Making the World Safe for Cancer

When it comes to increasing cancer rates, we've done everything right. We couldn't have done it better if we'd actually planned it.

That's the takeaway from the President's Cancer Panel. Legislatively mandated back in 1971, this prestigious panel just issued its 2009 report. Reading it is an eye-opening experience. I'll synopsize the basic findings here (along with others from other sources) so that if other societies (or other planets) want to replicate our outstanding results in making the world safe for cancer, they can roll up their sleeves and do just what we've done:

• For 35 years, pour billions of dollars into vested institutions aiming to self-perpetuate via a perennial "war on cancer" featuring intense and costly treatments, which, according to a GAO report, failed to substantively increase actual survival rates once you factor in reductions in lung cancer deaths thanks to smoking cessation

• Run massive P.R. campaigns to distract the gullible public (with more birthday cake?) until that lucky day when a "cure" is found. (According to AdWeek, the American Cancer Society, which disputes the Panel Report spends $17 million annually on ads.) iii

That's just for starters. Then the next step is to:

• Fail to look for causes
• Invoke "prevention" as a buzzword while doing nothing substantive

It takes a little work, but if dedicated to the cause, one can:

• Overlook numerous studies that reveal a wide range of cancer causative factors, including pesticides, toxins, metals, pollutants, food additives, industrial chemicals, endocrine disruptors and other carcinogens--80,000 of them in wide use (PCP)

• Allow widespread exposure to these carcinogens (PCP)

• Rather than concede the overall weight of both research and empirical evidence, quibble over a study detail to assure an implacable entrenchment in treating the problem when it's too late

• Pay for your own study if your company has deep pockets. Then play "dueling studies."

A crucial component for success is assuring regulatory policies that:

• Never ask industrial chemical producers to prove chemical safety because... (just give me a moment to come up with a reason) (PCP)

• Give agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, the medical industry, the military, gas and oil companies and food producers carte blanche to pour billions of tons of chemicals and pollutants into everyone's food, personal care, home, baby bottles--whatever--not to mention the public common of air, water and earth (PCP)

• Assign to under-funded government agencies the simple little task of proving which of those 80,000 chemicals are unsafe (PCP)

But even with all of that in place, you still have to be dead certain that your scientific research model:

• Uses an outdated toxicological method that bears no relation to typical toxic exposures (PCP)

• Only studies chemicals one at a time just the way they come out of the lab refrigerator

• Never studies additive, cumulative, synergistic, or long-term effects from multiple exposures because, hey, that's hard! (PCP)

• Can't sort out how different ingredients chemically interact with each other (PCP)

• Can't begin to figure out how they interact within you

• Doesn't want to know what the industries have put this stuff into (PCP)

Oh, and don't overlook one crucial element: It's essential to have a health care model that:

• Claims the human organism can process anything we can dish out

• Cuts out any human body parts that can't

• Never tests an individual's body burden of toxins

• Sneers at detoxification practices

• Recommends to everyone of any age, gender, height, weight, ethnicity, or health status a uniform prescription dosage based on a Western white adult male (PCP)

• Omits medical or product testing for infant or child safety (PCP)

• Never tests drug interactions or synergies even though the average person presently takes nine or more medications; and these drugs enter the water supply

• Recommends radiological testing without consideration that "People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors." (PCP)

• Is the third leading cause of death according to an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association

It takes a special kind of synchronicity to get all social forces working together to the point where 41 percent of all Americans will get cancer, and 20 percent will die of it. But there's still more to do. If the Gulf Oil spill fails to cause enough health damage, we can look ahead to the plans in New York State to allow carcinogens into the water table without environmental studies.

As the PCP report points out:

It is more effective to prevent disease than to treat it, but cancer prevention efforts have focused narrowly on smoking, other lifestyle behaviors, and chemopreventive interventions. Scientific evidence on individual and multiple environmental exposure effects on disease initiation and outcomes, and consequent health system and societal costs, are not being adequately integrated into national policy decisions and strategies for disease prevention, health care access and health system reform.

Now, if you're one of those people who don't want to live in a world safer for cancer than it is for men, women, and children, then all I can say is: You'd better sign up with www.saferchemicals.org to support new legislation to actually regulate chemicals for the first time in 36 years. And/or for action alerts on safe chemicals, health, and a healthy environment, health insight, and radio interviews with health leaders, please do sign up at: www.healthjournalist.com

References:

J.C.Bailar and E.M.Smith, "Progress Against Cancer?" New England Journal of Medicine 314 (May 8, 1986):1226- 1232.

