|
LE Magazine February 2003
The Hidden
Cancer Epidemic
Why anti-cancer drugs so often fail
Cancer cells survive conventional therapies because they
are able to quickly adapt to toxic environments, readily alter
themselves to assure their continued survival and utilize
complex biologic mechanisms to promote cellular immortality.
All of these factors make cancer an extremely difficult
disease to treat.
Chemotherapy drugs have a high rate of failure because they
usually kill only specific types of cancer cells within a
tumor, or the cancer cells mutate and become resistant to the
chemotherapy.
|
This coming December, it will
be 32 years since the War on Cancer was declared. It was
back in 1971 that President Richard Nixon signed
bipartisan legislation into law after the U.S. Congress
overwhelmingly passed it. Since then, approximately $2
trillion has been spent on conventional cancer treatment
and research. One would think that, after almost a third
of a century and such an astronomical investment, it
would be easy to determine if significant progress has
been made in combating the nation's number two cause of
death. This has not been the case.
Cancer statistics have turned
into an obscure and politicized arena. Over the decades,
the government and the private sector have worked
closely to put a positive face on cancer survival rates.
The latest statistics, however, show more Americans
dying from common cancers than ever before. For the past
23 years, The Life Extension Foundation has been a
virtual lone voice in challenging the party line and
warning of the growing cancer epidemic.
Today's enormous cancer
"establishment" includes federal agencies, private
charities, academia and drug companies, all who have an
interest in pretending that progress is being made. The
grim realities paint an opposite picture and mandate
that individuals take aggressive steps to personally
reduce their risk of contracting cancer.
|
|
Pharmaceutical companies are investing billions of dollars
to develop drugs that are proven to interfere with cancer cell
growth. Unfortunately, these drugs have failed to extend
survival in late-stage cancer patients. In some of these
clinical studies, tumor shrinkage is observed, but the
patients still die. Experts remain convinced that these drugs
will eventually play a role in the treatment of cancer, but
the unacceptable fact is that they are failing cancer patients
today.
One reason these drugs are not working is that they usually
only suppress one growth factor. Scientists now know of more
than 20 growth factors used by tumors. Late stage breast
cancer cells, for example, may express as many as six
different growth factors that induce angiogenesis. Cancer
cells emit these growth factors to draw new blood vessels into
tumors (angiogenesis) and/or to over-express cell receptors
sites that bind to normally occurring growth factors in the
body (such as the epidermal growth factor used for skin
maintenance).
The FDA has restricted human studies of promising new drugs
to late-stage patients, whose cancer cells have mutated and
become highly resistant. The FDA also mandates that new cancer
drugs be tested on patients who have failed all other "proven"
therapies. The problem is that when cancer cells are exposed
to "proven" therapies such as chemotherapy or radiation, the
cells that survive have mutated to a form that becomes
virtually invulnerable to any other therapy. If promising
anti-cancer drugs were tested earlier in the disease process,
some doctors believe they would work better.
We know that cancer cells mutate each time they are exposed
to a new therapy. By testing promising cancer drugs only on
patients who have failed previous therapy, a tremendous burden
of efficacy is being placed on these new compounds, i.e.,
these drugs are expected to kill cancer cells in their most
aggressive stages.
Some experts think that successful treatment of cancer may
ultimately depend on the use of a multi-drug cocktail, one
that would block all known growth factors used by cancer
cells. That would parallel the success in treating AIDS, where
several anti-viral drugs that work by different mechanisms are
combined into cocktails that have turned the condition into a
manageable disease for some people.
Based on current knowledge, it would appear logical to
simultaneously test a wide range of cell growth inhibitors on
early stage cancer patients. Such testing might be considered
at the time that other cytotoxic therapies are administered,
or shortly thereafter.
Regrettably, the FDA does not permit the type of
multi-modality approaches that could lead to the development
of effective cancer drug "cocktails." What that means is that
if you are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and given six
months to live, you do not have the option of trying an
aggressive multi-drug approach.
The FDA says it is "protecting" cancer patients by banning
access to anything that is "unproven," even though for many
cancers, the so-called "proven" therapies are absolutely
"proven" to fail.
