In 1971, President Richard Nixon made a bold declaration — America would wage a “war on cancer.” With the stroke of a pen, he signed the National Cancer Act, allocating unprecedented resources to combat this devastating disease.
Now, over half a century later, it’s time to take stock of our progress.
The numbers are sobering. Since Nixon’s declaration, more than 14.8 million Americans have died from cancer. Even today, 1,500 people in the U.S. lose their lives to cancer every single day. Despite billions poured into research, we’ve made frustratingly little progress in treating many common adult cancers.
So what’s gone wrong?
Critics argue that our main weapons — surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy — are primitive and often ineffective. These treatments can be brutally toxic, destroying healthy cells along with cancerous ones. Many patients suffer severe side effects that drastically impact their quality of life, sometimes with limited improvement in overall survival.
But it’s not just about the treatments themselves.
Our entire system for developing and approving cancer therapies is under scrutiny. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) faces criticism for its slow, expensive approval process that some say stifles innovation. Major cancer organizations are questioned about their ties to industries that may contribute to cancer risk. Even our research priorities are being debated.
One of the most controversial aspects is the field of alternative treatments.
Stories abound of promising therapies faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Take Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s antineoplastons, which showed potential in treating certain brain cancers. Despite this promise, Burzynski faced years of legal battles with the FDA.
Then there’s the economic side of cancer. Drug development costs are astronomical, estimated at $1.6 billion per drug. This drives up treatment costs and limits research into less profitable approaches. The influence of pharmaceutical lobbying on cancer-related legislation is another point of contention.
But amidst all this, there’s a growing call to refocus on prevention. After all, only 6–10% of cancers are primarily genetic. This suggests that environmental and lifestyle factors play a major role in most cases. Yet prevention receives far less attention and funding compared to treatment research.
So, where do we go from here?
Many experts are calling for a fundamental rethinking of our approach to cancer. They advocate for:
1. A more flexible regulatory system
2. Greater freedom for doctors to innovate
3. More funding for independent research
4. A shift towards personalized medicine
5. Increased emphasis on prevention
6. Open-minded exploration of alternative approaches
The war on cancer has led to some significant advances, particularly for certain types of cancer. But for many common cancers, progress has been disappointingly slow. Our current approach, heavily influenced by entrenched interests and biases, may be hindering truly transformative breakthroughs.
As we move forward, a more holistic, patient-centered approach that balances rigorous science with openness to new ideas may be necessary. By reforming our research priorities, regulatory systems, and economic incentives, we may yet turn the tide in this long-standing battle.
The challenge remains immense, but there’s reason for hope. With a willingness to question our assumptions and explore new paradigms, we can work towards more effective prevention, treatment, and ultimately, cures for cancer.
It’s time to rethink the war on cancer.
The lives of millions depend on it.
SUBSTACK HEALTHWISE
Click here to get my free weekly Newsletter, Healthwise, on Substack. All things Health, Wellness and Science
Click this link to read more about active longevity for seniors
