Is Cancer Research Being True to the Legacy of Terry Fox?
by Rick Hendershot, Beat
Prostate Cancer Blog
For the last couple of years at this time of the year (mid
September) I've managed to get into at least one very emotional
argument about the objectives and success rate -- or
lack-of-success rate -- of cancer research.
The reason is that this weekend marks the end of Terry Fox's
"Marathon of Hope" that took place in 1980. Terry was the young
Canadian who after having his leg amputated because of cancer
decided he would run across Canada to raise money for cancer
research.
After 142 days of running 26 miles a day (a marathon a day), and
after 3339 miles, Terry had to end his run near the city of
Thunder Bay, Ontario on September 1, 1980. His cancer had
returned, and this time it was in his lungs.
Several months later while still just 22 years old Terry
succumbed to cancer.
His initial objective had been to raise roughly 25 millions
dollars. That goal was actually met before he died, due to
donations and pledges made during his run and during a telethon
held shortly after he was forced to quit.
In that short spring and summer of 1980 Terry had become one of
Canada's most important and inspirational heroes, and the legacy
of the "Marathon of Hope" has lived on for more than 25 years.
The annual "Terry Fox Run" continues to be held annually across
Canada, the US, and other countries around the world. According
to Wikepedia, the Terry Fox Run has now raised more than $400 million
for cancer research.
Are we further ahead after $400 million?
For Canadians Terry Fox is the ultimate hero, and this makes it
sacreligious to even suggest that all is not well with the
Marathon of Hope and the "cancer research" that it fuels.
Nevertheless I think Terry himself would be surprised that we
are not further along the road to a "cure for cancer" after
raising and devoting such an amazingly large amount of money to
that cause.
Indeed, I think we have good reason to suspect that the cancer
research industry may have become a cushy gravy train for a few
thousand fund raisers and researchers. Worst case scenario it
may be little more than an arm of the pharmaceutical and
chemical industries. (For an interesting article that gives some
details about the agenda of the America Cancer Society, go to American Cancer Society: The World's Wealthiest "Nonprofit"
Institution.
At the very minimum it seems to me a perfectly legitimate
question to ask "How much 'cure' has this $400 million bought
us?"
I don't know. But I suspect it is not a lot. I may be hopelessly
behind the times, but it seems to me that most of the "cures"
being practised these days are pretty much like the ones that
were being used back in 1980 -- surgery, chemo, radiation.
Of course we are told that cure rates have substantially
improved. But these statistics are easily manipulated, and
advocates of continuing the current research regime have such a
vested interest in pointing to their success that their claims
have to be met with at least mild scepticism.
One source that confirms this scepticism is this quote from a
1998 article called "
Cancer Research -- a Super Fraud?"
"My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme
must be judged a qualified failure" Dr. John Bailer, who spent
20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and
was editor of its journal. (3) Dr. Bailer also says: "The five
year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very
misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and,
because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the
disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole
cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure.
More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before . . .
More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in
statistics and reported as being 'cured'. When government
officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the
war against cancer they are using those survival rates
improperly."
I'm sorry if this all sounds disrespectful to the memory of
Terry Fox. But I wonder if a 22 year old trying to run 5,000
miles across Canada with one leg would be happy to learn that
his legacy was being used to do little more than enrich
corporations and researchers?
Would Terry be happy to see that some cancer society branches in
the US devote only about 10% of the funds they raise to the
actual delivery of cancer services? Would he be pleased to learn
that the efforts of researchers and fund raisers might actually
be standing in the way of real progress in the fight against
cancer?
Personally I think he would be pretty pissed.