Cancer research not a conspiracy to keep people sick
Q. Can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm just so fed up with columnists stating, "If this stuff worked, science would have been all over it by now." More and more people that I talk with regarding cancer of any kind have absolutely no faith in the medical community. Their thoughts are that there may, in fact, be cures for cancer; however, having a cure would put so many pharmaceuticals and medical practitioners out of work that cures for cancer, if they exist, will never be publicized or used. For example, look at the billions and billions of dollars raised through that famous muscular dystrophy telethon Jerry Lewis has hosted for what, 40 years or more? All that money, all that research, and what? Not one advancement in finding a cure? Come-on! Sorry for the need to vent, but your column just hit a raw spot. Thanks for listening.
M.G., via e-mail
A. Why does "science" take so long to come up with its cures? The frustration gives birth to a tendency to believe the worst about the medical/pharmaceutical communities. We tune in when the subject is conspiracies with the rich and powerful at the reins. This approach is all too easy to embrace by those who suffer. Is there a rational answer? There is a lot that can and does go wrong with the human body. We have made amazing progress along many fronts, despite the fact that sophisticated medical research has not been around for very long. We have only begun to understand how our 20,000 or so genes work and interact, and what turns them on or off or tweaks them in the right or wrong direction. Until we fully understand, we are, in essence, a collection of complicated chemical reactions and control mechanisms inside a box with no way of looking inside. Research moves forward one step at a time.
It takes enormous amounts of money, and there is not enough coming from federal funding. Our government has a moral responsibility to fund such research, but nobody wants to pay higher taxes to make it happen. Much gets done in corporate laboratories, but these are profit-making institutions that have to answer to their stockholders.
It is not an ideal situation, but there is no logic in jumping from this situation to one in which you embrace remedies with no testing or scientific foundation. All they have is a sales pitch preceded by a condemnation of the status quo. Most physicians and scientists are noble in their motivations. At least, most start out that way. It is wrong to think that someone with a handle on a cure would not follow through to find out whether it is valid. Every scientist I know would relish the chance to be on a team that helped end a dreaded disease.
I do thank you for venting. For my part, I promise to remain vigilant in my readings. I've been in the science field for 30 years. If I believed there was something out there that was being silenced inappropriately, I'd be screaming about it. I will always take issue with situations in which personal tragedy and frustration degenerate into a financial opportunity to push questionable remedies on desperate people.
• Ed Blonz, Ph.D., is a nutrition scientist and the author. Write him at "On Nutrition," Ed Blonz, c/o Newspaper Enterprise Association, 200 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016 or ed@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.