Cancer research falls behind other
technologies
Most people join The Life Extension Foundation in
reasonably good health and expect us to keep them that way.
There are others, however, who have reached advanced stages of
cancer and are desperately seeking some glimmer of hope.
Regrettably, there is little we can do for people whose cancer
cells have become resistant to virtually any conceivable
therapy.
What has begun to happen, however, is that some of these
cancer patients are hooking up laptop computers in their
hospital rooms and sending us e-mails reporting about their
deteriorating condition and asking our opinion about
experimental therapies they have just found on the Internet.
They also provide us with cell phone and fax numbers in case
we cannot get through to them via the hospital system. These
terminally ill individuals may only have weeks or days to
live; yet they are communicating as if they are working out of
an office.
What is so surreal about all of this is that in 1971,
President Richard Nixon declared "war on cancer" and committed
enormous resources to find a cure for the disease. Back in
1971, there was not even a conception of laptop computers,
email, Internet searches or cell phones and certainly no
decree by the government to develop this technology. Yet
somehow in the unregulated marketplace, these technological
miracles emerged and became affordable to just about
everyone.
Now here were are in the year 2003, and advanced cancer
patients have no better chance of recovery than they would
have back in 1971,5-7, 19 despite
untold billions of tax dollars squandered. It costs a lot more
for cancer treatment in 2003 compared to 1971, but these
higher prices buy no substantive improvement in survival
rate.
Could it be that the current over-regulated healthcare
system is horribly flawed? The answer is obvious. In the
unregulated free marketplace, exponential advances in computer
and communication technologies provide the consumer with
superior product at much lower prices.
On the flip side, today's corrupt, inefficient and
quasi-socialistic system of government-controlled research and
healthcare regulation results in prices that increase faster
than any other sector of the economy. Research funded by the
government, non-profit groups and drug companies has not
resulted in improved survival rates against most cancers, but
the cost of obtaining these ineffective therapies has
skyrocketed.
High prices combined with poor quality are characteristic
of the inefficient socialistic systems that cause many
countries to remain in perpetual states of economic distress.
When it comes to cancer treatment in the United States,
consumer healthcare costs are staggeringly high and government
budgets to support cancer research are bloated. Yet during
this 32-year "war on cancer," virtually no progress has been
made in curing the disease. The government in essence, has
spent a lot of research monies, and issued hundreds of
thousands of pages of regulations, to accomplish nothing.
Prices have plummeted for personal computers, Internet
access, cell phones, fax machines, etc. while the quality
vastly improves. Doesn't it make sense to remove the
regulatory barriers that have stifled the introduction of
novel cancer therapies? This would enable the full creativity
of the free market to be unleashed to develop novel solutions
that are egregiously overlooked by those in the cancer
establishment?
The Life Extension Foundation is on the verge of publishing
a myriad of new cancer treatment protocols that will uncover
the huge number of currently available cancer therapies that
are overlooked by practicing oncologists. Not to raise any
false hopes, these new protocols are designed primarily for
early-stage cancers, and not those that have already failed
multiple conventional approaches.
Oncologists fail to prescribe the best
drugs
Billions of dollars are spent on cancer research every
year, yet even when a breakthrough discovery is made, it is
seldom incorporated into clinical oncology practice.
An example of this neglect can be seen in a year 2002 study
showing that a drug called cimetidine dramatically improved
10-year survival rates in those with an aggressive form of
colon cancer. We dedicated the July 2002 issue of Life
Extension magazine to informing colon cancer patients exactly
how they could duplicate this landmark study. Despite the
proven anti-cancer benefits of cimetidine, virtually no
oncologists are recommending it.
Few people understand how physicians can overlook such
obvious findings. The Life Extension Foundation recently
learned first hand how the oncology business operates.
Conventional oncologists are so overburdened with patients,
that they lack the time to provide the type of comprehensive
individualized treatment that is required to effectively treat
a disease as aggressive as cancer.
