Since President Nixon launched the 1971 cancer war, cancer incidence rates (adjusted for the aging population) have escalated to epidemic proportions. – Dr. Samuel S. Epstein
Cancer puts the individual’s life at stake while simultaneously disrupting entire families. Winning the war against cancer depends on careful planning and choice as it does in any war. For those who do not like wars its good to know that one can even win the war against cancer by smoking pot, with medical marijuana. It is effective ‘as part’ of treatment and pharmaceutical companies have already synthesized the active ingredient THC because they know in its natural form it is safe and effective and slows cancer growth.
When scientifically proven treatments are ignored by mainstream medicine because they are unpatentable and unprofitable, the medical consumer’s only choice is to endurebarbaric medical treatments that, if they don’t kill outright, leaves him with a lifetime of disability. – Maureen Kennedy Salaman President, National Health Federation
American culture is all about winning and losing. The second best team in football doesn’t get a parade. Businesses, including medical ones, market products to win the market, win the consumer. The language used in promotion of products and ideas is carefully chosen and reflects this winning mentality. It seems that unscrupulous businessmen believe they can sell anything. Pharmaceutical companies take this to the extreme selling barbaric medical treatments and get away with it.
The War on Cancer has been a human disaster since the beginning. Though medical scientists set out to find, treat, and cure the disease they conveniently forgot to address most of the things known to cause cancer, including tobacco, the workplace, and radiation from diagnostic tests, fluoride, pesticides, food additives, chlorinated water, air pollution and heavy metal toxicity. This has been no accident. The War on Cancer was run by leaders of industries that made cancer-causing products and by pharmaceutical companies who profited from drugs and technologies for finding and treating the disease.
Researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research have found that chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer in people 65 and older has a minimal impact on survival.
We have been fighting the wrong war, with the wrong weapons, against the wrong enemies for decades and the results are disgusting. Our loved ones are dying all around us and we wonder if we are next.
There is a great divide when it comes to cancer treatments. On the left is the orthodox oncology establishment, which treats the cancer even if it kills the patient. On the right are many alternative approaches some of which also treat the cancer but some treat the patient instead of the cancer with the expectation that increased strength in the immune system will trigger the bodies own internal cancer killing mechanisms.
 Rebecca M. Woodward, PhD, a former research associate at Harvard University, used US government data to calculate the life expectancy of patients after they received a diagnosis of lung cancer. She and her colleagues combined survival data with information from the government’s Continuous Medicare History Sample File to calculate lifetime treatment costs. Over the 15 year period between 1983 and 1997, the life expectancy for older NSCLC patients improved by an average of 0.6 months, or just 18 days. But the cost of treating such patients skyrocketed by $20,157 per patient. Medical economists judge the cost-effectiveness of a treatment by the standard yardstick of how much money it would take to increase survival by one year. The cost of treating lung cancer in this patient population comes to $403,142 per life-year.