Preventing cancer makes more sense than just treating it, so why don’t drug companies work on prevention?
What really causes cancer? Is the problem physiological, neurological, viral or psychological? Depending on whom you talk to or whose material you read, you may have differing opinions, yet we continue to fight the war on cancer.
The American cancer society has collected millions of dollars for “research”, yet they only produced screening mechanisms that of late have shown to be much less effective than we were told, showing they are mostly of dubious benefit.
The German New Medicine suggests that conflict shock is the reason cancer occurs, and the resulting proliferation of cells is a result of stress and a response of the Autonomic Nervous System. Read more here.
Sloan Kettering’s approach is to show how they are superior to some natural cancer cures by suggesting the current mainstream cancer cures are better than ever, when in fact, the same chemo approach has been in use for the last half century, has horrible side effects and has results that are over stated, since patients need constant monitoring because these cancers that are treated are never cured, but just beaten into submission in most cases. Read their info here.
The newest approaches are geared toward helping the body identify cancer and differentiating it from healthy tissue, so the body can use its natural immunity to cure the growth or disease process. These approaches are now being tested and are quite promising, but are not preventative.
Why, with all the money spent on research, have we not figured out the common element in cancer prevention. Is the New German Medicine correct? Are we looking at the disease process the wrong way, and treating the manifestation, rather than the reason it affects us. Is the money being used wastefully?
Apparently, drug companies are not looking at the cause or trying to prevent cancer either. Lets face it, private corporations will not try to cure their business model, unless there is something in it for them.
Recently, the NY Times offers a point of view on why preventing the disease is not a priority of drug companies. Agree or not, here is their point of view.
Why Preventing Cancer Is Not the Priority in Drug Development
Most people would agree that it would be better to prevent cancer, if we could, than to treat it once it developed. Yet economic incentives encourage researchers to focus on treatment rather than prevention.
The way the patent system interacts with the Food and Drug Administration”™s drug approval process skews what kinds of cancer clinical trials are run. There”™s more money to be made investing in drugs that will extend cancer patients”™ lives by a few months than in drugs that would prevent cancer in the first place.
That”™s one of the findings from the work of Heidi Williams, an M.I.T. economics professor and recent MacArthur Foundation “œgenius” grant winner, who studied the problem along with Eric Budish, a University of Chicago economics professor, and Ben Roin, assistant professor of technological innovation, entrepreneurship and strategic management at M.I.T.