Physician apathy is partially to blame for the stagnation
that exists in cancer treatment, but a large problem also lays
with managed health care, where oncologists are sometimes
forced to see 40 patients a day. We've spoken with oncologists
who complain of working from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm every
workday. These oncologists candidly admit that they do not
have the time to spend with each patient to incorporate the
many novel treatment approaches developed by The Life
Extension Foundation.
Another area where the socialistic nature of health care
rears its ugly head is in the area of compensation.
Oncologists do not have an economic incentive to cure cancer
patients. If they spend the extra time to heroically treat a
patient with more effective multi-modality therapies, they
lose money because they see fewer patients that day.
Today's flawed system places cancer patients on an assembly
line. What is especially appalling is that large cancer
centers are taking advantage of this managed care system by
offering oncologists chemotherapy "bonuses," since this is
what insurance companies unquestionably reimburse for.
Insurance companies balk at paying for life-saving drugs like
Procrit to treat anemia, even though mortality rates are 65%
higher in cancer patients who are anemic.
There are many existing drugs denied to cancer patients that
cause them to needlessly die. The Life Extension Foundation
will have revised cancer treatment protocols available soon so
that the early-stage cancer patient can take full advantage of
the wealth of life-saving information that is being ignored by
the cancer establishment.
Promising cancer drugs are suppressed
Scientists have identified many ways of controlling cancer
cell propagation, but little of this new technology is being
used in the clinical practice of medicine. When a scientific
discovery is made, drug companies spend years seeking a patent
and then more years carrying it through the bureaucratic
approval process. Drug companies are only interested in
patented molecules that can reap huge profits. Potentially
effective drugs that can't be patented are ignored
altogether.
When clinical trials finally begin, the FDA mandates that a
low potency of the promising drug be used only on advanced
cancer patients who have already failed conventional therapy.
These obstacles virtually guarantee that the promising drug
will fail.
Record-breaking numbers of cancer patients are dying
needlessly because of this antiquated regulatory system that
causes potential therapies to be delayed and suppressed
altogether.
Tearing down today's cancer
bureaucracy
The institutions that we have counted on to find a cure
(National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, drug
companies, etc.) have failed. This is not an allegation, but
an admission made by the National Cancer Institute itself.
The system needs to be changed if we are to make a
realistic attempt to save the 1500 American cancer patients
who perish each day.
Life Extension's long-standing proposal has been to change
the law so that anyone can "opt-out" of the FDA's so-called
umbrella of "protection." This approach would enable companies
to sell novel products with a label clearly stating that they
were "Not Approved By The FDA."
Consumers who trusted the government could stay with
FDA-approved drugs only, while those willing to take a risk
would be allowed to try whatever they choose. Companies that
made fraudulent claims for products could be prosecuted under
the laws that exist today.
This free market initiative would result in a renaissance
in the practice of medicine, analogous to the
computer/communications technology revolution that has
occurred over the past two decades. In this liberated
environment, many inexpensive cures would be found for lethal
diseases. Greater competition would help eliminate today's
health care cost crisis. Under this free-choice system, when
you hear about a medical breakthrough on the news, you would
not have to wait years before the therapy might become
available.
Today's over-regulated system results in terminally ill
people learning about scientific discoveries that could cure
their disease, but are quickly advised that the therapy is
years away from FDA approval. Terminally ill people should be
able to make up their own minds about what drugs they are
willing to try.
Millions of cancer patients today face probable death in the
near future. If you add up family members and friends, there
are tens of millions of Americans who should be outraged by an
outdated regulatory system that blocks access to potentially
life-saving therapies.
The first step to changing today's outmoded system is to
organize those who understand the magnitude of this problem
into a group that will make an impact on Congressional
leaders. The reason the FDA can continue to suppress
innovative therapies is that cancer patients have failed to
coordinate their efforts for the purpose of abolishing the
FDA's arbitrary authority.
The Life Extension Foundation is determined to break
through the bureaucratic quagmire that is denying cancer
patients the best that science has to offer. We are on the
verge of publishing over 500 pages of updated protocols that
expose in step-by-step detail, what oncologists are not doing
to save the lives of their patients. These protocols will
uncover therapies that have demonstrated efficacy in published
scientific studies, but are overlooked by most practicing
oncologists.
