$1.5 Trillion Dollars we could have spent on a real War Against Cancer

[Mike03]

Last night I was listening to the Ray Taliafero program and he said we have now squandered $1.5 Trillion on the Iraq war. People laughed at the Michael Milken Institute when it predicted similar up front costs for this war three years ago--and the future costs will be equal if not worse.

The money allocated by our government to cancer research continues to be cut year after year.

I've spent the last six months, approximately eight to twelve hours a day, doing nothing but researching cancer--from the etiology to the concept of chemo-prevention. And I'm sick of seeing families, like mine, decimated by cancer.

Our government agencies that are assigned with the task of protecting our health are completely useless. They have known for over one hundred years that dioxins and benzenes were carcinogens, yet they pretended that more evidence was necessary in order to make this determination. Same for poly-vinyl chlorides, PCBs, heavy metals, solvents, resins, artificial plastics, petroleum derivatives, right down to the coating on the inside of a fast-food box that contains our french fries and the interior sealant of canned goods. They withheld the Pap Smear for decades; they bickered while women died unnecessarily of cervical cancer. Government agencies have conspired with chemical, paint, and agricultural companies to suppress knowledge about some of the most egregious and obvious carcinogens--many of which have been banned in more enlightened countries in Europe. These include not only the chemicals named above but pesticides, fungicides, plasticizers, and now even genetically modified agriculture and some cloned mammals and their edible proteins.

They are fiddling while Rome burns.

Anyway, the conclusions I have come to are that:

1. We know about 95% of what causes cancer.

2. The corporations that produce carcinogenic products have influenced the rate at which we find out the dangers of the products we use. They don't want most consumers to be educated about the risk factors for cancer, because it would impact the bottom line of so many major industries.

3. Until our health-related agencies only permit on their panels and boards scientists who are not morally compromised or on the payroll of gigantic offenders like Monstanto, DuPont, Dow, and so forth, we can not rely on them to determine what is a safe chemical.

4. As long as the chemical companies that manufacture the chemicals are permitted to test and report on the safety of their own chemicals, with no oversight whatsoever, the reports of their safety is worthless.

I would love to see an honest "Manhattan Project" type effort to deal honestly with cancer. The money we have wasted in Iraq, and even the SHAMELESS $500 million being spent on the ludicrous George W. Bush Library could fund real research into cancer.

Cures are not that far away. Every day the results of some important clinical trials are reported (for example on Medical News Today website). I know that the pharmaceutical companies are not saints, but they have created some miraculous drugs over the past decade, now that the humane genome is becoming more comprehensible.

My skeptical nature tells me that there are some people in power who would just as soon be content to see tens of millions perish of cancer after undergoing expensive but useless procedures.

It's just a shame. Sorry to rant.

[spanone]

1. cancer is the real terrorist

[Mike03]

2. Very well put.

It IS a real terrorist. You are exactly right.

[DaveJ]

3. This is because cons are so selfless

Maybe they fear overpopulation. They aren't interested in anything that is humane. They vote to fund the rich while their children are homeless, have no healthcare, and eat crappy artificial food. Big business is more interested in taking life than saving life.

[bigbrother05]

4. Thanks for posting

It scares me that our environment is killing us.
If they found a cure, the insurance companies would be crazy.
Not to mention the pharmacy co.

[kimmerspixelated]

5. Don't apologize.

You have every right to rant. Chemicals and synthetics are the enemy of people and of all life on the planet. Delve even deeper into the pocket lining of "cancer research groups", and find out that they are funded by folks who really hope they don't find a cure. Stretch it out as long as possible...make a little progress...but not too much. It makes me sick! And the naturopath SCIENTISTS-that's right-it's science!( meant for a person who will definitely jump on this!), have concluded that there are many ways such as macrobiotic diets and intense nutritional therapies that work, but they are being silenced in much the same way mafiosos go after their enemies. There is a whole lot of nazi like behaviour behind the lines, and Health Freedom is at stake. Fascism in Health Care!! Really, I share your rants. All that money could go for educating people at the very least about what they put in their bodies having a direct influence on Cancer and other diseases! Modern "Health Care" advosaries aim to keep Americans dumb and diseased!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. heh

"They have known for over one hundred years that dioxins and benzenes were carcinogens"

No, they first synthesized dioxins over a hundred years ago. Their toxicity was not understood/ appreciated until the seventies, eighties and nineties.

Benzene is a specific compound, not a class of compounds, it's not plural. For the better part of the 20th century it was thought to be safe, then it was considered a suspect carcinogen for some time and phased out for most of its older purposes, and only in the last few years has it been considered a true carcinogen.

"Same for poly-vinyl chlorides"

PVC is not a carcinogen. There have been some reports of some toxicity from some phthalates used as PBC plasticizer, but not carcinogenicity.

"PCBs"

PCBs are quite toxic compounds, not just for their carcinogenicity, and were banned before much "carcinogenicity fo these compounds were known.

"heavy metals"

"solvents"

That's going to depend on which solvent you're talking about. I hear DHMO can be quite toxic.

The carcinogenicity of heavy metals is not well understood, but they've been known to be toxic since, well, the invention of metallurgy.

"They withheld the Pap Smear for decades; they bickered while women died unnecessarily of cervical cancer."

Papanicolau invented it in, what, the thirties? Sure, compared to know that was still the dark ages of gynecology, I've never heard of some sort of conspiracy to withhold it while more women got cervical cancer. At least not like some people are doing now trying to repress the HPV vaccine.

"Government agencies have conspired with chemical, paint, and agricultural companies to suppress knowledge about some of the most egregious and obvious carcinogens"

Link?

"These include not only the chemicals named above but pesticides, fungicides, plasticizers, and now even genetically modified agriculture and some cloned mammals and their edible proteins."

If a chemical causes cancer, they'll either take it off the market, or restrict its use so that it doesn't harm people. GMO organisms have never been shown to cause cancer. Neither have cloned mammals.

"1. We know about 95% of what causes cancer.""

Most cancer is caused by genetics. Relatively few cases are caused by environmental exposure to carcinogens. Of those that are, the large majority are caused by cigarette smoke and radon.

"2. The corporations that produce carcinogenic products have influenced the rate at which we find out the dangers of the products we use. They don't want most consumers to be educated about the risk factors for cancer, because it would impact the bottom line of so many major industries."

They also don't want to give their patients cancer, because if they did they'd 1. lose customers, and 2. they'd get their asses sued. So that's why they test things before they release them, and withdraw them if they do show signs of carcinogenicity later.

"3. Until our health-related agencies only permit on their panels and boards scientists who are not morally compromised or on the payroll of gigantic offenders like Monstanto, DuPont, Dow, and so forth, we can not rely on them to determine what is a safe chemical."

In fact, health-related agencies like the FDA do go through efforts to remove bias.