War on Cancer a Failure

We all have relatives and friends who have developed cancer, suffered through the treatment, and, in happy circumstances, survived their illness. However, many have not been so fortunate. One friend was diagnosed with esophageal cancer after abruptly developing upper gastrointestinal bleeding. He was advised to undergo surgery, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy. The radiation and chemotherapy failed to control the cancer, surgery was never undertaken, and he died within six months. More recently, a dental assistant who I knew developed invasive breast cancer and was treated with surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and the new immunologic agents. There was no benefit in the treatment. She also died within six months. Cancer has always been considered the dreaded disease; what is surprising is that its deadly reputation is as well deserved in 2011 as in the past. Our ability to control cancer appears to be more of a process to “go through” (because you’re supposed to) despite the ghastly side effects until the ultimate result of death ensues.

We are pleased to publish a three-part series evaluating the “US Cancer Program” by Anthony Apostolides, PhD, and Ipatia Apostolides. In 2010 the Apostolideses published a two-part paper on this subject in the Townsend Letter. Contrary to the representations made by the American Cancer Society, cancer prevention and treatment success are not improving. It may well be that the prevention of cancer is not the duty of health authorities and doctors. Medicine’s concept of preventing cancer is generally thought to be effective screening to diagnose cancer, enabling treatment at an early stage. However, the actual prevention of cancer from developing would be the ideal goal. The Apostolideses show using data from the National Cancer Institute that there has been a failure to prevent 7 of 10 different cancers as “indicated by increasing incidence rates and increasing numbers of people diagnosed with cancer.” Even more disturbing has been the failure rate for successfully treating cancer. Their data have shown that in 6 of 9 cancers, there has been a “rising mortality rate and rising number of deaths.” The Apostolideses argue that the current treatment model for cancer is a failure. (We are printing a short version of the Apostolideses’ article in this issue; a longer version of the article with graphs in color is published at www.townsendletter.com.)

Ralph Moss, PhD, suggests that the cancer establishment’s new treatment modalities for melanoma are not an unqualified success. In his “War on Cancer” column, he reports on the immunologic agent ipilimumab’s therapeutic effect in metastatic melanoma. At the ASCO meeting, ipilimumab was reported to “significantly increase overall survival in metastatic melanoma by 2.1 months compared to standard chemotherapy.” 2.1 months! And that would be with side effects involving the liver, endocrine system, gastrointestinal tract, and skin. Another immunologic agent, vemurafinib, was touted to “add two to several months survival in metastatic melanoma.” This benefit apparently was celebrated by treating oncologists at ASCO!

Yes, this is the state of cancer treatment in the US in 2011: we celebrate an additional two months’ survival of metastatic cancer. In the meantime, the cancer establishment still looks askance at alternative cancer treatments or, worse yet, calls them quackery.

Jonathan Collin, MD