"The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States," January 3, 2008, PLoS Medicine, the Public Library of Science.

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/tikkun_2000.htm

President's Cancer Panel Report 2009, http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf
op cit

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070226095116.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article5517912.ece

Starfield B (2000). "Is US health really the best in the world?" Journal of the American Medical Association. 284 (4): 483-5)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100507/ap_on_re_us/us_gulf_oil_spill_health_effects

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2010/01/fractured-logic-the-peril-in-"fracking"-chemicals/

 

Follow Alison Rose Levy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AlisonRoseLevy

Comments

[wfour]

05:59 PM on 05/16/2010

Thanks for providing a focused perspective on a most difficult problem. We need to advocate for ourselves and each other in reducing the rate of environmental pollution. Unfortunately, the horse is out of the barn and we must develop strategies that are preventive and reactive.
This would include:
Personal genetic assessment to determine our unique vulnerabilities vis a vis detoxification and methylation. We can then create supports through avoidance, diet, nutritional supplementation and yes, medications.
Controlling our work and home environments: Bau Biologie assessment and appropriate action.
Testing for our personal toxic burdens and mitigating them.
Nutritional and Supplement programs that optimize the health of the cell.
Assessment of the efficiency of energy production and oxygenation; key steps to avoiding cancer initiation and promotion.
In my mind, this is what good preventive health care should do and can do.
Keep up the good work Allison

WMRoss

[Alison Rose Levy]

06:37 PM on 05/18/2010

Thanks so much for your nuanced and wise assessment. Let's hope that with this wisdom you are a practicing integrative health physician. If so, your patients are lucky!

Alison

[Panasit Ch]

01:21 AM on 05/14/2010

A professor once told me that in the old days in China, doctors are paid when people are healthy. When people are sick the doctors come and heal them free of charge. Now we live in a society where we reward doctor for making us sick longer.

I forgot what class that was.

[isjois]

12:56 PM on 05/17/2010

It's a shame that doctors don't receive bonuses for the healthy patients in their practice.

[Belleruth Naparstek]

05:05 PM on 05/13/2010

Alison,
Great job.
Pithy, scary truth of how we roll.
Good call to action, too.
Thanks..

[Alison Rose Levy]

12:33 PM on 05/14/2010

Thanks, Belleruth!

[robertogt]

04:12 PM on 05/13/2010

For those that don't get the big picture yet let me help. There is little or no money in cures or prevention of cancer. There is endless wealth to be had in treatment ie. big Pharma, M.D. Anderson etc. You may also google Thomas Robert Malthus 1766-1834(Malthusian ring a bell?). Interesting thoughts on population reduction. Some say he was way ahead of his time.

[time4truthnow]

03:06 PM on 05/13/2010

Making the World Safe for Cancer is a much needed & appreciated article, thank you Alison. In my heart & soul I know the biggest contributor to cancer has been too many vaccinations let loose on us.

Vaccinations cause Autism, ADD/ADHD, Asthma, Allergies, Alzheimer's, Arthritis, Auto-immune & that's just the A's

This barbaric practice is due to mad scientists in white coats willing to fool, much to much, with Mother Nature for their evil, greedy, puppet masters.

These crimes against humanity will stop because "We The People" have, metaphorically, gone for our pitchforks, tar & feathers. We will hold accountable anyone trying to continue this cover up in this war that's been waged against the health & well being of our children. It's time to admit error & allow the honest doctors & scientists to pick up the pieces.

Poul Thorsen saw the writing on the wall & ran away with all that research, blood, money because he knew, we knew, the study claiming no connection between vaccinations & autism was fraudulent.

Time to pay the piper. The Rats are jumping ship & more are soon to follow.

"The President & CEO of Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, (PhRMA), announced he'll be resigning from the organization on June 30, 2010."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61B4TR20100212

[Alison Rose Levy]

12:36 PM on 05/14/2010

Thanks for your comments and sending this. I don't know whether we should celebrate or weep over the resignation of Billy Tauzin, memorialized in the film, SIcko. Celebrate because he can do no more harm; weep because of the harm already done.

