A Moving Documentary About Families and Cancer

Reader Comments
Back to blog

bt9fac

Ufepzubu of TN 8:25PM July 13, 2009

The fact is that now over half of cancer patients are indeed cured ..... by surgery. But the cure rate has changed disappointingly little over several decades, except where tumors are discovered earlier (as with colonoscopy). The oncology field overall clearly for some reason wants drug therapy; is it due to patient concerns with surgery, pharmaceutical industry and hospital concerns with "acquiring wealth", or naive politicians steering research dollars towards ill-conceived goals? But as this program appropriately points out, for most tumors drugs remain less than disappointing..... as well as enormously costly. There are inherent genome-based reasons for the limited efficacy, but the cancer field has immense inertia. And too many patients keep on dying.

A Doc in this game of NY 1:28PM April 17, 2008

i lost my young husband to this horrible disease - he was at the last stage of it - he went in for a stunt not knowing he had cancer - found out on a chest x-ray, your world is totally changed forever in a really hard way- but it ended up that however he wanted to handle it was his doing and not ours, because really he was so weak and taking kemo and couldn't handle food down his throat -- mostly, i tried to stay strong for him and my daughter so my 30 year old daughter could have a decent life after he died... it was pretty quick-- i just told hubby if you want to live you will, never letting him know how i really felt... witch was pretty lousy -- after he died, i took my daughter to get a 2 hour facial and lunch.... and that helped us get over the large hump -- was most painful time - of course when your face has a tight mask on it you can't cry... this was in china town.... daughter is now doing pretty well, talking about getting married and having a baby and must add doing well in business too.. im very proud of her and i think my husband smiles down at me -- puts me in a very comfortable place knowing in did right by her.... good luck to all who is going through this stage.. may your future be brighter--

june of PA 5:23AM April 17, 2008

Drug companies are all about the money. If they happen upon a blockbuster treatment for Cancer, all the better, but that is secondary. The only thing that has proven to have a significant effect is widespread protest as with HIV and Breast Cancer which have made tremendous strides relative to other terminal disease as a result. In this respect, advocacy groups are really little more than support groups for education and screening which are very important in and of themselves. Lack of activism from support groups, in my opinion, stems from the fact that much if not most of their funding comes from entities such as drug companies that benefit most from the status quo.
A classic example is Michael Milken's Prostate Cancer Foundation(PCF). A billionaire ex-felon convicted of securities fraud, he is barred for life from securities investing and is also a Prostate Cancer Survivor himself. But through his financial conglomerate he is heavily invested in both drug companies that specialize in cancer as well as his "advocacy" organization PCF. Both PCF and his financial conglomerate are run by the same individuals. You can look at Proquest Investments, one of his investment vehicles that invests primarily in cancer drug companies and see their board of directors is a who's who list of the same folks who run PCF and even some who work for the FDA regulating New Cancer Drugs. Dr Howard Scher comes to mind. His significant roles at Milken's Proquest Investments and the FDA regulating Prostate and Breast Cancer vaccines comes to mind.
Again, the point of this is that these very powerful individuals/companies drive cancer treatment development. In this example, if one of Milken's companies happens upon a breakthrough, great! But if it's some other small innovative go-it-alone company, they will literally try to destroy or at least delay as long as possible their competitor's breakthrough treatment(as in the case of Dr Howard Scher and Cancer vaccines). It really is and will be all about the money unless people get fed up.

