X-rays caused more breast cancer then they detected.
As for the conventional mainstream “cutting edge” research projects taking place through the “watchful eye” of the NCI, one such area offering hope in the fight against cancer is the many different forms of cancer vaccines, which are now available, or are currently under development. Cancer vaccines are designed to boost the body’s natural ability to protect itself, through the immune system, from dangers posed by damaged or abnormal cells such as cancer cells. The FDA has approved at least two types of vaccines to “prevent” cancer: vaccines against the hepatitis B virus, which can cause liver cancer, and vaccines against human papilloma virus types 16 and 18, which are responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. The cervical cancer vaccine was made mandatory, in a controversial move by then Texas Governor Rick Perry in 2007. It’s no coincidence that Pharmaceutical companies lined the pockets of one Presidential hopeful. Unbelievably, there was no evidence, whatsoever, that these vaccines afforded any positive protection against these two types of viruses. When women have annual gynecological exams, HPV is easily detected and treated – only those who neglect to schedule regular exams could possibly become infected. Each vaccine costed $360, which quickly added up to millions, paid for by insurance companies and/or the state ofTexas, in cases where young girls were not insured, and couldn’t afford the vaccinations. With all this said, the possible long-term side effects of Gardasil are not yet known. The real question here might be “How many young girls were sterilized in the process?” Opting out was offered, but has anyone ever “opted out” of a mandated vaccine? Try it. Rick Perry’s mandate completely bypassed the Texas Legislature (overriding debate and oversight). The Texas Legislature couldn’t repeal Gov. Perry’s order, allowing it to be in effect until the governor or his successor changed it. Could the ties that Gov. Perry had with Merck have something to do with such a radical mandate? According to the Associated Press, Merck’s political action committee donated $6,000 to Gov. Perry’s campaign for re-election. But that’s just part of the picture. An advocacy group called Women in Government headed up the effort to persuade state legislatures across the country to make Gardasil vaccinations mandatory, and Merck was funding the Women in Government efforts. This is where it all got more than a little sticky for Gov. Perry, ruining his recent Presidential run as a result. The AP reported that his former chief of staff was aTexaslobbyist for Merck, and the mother-in-law of the same chief of staff just so happened to be the state director for Women in Government. How much of this type of unethical behavior is rampant throughout the industry and government? What about the best interests of the American public? Why isn’t this criminal? Why aren’t these people arrested and put in jail?
The FDA/NCI have been opposing genuine breakthroughs in nontoxic cancer treatments, and have shown little improvement with their approved cancer therapies for over 50 years, wasting $200 billion of taxpayer money, benefiting only the drug companies. How many lives were lost to cancer because of their inappropriate or even criminal actions? What if the alternative cancer approaches being blocked by these agencies were allowed to treat patients under legitimate clinical trials, free of charge to the cancer victim? There are so many documented cases of people being cured of terminal cancer, by these various “alternative” clinical trial treatments, even after being sent home to die by their former medical doctor. This isn’t snake oil. These are legitimate treatments that have shown positive results over time.
Dr. Burzynski is one of the best examples of someone being thwarted at every turn since his announcement of a possible “cancer cure”. Quackwatch.org and other mainstream “watchdog” non-profit organizations seem to skew everything in favor of big business, and serve as a destructionist mechanism to shed doubt and ridicule on any organization or individual who does not support limiting treatments to those dictated by drug companies or conventional protocols. The documentary, entitled “Burzynski The Movie – Cancer is Serious Business”, is available for free viewing at vimeo.com and information and transcripts available at BurzynskiMovie.com. This documentary shows just how difficult one man’s journey is for bringing his “cure” to market. A medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food & Drug Administration in American history. His victorious battles with the United States government were centered around Dr. Burzynski’s gene-targeted cancer medicines he discovered in the 1970’s called Antineoplastons, which have currently completed Phase II FDA-supervised clinical trials in 2009 and could begin the final phase of FDA testing in 2011–barring the ability to raise the required $300 million to fund the final phase of FDA clinical trials. When Antineoplastons are approved, it will mark the first time in history a single scientist, not a pharmaceutical giant, will hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights on a paradigm-shifting medical breakthrough. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Various cancer survivors are presented in the film who chose these medicines instead of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation – with full disclosure of medical records to support their diagnosis and recovery – as well as systematic (non-anecdotal) FDA-supervised clinical trial data comparing Antineoplastons to other available treatments—which is published within the peer-reviewed medical literature. One form of cancer – diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma has never before been cured in any scientifically controlled clinical trial in the history of medicine. Antineoplastons hold the first cures in history – dozens of them. [ANP – PubMed 2003] [ANP – PubMed 2006] [ANP – Cancer Therapy 2007] [Rad & other – PubMed 2008] [Chemo/Rad – PubMed 2005]