Alison
www.healthjournalist.com

[time4truthnow]

02:42 PM on 05/13/2010

This is such a shame when the facts & information are out there. It's down right criminal.

"Terminal cancer patients spend final days suffering from radiation therapy that does nothing"

http://www.naturalnews.com/028764_cancer_patients_radiation.html
Permission to forward

[time4truthnow]

03:03 PM on 05/13/2010

Please follow me on Twitter @ Mofmars333, as us Mums, Moms & Dad's have big plans. We are taking actions that force the pharmaceutical industry to clean house & get back to the original purpose that actually has our well being in mind. Watch my wall at Facebook & look for the three ex pharma workers telling it like it is. Then stand by for updates. Don't forget to take the FCC action alert at the top of the page while you're there. My wall's open for public viewing but join us if you like & become an activist. When more of us become activists, the quicker we can bring all the children out of harms way & see to it the many already sick & injured are taken care of.

[time4truthnow]

04:11 PM on 05/13/2010

Sorry, I thought my name would be found in my profile but it's not. You'll need it to find me on Facebook. My name is Marsha McClelland

[Conk]

10:38 AM on 05/13/2010

Shouldn't we make the world safe "from" cancer, and not safe "for" cancer?

[time4truthnow]

02:05 PM on 05/13/2010

Conk. Usually you're right on but I don't think you read the article. Alison's creative title was for reason.

[Conk]

08:43 PM on 05/13/2010

OMG. I didn't read it. I thought it would be more medical mafia crap. Most excellent article! Great title. ..............eating my words, chomp chomp.

[Nabou]

01:43 PM on 05/12/2010

This is a great article. I am curious if anyone is trying to get insurance companies involved in supporting research on causes of cancer and prevention of cancer. With the incredibly high costs of cancer treatment, it would be a boon to insurance companies to have fewer people develop cancer and need treatment. I realize that any knowledge gained or progress made on this issue wouldn't cause cancer rates to go down for a long time, so it may be difficult to convince insurance companies to invest now in prevention that won't benefit them for years or decades. I am just curious if this is even a consideration.

On a side note: thank you for responding to your readers' comments. Too many writers on HuffPost and other sites don't, and I think it really helps create a civilized and productive discussion.

[Alison Rose Levy]

03:01 PM on 05/12/2010

Hi Nabou:
For many years, it was thought, just like you say, that insurance companies would be the first in line to support at the very least preventative treatment options to reduce costs-- but that has not evolved thus far as was hoped. The likelihood of their actually funding research.. well, as long as there is any payment mechanism for treatments, I don't see that they would have an incentive. There has not been any development of cost analysis models that clearly demonstrate the benefits.

Thanks for noting my responses-- these are complex topics and it's very much about dialogue. I appreciate every single person who contributes their unique insight.

Alison
www.healthjournalist.com

[robertogt]

04:19 PM on 05/13/2010

Insurance and banks are almost one in the same. It's about profit. Insurance works on a cost plus basis. Higher the cost..the higher the profit. I won't even get into denial of claims. Good article.

[Halsey]

11:22 AM on 05/12/2010

Alison, I almost didn't click on your article...I'm one year out from triple negative cancer..no family history..non-hormonal..just woke up literally with a 4 inch lump over (not even in) my breast..I truly thought it was scarring from an auto accident several years ago..nope.. Too late, a friend let me read though her "The China Study" (hope I have that title right)...the author did amazing, HUGE study of foods (and chemical)..as they related to cancer in many populations...if ONLY I knew at 10 what I found out at 54..."maybe" I'd have had a better shot at not getting cancer. But..I have read, sadly, that for the good it DOES do..these massive "walks for a cure"...give such a small percentage to actual research..OH!..and the new KFC in a "pink" basket..50 cents of each bucket of hormone-laden chicken goes to cancer research..to me..that is almost comedic in it's cruelty. Pink Buckets...I'd laugh..were I not crying..

[Alison Rose Levy]

11:50 AM on 05/12/2010

Halsey-- I am glad that you did read it and thank you for writing. In a way it is hard for me to talk about this topic that causes such suffering in a way that could at first glance seem glib. But I'm sure that you see why I am doing it.