DrChuck of WI 6:43PM April 16, 2008

Thank you very much for your comments.
I wrote this blog entry for U.S. News and wanted to respond to a few of your points:
You’re absolutely right to be frustrated that we still lack a cure for cancer. As is so poignantly outlined in the documentary, The Truth About Cancer, we all suffer for that fact. I really encourage you to watch tonight, as some of the research being done and some of the incredible challenges to discovering a cure are addressed. I recognize that may be of little comfort to those who’ve battled cancer or for the families who have struggled with them. I truly believe, however, that the personal stories of patients and families in this documentary offer inspiration where the science comes up short.
As for the need to develop more cancer vaccines, you may be happy to learn that this arena is not being ignored. Search “cancer vaccine” at clinicaltrials.gov and you’ll get hundreds of studies and their status (“recruiting,” “active but not recruiting,” “completed,” etc.). The National Cancer Institute also has an informative fact sheet on the topic: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/cancervaccine.
Also, you express frustration at the “same old talk-track that it [cancer] is 100 different diseases,” and mention Zheng Cui’s research, which suggests a genetic trait exists that makes certain mice resistant to cancer (see Wake Forest University’s page on Cui: http://www1.wfubmc.edu/tumorbio/faculty/cui.htm). While I agree that his work intriguing, I really think it’s premature to imply that “obvious” conclusions--especially those relative to human cancer prevention or treatment--can be drawn from these early findings made in mice. At the same time, I must acknowledge that many medical and scientific discoveries that impact humans do begin with mice… but it’s a great distance from mouse to human.
Finally, the short video clip embedded in the blog is from the panel discussion that follows the documentary and features Bernadine Healy, a cardiologist who survived brain cancer. The panel members were selected because all are both MDs and cancer survivors, and as such, have unique insight into the professional and personal aspects of the disease. Three other members are also on the panel--a breast cancer surgeon, a counseling psychologist and a leading expert in palliative care--though are not seen in the clip on our website.

Sarah Baldauf of DC 3:08PM April 16, 2008

I've watched two close family members die from lung cancer in the past 6 months. I'm wondering if all the money raised for research is really being used for that purpose. I'm 68 years old and I remember an aunt who died of cancer when I was a young child. She went through the same thing as these two of my relatives did! How can that be. Perhaps the pain was more under control but in the past 60 years is that all it's come down too? I've heard that drug companies make money from disease so really don't have a vested interest in curing people. After all the BIG money comes from selling the drugs and not from a person who is well. I hate to think that there's truth in this. Something the drug companies would vehemently deny I'm sure. But then, why isn't there more results from all this research.

Margaret Ryan of TX 3:02PM April 16, 2008

It was over fifty-five years ago when I visited my dying uncle laying in a hospital bed and he screaming from the pain of stomach cancer! He died a short time later. It is something I will never forget. So. where have we come in cancer treatment since then? I guess now we have the drug cocktails that help to prevent us from screaming but not the compounds we need to relieve us from this horrible plague on our civilization. With all the money that has been collected over these fifty years in the name of cancer research for a cure, we should have had a cure LONG before now! Well, we don't,...and it appears that this fight has long ago morphed into a burning money pit! Sure, we have new drugs for treatment, new machines for treatment, new procedures for treatment,...but no CURE for cancer.

Tony Bencivenga of CA 12:44PM April 16, 2008

Why is a cardiologist talking about cancer. Were the oncologists too busy?
Also, there is nothing mentioned about mind/body interactions either. These kind of programs still scrape the surfacy stuff that the body is a machine that breaks down, irrespective of stress, depression, etc. Also, same old talk-track that it is 100 different diseases...If this is true, then how are Zheng Cui's cancer resistant mice recognizing cancer cells and killing them? (look it up) Obviously the neutrophils are recognizing something common within each cancer.
I used to work in a hospital with lung cancer patients 30 years ago. When my never-smoking brother-in-law was diagnosed with lung cancer 16 mos ago, I was SHOCKED that the basic treatment had not changed at all. In 30 years it was still chemo and radiation. Tarceva and Avastin are not effective, the disease mutates around them very quickly if they are effective.
Why are the drug co's pursuing only things that are profitable and ignoring things that may work but won't make money like vaccines. Shameful.
We should not stand for this anymore. I am looking to join an advocacy group that ends the cozyness in the community and demands real advances be made. A fire needs to be lighted underneath the leaders in this community.

donemyhomework of KS 1:26AM April 16, 2008