Patrick Swayze’s loss to cancer once again reminds us about “Finding a cure” or “Searching for a cure” or the “Race for the cure.” The question is do these catch phrases mean anything? Or are they just results of amazing marketing tactics?
In 2008 alone, the American Cancer Society estimates that 294,120 men and 271, 530 women died of various forms of cancer. The most recent statistics are from 2005. It reveals that 559,312 people died from cancer. That is up from 2004, where 553,888 people died.
Obviously the heart-wrenching, fancy marketing, and gargantuan fundraising capabilities are not getting anybody any closer to finding any cure. Here’s why.
Let’s take breast cancer, for example. When we think of breast cancer, we all think of the Susan G. Komen Race For the Cure that began back in 1982 here in Dallas, TX.
Nancy G. Brinker began this particular foundation after being inspired by the fight her sister, Susan G. Komen, waged against cancer. Because of that, she vowed to do everything in her power to end breast cancer forever. Now thousands and thousands of women each year participate in the Race For the Cure, donating their blood, sweat, tears, and money to make a difference.
But has anyone told them that there is more than one type of breast cancer? What if all those hundreds of millions of dollars are spent only on developing the newest “wonder treatment” to “cure” Ductal Carcinoma In-Situ? That still leaves Infiltrating Ductal Carcinoma, Medullary Carcinoma, Infiltrating Lobular Carcinoma, Tubular Carcinoma, Mucinous (Colloid) Carcinoma, and Inflammatory Breast Cancer.
27 years of Susan G. Komen races and donations for one cure. And that hasn’t even happened yet; we’re talking hypothetical. But what if it did? That would be a total of 189 years before a cure or vaccine for each type of breast cancer could be developed, and by then there will probably be more forms of breast cancer to “wage war on.”
What the average person doesn’t understand is that there are hundreds of different forms of cancer. They all behave in different ways, grow at different rates, and respond to different types of treatments. That’s why there are so many possible treatments for breast cancer: there is more than one type of breast cancer. That’s where the fancy marketing has been successful.
Effectiveness of Cancer Treatments
When someone finds out they have cancer, usually the first options mentioned are radiation therapy and chemotherapy. The only problem is that they work in a limited number of cancer types such as choriocarcinoma, Burkitt’s lymphoma, acute lymphocytic leukemia, stage III and IV Hodgkin’s disease, diffuse histiocytic lymphoma, nodular mixed lymphoma, stage II and III testicular carcinoma, and childhood sarcomas and lymphomas. These all have a 75% survival rate with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.
But what about the hundreds of other types of cancer? Hormone replacement therapy? Targeted drugs? What if those don’t work? Unfortunately, the conventional cancer treatment industry is worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The thought of unconventional, holistic methods ever becoming mainstream and conventional is zero to none. There is simply no money in it. You can’t patent an herb and mass manufacture and distribute it like you can a drug.
Tamoxifen, for example, is a drug often given to breast cancer patients. It is common practice to prescribe Tamoxifen for an off-label use to treat ovarian cancer. Two serious side effects are deep vein thrombosis and uterine cancer. If breast cancer was rendered benign, but uterine cancer developed as a result, it was still considered a success.
My mom died of pancreatic cancer in October 2000, the same type pf cancer Patrick Swayze died from. One of her treatments before she died was the drug Tamoxifen. Her legs swelled up and she developed deep vein thrombosis. Tamoxifen is considered to be powerful and unpredictable, as well as unreliable. Yet it is one of the first drugs often used in cancer treatment. I got to see that first hand.
The Tangled Web of Cancer Politics
Sure, the Susan G. Komen Foundation raises a lot of money for breast cancer research, but a lot of that money goes to paying employees as well. It may be a non-profit organization, but it is still a business. To run a business, you need employees. To run a business that large, you need a lot of employees.
If a cure for breast cancer is found, does that mean the Susan G. Komen foundation will just close its doors, let all its employees go, and just dissolve away? Yeah right! There are too many millions of dollars at stake for that ever to happen.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation needs a lot of money because it has to pay a lot of high powered executives and marketing experts to attract the kind of turnouts it does.
We’ve all seen the commercials, magazine and newspaper ads, radio ads, and the grocery store cashiers asking for donations in the little clear plastic box by the credit card swipers. We’ve all seen the pink ribbons. We’ve all seen the images of thousands of pink-clad women marching all at once.
Who pays for these ads? Who pays for the pink shirts? The people who want to make a difference and give to a worthy cause. Who pays the people who designs the ads and shirts? Once again, it’s the people who want to make a difference and give to a worthy cause.
Here is another example of savvy cancer politicking. October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It was founded by a company called AstraZeneca. Ironically, this company manufactured two breast cancer drugs, Tamoxifen and Arimidex.
Ironically, AstraZeneca once got together with a company called Monsanto and developed a highly carcinogenic herbicide called Acetochlor also.
So a drug company created a deadly herbicide that creates cancer, then developed drugs to fight cancer, and started an awareness campaign to alert people to the dangers of cancer. Very shrewd and crafty, as well as evil. But is that really surprising?
Where there is disease, there is money to be made. And very common, very deadly diseases make more money than you and I could ever dream of.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
As a Pre-Chiropractic student, I work in medical equipment with compression stockings daily. The amount of people who come in with severe varicosities and lymphedema is staggering. Most have ongoing problems as a result of some type of surgery. My heart goes out to them but I do wish they would question what their doctors are telling them.
Every year since 1998, when I was a Chiropractic student at Parker Chiropractic College, I would receive emails, phone calls, and donation card pledges from family members to support the “cancer cure”. It has never been my path and I have always thought that my money would be better spend educating people to make wiser life time choice (proactive) then looking for “cures” (reactive). I really value human life but won’t support causes I don’t believe in. I have spent my own money instead setting up Chiropractic missions around the world educating and changing peoples lives with Chiropractic care.