Your point about the "pink" basket is well-taken. It's almost as if marketing takes on a life of its own-- and the happy pink ribbon becomes the message because we can't face the actual reality. The same is likely true of the "more birthdays" campaign. Just what gives the American Cancer Society the right to become the sponsor of "birthdays?" While I do look forward to the day when the right combination of real prevention and treatment will save many lives, that doesn't give anyone the right to appropriate my birthday, your birthday, or anyone else's. When we hear marketing that claims to help while proffering sugary cakes, or hormone-laden chicken, it's very confusing. almost schizophrenogenic. That's why it's so important to share our truth, as you do.

Alison

[Halsey]

01:39 PM on 05/12/2010

Thank you Alison..and you totally NAILED it..with the word schizophrenogenic!...
Now..we'll just wait with baited breath..for the Pink Big Mac...
my head is spinning like Linda Blair's!..

(thanks for the relief!...I mean it...it does help to share)..and not that you need it...but you are faved :-)....

[mom72]

09:21 AM on 05/12/2010

I live in Ontario, Canada and we have banned all herbacides, and pesticides and now have to use organic, enviromentally friendly products. It"s a move that has upset some people but for the majority of us in Canada it was the right move. Yes, we have to deal with more weeds in our gardens and our lawns and we have to use nemetodes to get rid of the grubs in our lawns and that takes a bit of work but it is all worth it when you consider that enviromental factors play a big part in how our health gets affected. Pollution in general is a concern for us and I for one hope the US gets on board because we are certainly affected by the air pollution that finds it's way across the border into our country, and unfortunately for us the US doesn't have the same standards on the chemicals and pollution that can be put into the enviroment, nor are the regulations for such things as strict as ours are and i think the people have to start demanding it from the government for it to happen! The article is a great eye opener and I would like to see people get the information so they can make decisions based on facts and not ignorance, and maybe we can all work together to make the world a healthier place to live for the future generations!

[Actraiser]

11:36 AM on 05/12/2010

That's great. I wish the USA were that sensible.

[isjois]

01:02 PM on 05/17/2010

Me too.

Maybe Americans will start looking into how the Canadians were able to advocate for this ban on pesticides/herbicides/etc. We shouldn't have to "reinvent the wheel".

[Alison Rose Levy]

11:39 AM on 05/12/2010

Thanks for writing, mom72:

You bring up an excellent point. A lot of us like to think that perhaps the chemicals we read about are somehow not in "me." I too wanted to believe that. But studies show that over two hundred chemicals were found in the bodily tissues of people all over the world. So what we do affects other countries, and what they do affects us.

Right now in upstate New York, energy companies are aiming to drill for gas using a process that injects over five hundred toxic chemicals into ground water. The region where this is being fast-tracked is directly upstream from New York, Philadelphia, and New Jersey, yet ill-informed politicians naively think that somehow the chemicals will stay put rather then traveling via rains, air, and groundwater to affect other regions downstream.

The ideas that we can be masters of our health fates is a bit over-played in view of these kinds of massive health risks. We're all connected. Thanks for the reminder!

Alison
www.healthjournalist.com

[Mensch99]

08:22 AM on 05/12/2010

Great article that everyone should read.
Like many readers, I knew all that already but you put it together very well.

What bothers me most is that TV ads get carte blanche to mislead the public.

A good addition to any bill is a simple requirement that all advertising be true.

[Alison Rose Levy]

08:37 AM on 05/12/2010

Mensch99--

Thanks so much and I'm curious about your comment. What ads are you referring to specifically-- and what in them do you find misleading? Are you talking about pharmaceutical ads? or some other ads?

Alison
www.healthjournalist.com

[Mensch99]

09:02 AM on 05/12/2010

Drug ads top the list. Only the US and New Zealand allow these ads on TV.
Fast-food and prepared-food ads mislead people into thinking that there are no negative consequences to eating this chemical-laden junk.
Corporate touchy-feely ads like “Beyond Petroleum” actually convince the gullible that these predators care about people.
Lastly, liquor ads (once wisely banned) although perhaps not misleading, do not serve the interests of public health.