Linus Carl Pauling is another example of an individual attacked by the mainstream medical community, and his clinical findings skewed. He was one of the most influential chemists in history and ranks among the most important scientists of the 20th century. Pauling was among the first scientists to work in the fields of quantum chemistry and molecular biology, and is one of only four individuals to have won more than one Nobel Prize. He is one of only two people awarded Nobel Prizes in different fields (the chemistry and peace prizes), the other being Marie Curie (the Chemistry and Physics prizes), and the only person awarded two unshared prizes. Pauling’s work on vitamin C in his later years generated much controversy. He was first introduced to the concept of high-dose vitamin C by biochemist Irwin Stone in 1966. After becoming convinced of its worth, Pauling took 3 grams of vitamin C every day to prevent colds. Excited by his own perceived results, he researched the clinical literature and published Vitamin C and the Common Cold in 1970. He began a long clinical collaboration with the British cancer surgeon Ewan Cameron in 1971 on the use of intravenous and oral vitamin C as cancer therapy for terminal patients. Cameron and Pauling wrote many technical papers and a popular book, Cancer and Vitamin C, that discussed their observations. Pauling made vitamin C popular with the public and eventually published two studies of a group of one hundred allegedly terminal patients that claimed vitamin C increased survival by as much as four times compared to untreated patients. A re-evaluation of the claims in 1982 found that the patient groups were not actually comparable, with the vitamin C group being less sick on entry to the study, and judged to be “terminal” much earlier than the comparison group. Later clinical trials conducted by the Mayo Clinic also found that high-dose (10,000 mg) vitamin C was no better than placebo at treating cancer and that there was no benefit to high-dose vitamin C. The failure of the clinical trials to demonstrate any benefit resulted in the conclusion that vitamin C was not effective in treating cancer; the medical establishment also concluded his claims that vitamin C could prevent colds was quackery. Pauling denounced the conclusions of these studies and handling of the final study as “fraud and deliberate misrepresentation”, and criticized the studies for using oral, rather than intravenous vitamin C (which was the dosing method used for the first ten days of Pauling’s original study). Pauling also criticized the Mayo clinic studies because the controls were taking vitamin C during the trial, and because the duration of the treatment with vitamin C was short; Pauling advocates continued high dose vitamin C for the rest of the cancer patient’s life whereas the Mayo clinic patients in the second trial were treated with vitamin C for a median of 2.5 months. The results were publicly debated at length with considerable acrimony between Pauling and Cameron, and Moertel (the lead author of the Mayo Clinic studies), with accusations of misconduct and scientific incompetence on both sides. Ultimately the negative findings of the Mayo Clinic studies ended general interest in vitamin C as a treatment for cancer. Despite this, Pauling continued to promote vitamin C for treating cancer and the common cold, working with The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential to use vitamin C in the treatment of brain-injured children. He later collaborated with the Canadian physician Abram Hoffer on a micronutrient regimen, including high-dose vitamin C, as adjunctive cancer therapy. Pauling directed research on vitamin C, but also continued his theoretical work in chemistry and physics until his death. In his last years, he became especially interested in the possible role of vitamin C in preventing atherosclerosis and published three case reports on the use of lysine and vitamin C to relieve angina pectoris. In 1996, the Linus Pauling Institute moved from Palo Alto, California, to Corvallis, Oregon, to become part of Oregon State University, where it continues to conduct research on micronutrients, phytochemicals (chemicals from plants), and other constituents of the diet in preventing and treating disease. Several researchers that had previously worked at the Linus Pauling Institute in Palo Alto, including the assistant director of research, moved on to form the Genetic Information Research Institute.
In order to clearly show the bias mechanism in place throughout the cancer industry, these two individuals were chosen because they are/were two of the brightest individuals we’ve seen in the last 100 years, in regards to cancer researchers. And the one thing they both share is the way in which they were treated by the Cancer establishment. Dr. Burzynski hasn’t won a Nobel Prize, like Linus Pualing, but has developed a method for gene specific therapy, which is the main direction in which cancer research is headed.