By exposing the inadequacies about how cancer patients are
treated in meticulous detail, we will force the establishment
to face the irrefutable fact that cancer patients are being
grossly neglected. The primary purpose of these cancer
protocols, however, is to enable Life Extension members to
access the most scientifically comprehensive cancer therapies
that science has to offer.
What year 2003 has to offer
In recent years, The Life Extension Foundation has
committed enormous resources to discovering scientific methods
of slowing aging, reversing degenerative disease and extending
the healthy human life span. This research has been
painstakingly slow, but we expect to announce more original
findings in year 2003 than any previous period in our 23-year
history.
Life Extension funds research at its own laboratories and
via grants to Universities throughout the United States. The
only financial support we receive is through annual membership
dues and supplement purchases.
Foundation members have been incredibly supportive of our
efforts to stave off disease and aging. Every time a member
purchases a product from us, they directly support unique
research programs aimed at dramatically extending the human
life span.
To find out more about The Life Extension Foundation, click
here.
For longer life,
William Faloon
Note: Those who want to participate in
future political campaigns to reform today's inadequate system
of cancer research and clinical care can register their names
and addresses at the website www.cancervictor.org.
If you don't have a computer, send your name and address to
Cancer Patient Advocates, PO Box 1067 Hollywood, FL 33022.
References
1. Clegg, LX et al. Impact of reporting
delay and reporting error on cancer incidence rates and
trends. JNCI 2002, October 16, 94(20): 1537-45.
2. Sharon Begley. New statistics show
increase in cancer rates, cancer rates go up, not down. Wall
Street Journal, October 16, 2002, B1.
3. Comparison of four chemotherapy
regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, & Lung
Cancer-Time To Move On From Chemotherapy (editorial).
N.E.J.M., 2002 Jan. 10, 346(2): 92-8, 126.
4. Welch, H.G., Schwartz, L.M., Woloshin,
S. Are increasing five-year survival rates evidence of success
against cancer? JAMA June 14, 2000, 283(22): 2975-78.
5. Epstein, Samuel. After 12 years,
cancer is winning. Los Angelos Times, Monday, November 30,
1992.
6. Chowka, Peter Barry. Why The 'War on
Cancer' Isn't Working, Whole Life Times, March 1984.
7. Billions for 'War on Cancer' Brings
Scant Results, Spotlight, April 25, 1994.
8. Glenn, T.F. Esophageal cancer. Facts, figures and
screening. Gastroenterol Nurs., 2001 Nov-Dec, 24(6):
271-3.
9. Bytzer P., et al. Adenocarcinoma of
the esophagus and Barrett's esophagus: a population-based
study. Am. J Gastroenterol 1999 Jan, 94(1): 86-91.
10. Gerson L.B. Triadafilopoulos, G.
Screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma. An evidence-based
approach. Am J Med, 2002 Oct 15, 113(6): 499-505.
11. Bollschweder E., et al. Vitamin
intake and risk of subtypes of esophageal cancer in germany. J
Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 2002 Oct 128(10): 575-80.
12. Chen H., et al. Nutrient intakes and
adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and distal stomach. Nutr
Cancer 2002 42(1): 33-40.
13. Thompson, L., Schild, D.
Recombinational DNA repair and human disease. Mutation Res
2002, 509: 49-78.
14. Haber D. Roads Leading to Breast
Cancer. N.E.J.M. 2002, Nov. 23, 343(21): 1566-8.
15. Perera F, Weinstein I B. Molecular
epidemiology: recent advances and future directions.
Carcinogenesis 2000 21(3): 517-24.
16. Malins D., et al. Antioxidant-induced
changes in oxidized DNA. PNAS 2002 April 30, 99(9):
5937-41.
17. Dixon B, et al. Let the pyramid guide
your food choices: capturing the total diet concept. J of
Nutrition 2001, 131: 461S-472S.
18. Davis C, et al. Past, present and
future of the food guide pyramid. J Am Dietetic Assn 2001,
101(8): 881-5.
19. Bailar JCIII, Smith EM. Progress
against Cancer? N.E.J.M. 1986 314: 1226-32.
Back to
the Magazine Forum
|