[RaisingAwareness]

07:09 PM on 05/11/2010

It's shocking that this is finally being reported by a government panel. Kudos to those who had the integrity to speak up.

http://www.naturalnews.com/028765_environmental_chemicals_cancer.html

[Alison Rose Levy]

08:47 AM on 05/12/2010

Thanks for sending this-- it's a great summary for those who wish to know more. The writer summarizes the report well and also highlights the ACS' attempt to refute the report. In his venue, he is allotted more than twice the word count that I can use here at HP-- which makes it a little tougher to cover topics of scientific complexity. That's why I decided to write a book-- and to get my free ezine and updates on the book, if you're interested, you can sign up at my website, www.healthjournalist.com

Thanks so much!
Alison

[Adriane Shochet Coplan]

06:20 PM on 05/11/2010

I would not be at high risk for cancer if testing would have been done on the synthetic chemical hormone, DES , that my mother was given by her doctor. In fact, I am lucky as I was still able to have 2 children with only one ovary, due to an ectopic pregnancy that was directly related to that very same chemical exposure.
If people would only educate themselves, make small changes that don't have to cost them any new money, read product labels, put the right food/fuel in their bodies, make better buying choices. Alas, I fear it is like cigarette smoking. How many years have we known about the dangers of cigarettes, and second hand smoke,yet people still smoke?How many years will it be before this chemical reform movement makes an impact? There is something you can do right now,to pay it forward to help protect your children, your pets, yourself and our planet. Please join me in this mission of freeing the world of toxic chemicals. For more information become a fan of my facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/pages/WOWGREEN-Adriane-Coplan/282068599984

[KMA33]

05:40 PM on 05/11/2010

Thank you for this commentary. As a survivor of a type of cancer that has doubled since the 1970s (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma), I have been increasingly frustrated by the lack of information as to why this and other cancers are on the rise. I try to eat right, rid my home of toxins and make good lifestyle choices, but the more I learn about cancer-causing agents, both known and suspected, the more I realize we can't fight cancer solely on an individual level. I was so excited to learn of the presidential panel's report and have been annoyed by how little press it has been getting, considering the sea change it represents in how we think about cancer. And I was shocked and astounded when I read that the American Cancer Society had made negative comments about the report. Bravo to you for presenting this information. Let's hope this report gets taken seriously by all.

[Alison Rose Levy]

05:55 PM on 05/11/2010

Thank you, KMA, for writing. I've been covering health for twenty years and have written literally hundreds of thousands of words of health and lifestyle recommendations. I've always sought to empower people in their own self-care. But there are some things that are not within our power as individuals to address on our own. We need to join with others to make changes at the societal level and that's why groups like the Safer Chemicals and the Environmental Working Group - www.ewg.org and other groups whose action alerts I feature in my weekly ezine the Health Outlook-- are so important.

Thank you for bringing up the response of the American Cancer Society. I'll write another comment to bring readers up to date on their comments.

Alison

www.healthjournalist.com

[NoraHuffster]

03:47 PM on 05/11/2010

Extremely enlightening article and tremendously helpful. I wish it could be made a mandatory read for anyone who has even the slightest amount of power to regulate and police the environment. We are clearly being poisoned and cancer is but one of the symptoms. Before the next fundraising run or pink ribbon campaign, there should be widespread, grown-up discussion about who is accountable for what and how to enforce it.

[Alison Rose Levy]

04:20 PM on 05/11/2010

Thanks, Nora, and you are exactly right: cancer is just one of the diseases that environmental toxins have been shown to contribute to. Asthma, neurological disorders, developmental delays-- are a few of the others. The reality is that when your body has to deal with an array of toxins, it's not able to maintain its other areas of function as well. One out of six adults resides near a SuperFund site. And toxic occupational exposures occur more regularly among lower income populations. I recommend sharing the information, getting active, and supporting legislative initiatives like the Safe Chemicals Act.

Alison
www.healthjournalist.com

[Lesscancer]

05:11 PM on 05/11/2010

You are exactly right Nora-which is why when we work towards a world of Less Cancer- we often solve many issues to include asthma as Alison points out- but to really get an understanding about the impact of asthma in 2003 over 12 million school days were missed because of it.. when we work to stop cancer at the cause..actually work to prevent it..it isn't just asthma that we can have an impact on, but diabetes, obesity and heart disease...chronic disease to include cancer cost Americans in more than just lives-Expenditures in the United States on health care surpassed $2.3 trillion in 2008, more than three times the $714 billion spent in 1990, and over eight times the $253 billion spent in 1980. These numbers only continue to grow – and unless prevention is taken on in a serious way in this country and around the world, those numbers will look minuscule compared to what is coming.
Bill Couzens Founder Less Cancer and Healthy Town Campaigns