To show Dr. Burzynski is not a quack, like so many members of the mainstream Cancer community have suggested over the last 30 years, just compare his work to one of the most brilliant of the mainstream doctors, in the field of oncology today, Dr. David Agus. He is a Professor of Medicine and Engineering at the Keck School of Medicine USC, and the Viterbi School of Engineering, and is the Director of the USCCenterfor Applied Molecular Medicine and the USCWestsideNorrisCancerCenter. Agus is co-Director of the newly funded USC/NCI Physical Sciences in OncologyCentertogether. He is a member of several scientific and medical societies, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association for Cancer Research, AmericanCollegeof Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology and the American Medical Association. He is a co-founder of Navigenics, a personal genetic testing company, involved in developing gene specific therapies, and the webmaster of Oncology.com, the largest online cancer resource and virtual community. He has received many honors and awards, including the American Cancer Society Physician Research Award, a Clinical Scholar Award from the Sloan-Kettering Institute, a CaP CURE Young Investigator Award, and the American Cancer Society Clinical Oncology Fellowship Award, the HealthNetwork Foundation’s Excellence Award, and the 2009 GQ Magazine Rockstar of Science Award. In 2009, he was selected to serve as a judge for the first Biotech Humanitarian Award. Agus’s research has focused on the application of proteomics and genomics for the study of cancer and the development of new medications to be used in the treatment of cancer. He has published many scientific articles, and recently completed his first book, entitled “The End of Illness,” which was released January, 2012. In this book he states “Despite advances in modern medicine, why aren’t we better at curing illness? We must embrace a totally new view of looking at our health to prevent and combat heart disease, cancer and autoimmune disorders.” His two main focuses lie first in preventing the disease through diet and exercise, and second by using DNA specific drugs to treat illnesses more effectively, similar to what Dr. Burzynski has been doing since the 70’s, but not so much as a cure, like Burzynski’s approach which actually turns cancer cells off, but instead as a way of making current or future drugs more effective by simply giving more validity, through it’s efficacy, to a mediocre drug.
In many cases, it is critical to the survival of a cancer patient to shrink their tumors. However, in many other cases it is not life-threatening to leave a tumor alone and instead concentrate on stopping the spread of the cancer itself. “Modern medicine,” with its firm grasp of the art of making huge amounts of profits while their patients die, has totally brainwashed the public into thinking that the size of every tumor is important in a cancer treatment. In many cases shrinking the tumor is critical!! However, current medical therapies frequently desire to shrink tumors which are irrelevant to the survival of the patient. Here is a quote by Dr. Philip Binzel, M.D., from his book, Alive and Well – “When a patient is found to have a tumor, the only thing the doctor discusses with that patient is what he intends to do about the tumor. If a patient with a tumor is receiving radiation or chemotherapy, the only question that is asked is, “How is the tumor doing?” No one ever asks how the patient is doing. In my medical training, I remember well seeing patients who were getting radiation and/or chemotherapy. The tumor would get smaller and smaller, but the patient would be getting sicker and sicker. At autopsy we would hear, “Isn’t that marvelous! The tumor is gone!” Yes, it was, but so was the patient. How many millions of times are we going to have to repeat these scenarios before we realize that we are treating the wrong thing? In primary cancer, with only a few exceptions, the tumor is neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. I am going to repeat that statement. In primary cancer, with few exceptions, the tumor is neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. What is health-endangering and life-threatening is the spread of that disease through the rest of the body. There is nothing in surgery that will prevent the spread of cancer, there is nothing in radiation that will prevent the spread of cancer, and there is nothing in chemotherapy that will prevent the spread of cancer. How do we know? Just look at the statistics! There is a statistic known as “survival time.” Survival time is defined as that interval of time between when the diagnosis of cancer is first made in a given patient and when that patient dies from his disease. In the past fifty years, tremendous progress has been made in the early diagnosis of cancer, and in the surgical ability to remove tumors, and in the use of radiation and chemotherapy to shrink or destroy tumors. But, the survival time of the cancer patient today is no greater than it was fifty years ago. What does this mean? It obviously means that we are treating the wrong thing!” While there are some alternative cancer treatments that do shrink tumors, the focus on most alternative cancer treatments is to target and kill any cancer cells, or to revert the cancer cells back to normal cells. Shrinking tumors is generally secondary in alternative cancer treatments. If the tumor is pressing on a vital organ, is causing pain, and is obstructing the flow of fluids, or for some other reason needs to be eliminated from the body, alternative treatments may not be the best choice and instead should be removed with surgery. Most alternative cancer treatments will cause a tumor to swell temporarily, which you don’t want to have happen when it would do harm, but where there is no issue with temporary swelling, may be used and could be effective in a majority of cases. All treatments, which show real tangible results, whether in the lab, or clinical trial, or even with drugs currently on the market which have no trademark rights due to expiration, and show the ability to shrink or eliminate tumors, should be made available to the cancer patient.
