There is no doubt that the struggle against cancer is the greatest challenge that medical science has ever faced. There is no other disease to which more money is devoted, or to which scientists dedicate more hours of study. Since the twenties, vast resources have been invested in the search for a cure, and since that time we have been hearing reports of valuable discoveries. In 1955, NCI established the Chemotherapy National Service Center (CNSC) appropriating 25 million dollars to "promote" this anti-cancer treatment since "it was demonstrated" that chemotherapy had "proved to be an effective treatment for cancer patients, not only in the United States, but around the world." Why, if it is so effective, is so much money needed to promote it? Two years later Lawrence Rockerfeller encouraged us with a report stating the progress in oncological research, declaring in Reader's Digest (1957) that "there is for the first time the smell of victory in the air." An article filling an entire page in the New York Times (1969) stated that "a cancer cure is at hand," predicting the arrival of a definitive treatment by 1976.

In December of 1971, president Richard M. Nixon, in response to the call of Elmer Bobst of the American Cancer Society (ACS), signed the National Cancer Act. So, the government of the United States, along with the ACS, officially declared "war on cancer." Dr. De Vita, director of the NCI, promised a victory and the reduction of the death rate for cancer in half in a decade, if sufficient funds were given. Five years later, in the annual assembly where the directors of the president's national cancer panel give their progress report to the president of the United States, no positive results could be given. No progress had been made. In 1980, the NCI felt obliged to report that very little ground had been gained, and its members were fearful of a loss of prestige.

Curiously, in 1983 the NCI reported to the media that significant progress had been made in the war against cancer. "In the past 20 years, critical care medicine has emerged as a specialty in its own right, paralleling improving trends in cancer treatment. Cancer surgery has become less radical, radiotherapy more precise and less toxic because the normal treatment volume has become smaller, and chemotherapy less empirical, more effective and less toxic. More cancer patients are alive and well as a result." said Dr. De Vita.

The comments of Dr. De Vita can't fail to surprise us because they contain several debatable statements. In the first place, the advances in trauma medicine have been miraculous, impressively diminishing death rates in accident victims and those with surgical emergencies. Yet, the death rate of patients with cancer has never stopped rising. It is true that surgery and radiation have moderated, not because medical doctors are convinced that they are more effective, but because they have been disillusioned by the pessimistic results and toxicity of radical treatment. Even more curious is the comment that chemotherapy has become less empirical. Dr. De Vita accepts the fact that chemotherapy was lacking scientific foundation. His statement would not be so surprising were it not for the fact that the most severe criticism directed against the "empirism" of alternative therapies. The final statement is a flagrant lie. The results have not been good. In 1972 about 330, 000 patients died of cancer in the US, according to De Vita's promise, by 1982 the number should have dropped to 165, 000. In spite of an overabundance of funds, the rate surpassed the 400, 000 mark.

In May of 1986, Dr. John C. Bailar III of Harvard University and Elaine Smith of the University of Iowa published in the New England Journal of Medicine an "atomic bomb" against orthodox oncology. They concluded that the advances left much to be desired in view of the fact that the most common forms of cancer remained uncontrollable. They insisted that the scientific world reconsider the present guiding principles of cancer research, along with their application. In comparison to cardiovascular diseases, where a downward trend in the death rate is evident, the death rate of cancer patients continues to rise. Dr. Bailar III and his team concluded that they "were losing the war against cancer," and that "substantial progress in the understanding of the nature and attributes of cancer" had not led to "a reduction of the incidents of mortality." Therefore, they asserted that "the most promising areas of cancer research are those of prevention rather than treatment."

In spite of the prestige of these authors, their respective universities, and the strength of their argument, their wise recommendations went in one ear and out the other as far as the scientific community was concerned. Twenty billion dollars and 25 years after Nixon's initiative, the outlook for the effective treatment of cancer is discouraging. 1996 saw the highest figures in cancer history, both in incidence and death. Tom Beardsley from Scientific American, zooms into the problem: "The obviously illusory comments of the NCI have only increased the impatience of the critics." In 1984, under Dr. De Vita, the NCI theatrically announced the "reachable" goal of reducing the death rate by 50 percent in 20 years (1980-2000). In other words, they asserted that by the beginning of the 21st century only 245,000 people annually would die from cancer. Compare this prediction with reality. In 1985, over 485,000 people died from cancer. In 1995, the ACS predicted 525 000 deaths, but some statisticians concluded the actual number was close to 700,000 people that died from malignancies. Could it be that their poor nutritional habits have affected their mathematical skills?

A depressing picture of "approved" treatments against cancer (surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy) is revealed in an evaluation made by the ACS. In their annual publication of Cancer Facts and Figures for 1996, they show virtually no improvement among the most frequently appearing tumors in the last 60 years, with the exception of cancer of the stomach and cervix.

The improvements in the death rates of people suffering from these two malignancies is an enigma; the failure of treatments isn't. In the case of stomach cancer it is conjectured that the improvements are due to better hygiene, healthier foods, and the advent of endoscopy, which detects gastric diseases in the early stages. However, treatments for this type of cancer are a complete failure and have not contributed to the improvement in the mortality rate.

Neither is the treatment approved for cervical-uterine cancer responsible for the improvement in the death rate. In fact, the downward slope in the graph indicates that improvement began a long time before modern scientific advances, like radiation therapy, were introduced. The improvement is due to a simple invention in 1928 by Dr. Papanicolau, who created the test which detects cervical cancer. As hard as it may be to believe, the FDA wouldn't approve this test until 1940. Imagine how many women died needlessly because of this terminal delay. Yet, no one claimed responsibility for this negligence.

In all the other malignancies graphed, statistical records indicate that the "enormous scientific advances" have not helped patients survive. On the contrary, where the malignancies are treated with aggressive remedies, the death rates are incredibly high. Even if the patients survive, the quality of life they endure afterwards is impaired, often permanently. The death rate of people suffering from pulmonary cancer has literally exploded. This is due to the fact that many women began smoking cigarettes in the 1960's as a result of the women's liberation movement, why woman decided to lower their standards and act like men is a mystery to me. Now, lung cancer is the number one killer in women, the same as in men! I'm sure this was not the equality they were searching for. Women for reasons unknown, seem more susceptible to cigarette smoke and consequently more susceptible to lung cancer than men.