On the other side of the treatment spectum, there are charlatans that peddle bogus cures, preying on patients when they are at their most vulnerable and promising false hope. Some alternative medical practitioners can promise natural cures, tempting the patient to abandon medical science. These alternative treatments are often without any scientific merit or evidence, tearing the patient away from real medicine. But not all alternative cancer treatments are without merit. The FDA/NCI’s continuing hidden agenda to bury the real cancer cures, and to steadfastly oppose research that shows very promising results, is “aWashington scandal of astonishing proportions”. Without question, the FDA/NCI should be held accountable for any malfeasance in skewing data in running clinical trials on a promising anticancer drug. Why hasn’t there been any jail time for bureaucrats at the top of these organizations that operate their agencies against the public’s best interest, but instead manipulate the system for the benefit of big pharmaceutical companies?
And what about the ramifications if a simple, inexpensive cancer cure were found? The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center is just one of the many, many centers in this country, involved with the cancer industry, and one of the world’s most respected centers, recently voted #1 in the country by U.S. News and World Report for 2012, and devoted exclusively to cancer patient care, research, education and prevention. It continues to set the standard in cancer prevention research and the translation of new knowledge into innovative, multidisciplinary care for patients, survivors and people at average or elevated risk of developing cancer. The Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences at MD Anderson is dedicated to eradicating cancer through pioneering research in the roles that biologic, genetic, environmental, behavioral and social factors play in cancer development and investigations of behavioral, surgical, medical and social interventions to prevent or reduce cancer risk. MD Anderson employs more than 18,000 people, including more than 1,500 faculty. A volunteer work force of about 1,100 contributes 200,000 hours of service annually, equal to 96 full-time employees. Together they work toward fulfilling MD Anderson’s mission of eliminating cancer as a major health threat. Almost 7,000 trainees, including physicians, scientists, nurses and allied health professionals, took part in educational programs at MD Anderson in 2011. The institution awards bachelor’s degrees in eight allied health disciplines and, in collaboration with the UT Health Science Center at Houston, awards M.S. and Ph.D. degrees at the UT Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. In addition, thousands of health professionals participate in continuing education and distance-learning opportunities. This is just one of hundreds of institutions across the country and around the world that provide employment and income to millions of people. If a cure for all cancers is found, like what is professed in their mission statement, how big of an impact will the loss of employment have in each community? It would most likely devastate the entire country and the world for years, maybe never recovering from the fallout. This is the number one reason people – conspiracy theorists – believe that a cure will never be found.
So, in closing, and without losing focus on those who are dying from this disease, I would like to ask that our elected officials on Capitol Hill regain full oversight on budget and direction, within the cancer community, in order to stop special interests from controlling the outcome of research, development, and treatment therapies. All proceedings, through which these investigations would take place, should be, without question made available, through open hearings, C-span viewing, and transcripts available through the Freedom Of Information act for all to see. In the utmost urgency, serious questions need to be publicly raised and debated as to why the FDA/NCI’s research budgets have been nearly fruitless in their execution, and why they should be extended into the future, unimpeded, and under current management directives. Considering the FDA/NCI’s track record of mismanaging this country’s cancer research, especially over the last 25 years, the facts still remains that over $200 billion taxpayer dollars yielded almost nothing of benefit to cancer patients, and many, many people suffered and died from the lack of proper treatment. So why continue down the same road? Isn’t it time for a different paradigm?
Available monies and efforts should be redirected to seek out ALL effective treatments, and the ones that show promise should be fully funded by the Government, without bias, and without delay, and be fully accountable to our elected officials, not left just to defiant Washington Bureaucrats, to ensure all American people, not just the special class, be assured that no one individual or private organization be allowed to manipulate data or steal patent rights, or prevent “cures” from coming forward. These criminal actions have gone on far too long and, without exception, should result in criminal prosecutions of every individual involved in this scheme to cheat the people of this nation out of the most fundamental right of having proper medical care to support our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Action on your part is needed in the worst way to break the log jam of deceit and self-interest.
Spouse of a two-time breast cancer survivor. Friend and relative of many who suffered and died from this dreadful disease.
So, my advice to all of you reading this is……Now is the time to make your voices heard. Please get involved by writing/calling your Representatives and telling them it all ends now. Every Government Agency needs to be overhauled, starting with these two – the FDA/NCI. And not to appease the few who are complaining, but for the millions who are dying. Many millions of lives are hanging in the balance, many millions have already been lost, many of those you probably know.
Walking for the cure is good…..but BEING the cure is even better! Get involved, not only by spreading the message as far and wide as you can, but get in contact with your government, on a daily basis if necessary and:
- Ask for real change
- Demand real change
- Settle for nothing less than real change.
It will help save so many people. Thank you for your time.
I leave you with this:
Linus Pauling, one of the greatest scientists of our time, and a two time Nobel Prize winner, said, “The war on cancer is largely a fraud.” The great Greek philosopher Socratessaid, “All wars are undertaken for the acquisition of wealth.” So there you have it.
The “War on Cancer” is largely an undertaking for the “acquisition of wealth,” not the curing of a disease.