Why the "Slash-Poison-Burn" Approach to Cancer Has Failed

[BeckyDem]

By
Amy Goodman &
Nermeen Shaikh,
Democracy Now!

Published
December 23, 2019

Slash, poison, burn. That’s what a leading cancer doctor calls the protocol of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. We spend $150 billion each year treating cancer, yet a patient with cancer is as likely to die of it today — with a few exceptions — as one was 50 years ago. Today we spend the hour with renowned cancer doctor, Dr. Azra Raza, author of the new book, The First Cell: And the Human Costs of Pursuing Cancer to the Last. She argues that experiments and the funding for eradicating cancer look at the disease when it is in its later stages, when the cancer has grown and spread. Instead, she says, the focus should be on the very first stages — the first cell, as her book is titled. She says this type of treatment would be more effective, cheaper and less toxic.
TRANSCRIPT

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Why has there been so little progress in the war on cancer? According to the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, quote, “Americans are living longer, healthier lives. Life expectancy for a baby born in the U.S. has risen from 47 years in 1900 to more than 78 years today. Among the advances that have helped to make this possible are a 70% decline in the U.S. death rate from cardiovascular disease over the past 50 years, and a drop of more than 1% annually in the cancer death rate over the past couple of decades.” A drop of just over 1%? For the trillions of dollars that have been poured into cancer research, just over 1%? Today, we spend the hour with a renowned oncologist who says we should be treating the disease differently.

AMY GOODMAN: In her new book, The First Cell: And the Human Costs of Pursuing Cancer to the Last, our guest for the hour, Dr. Azra Raza, notes we spend $150 billion each year treating cancer, yet a patient with cancer is as likely to die of it today — with a few exceptions — as one was 50 years ago. She argues experiments and the funding for eradicating cancer look at the disease when it’s in its later stages, when the cancer has grown and spread. Instead, she says, the focus should be on the very first stages, the first cell, as her book is titled. She says this type of treatment would be more effective, cheaper and less toxic.
Stay in the loop


NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr. Raza criticizes what she calls the, quote, “protocol of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation” — the slash-poison-burn approach to treating cancer, which she says has remained largely unchanged for decades. She calls for a transformation in the orientation of cancer research, writing, quote, “Little has happened in the past fifty years, and little will happen in another fifty if we insist on the same old, same old. The only way to deal with the cancer problem … is to shift our focus away from exclusively developing treatments for end-stage disease and concentrate on diagnosing cancer at its inception and developing the science to prevent its further expansion. From chasing after the last cell to identifying the footprints of the first,” Dr. Raza writes.



https://truthout.org/video/why-the-slash-poison-burn-approach-to-cancer-has-failed/

[Ohiogal]

1. As a cancer survivor

and a recipient of the surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation protocol -- I have a few thoughts on this subject.

I went through all this 12 years ago, when I was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer. A routine mammogram caught it. I'd had 10 normal mammograms in 10 years, and then the 11th one -- boom. I had no symptoms nor felt anything amiss.

I absolutely agree that early screenings save lives. But first and foremost, we need to make sure EVERYONE HAS INSURANCE. I will even go out on a limb and say, if we're serious about eradicating cancer, everyone in this country should be able to get free screenings for the most common cancers. Believe me, I have gone though times when I had no insurance at all. Does anyone realize that a mammogram costs $400 if you don't have insurance? What low income person can afford that? And colonoscopies can cost several thousand dollars. Many people go bankrupt from cancer treatment even when they have insurance!

They are still giving out the same drugs for breast cancer today as they were 30 years ago, because I have met many ladies in my journey who have told me so. You still get the awful side effects, which most often are completely incapacitating if you have a job or take care of a family. I met ladies who lost their jobs because of having cancer and I have also met ladies whose husbands up and left them when they got cancer. I don't know how in the world anyone who lives alone deals with this.

It's the screenings mostly that have improved the survival rate for cancer patients. My biggest belief is that we are all exposed to way too many environmental carcinogens..... BPA in cans, hormones in our meat, pesticides on our produce, carcinogens in our air and drinking water -- and the current administration seems to think those things are much less important than deregulating big business so they can make a buck. I have wondered for a long time, why we don't concentrate more on the prevention aspect (not that treatments for end stages isn't important). Insurance for everyone, education, low cost screenings, and more regulation on environmental impact, makes more sense to me.

[BeckyDem]

2. +1

All the best to you!

[Ohiogal]

4. Thank you

[eShirl]

3. worked for me

I had nasty one, inflammatory breast cancer, and it was stage 4 when first detected. I had chemo, mastectomy and radiation, and I've been in remission now for a little over 4 years.

[Ohiogal]

5. That's awesome

Wishing you continued good health!

[lark]

6. I recommend this x1000

As a cancer survivor 3x over, I totally get how important it is to diagnose & get treatment - fast. I sought diagnosis soon as I thought I might have an issue and 3x found very early stage cancers. Surgery followed swiftly each time. It's now been 15 years since I had any cancer, but am still going to call my dermatologist Monday (they're off until then) and make an appt. I have another mole that looks a little off so getting it looked at by the professional. Don't take chances - act fast..

[mpreorder]

7. Cancer immunotherapy is gaining traction.

Surprisingly, it was in the early 20th century (yup, you read that right, about 100 years ago) that it was first discovered. But...you guessed it....big Pharma took over.
This approach basically trains uses your own immune system to recognize and attack cancer cells. Approaches include vaccines, immune checkpoint inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, adoptive cell transfer, and a cytokine approach. Many of these are approved for use with "standard" chemotherapy.

What I'm most excited about is the vaccine approach. Some cancers express specific antigens not found on typical cells. Others express an overabundance of antigens that are found on usual cells. Imagine getting prostate cancer (vaccine in trials now) and going to your doctor and getting just a few shots (or infusions as the case may be) and boom...cancer gone. We're a ways away from all that, and I probably won't see it in my lifetime, but my kids certainly will.

[Delphinus]

14. That is

quite interesting - thank you for sharing.

And belated welcome to DU!

[Igel]

29. The idea's surfaced a lot of times.

I was excited back in the '70s (early '80s?) when it surfaced then.

Except that they tried it. It was very expensive, and after all the trials proved pointless. Just as it did the previous times.

It's the technology that's at issue. New tech, new options.

Vaccines work for some cancers, but one of the big insights that should have been obvious is that there isn't any disease called "cancer," any more than there is a beverage called "alcohol." They're all different and require different approaches.

Some cancers are clearly distinct. Some are *caused* by viruses. Others are going to be tougher to crack.

(As for one of the things she says--we haven't improved the death rate, you get cancer you die of cancer. While generally true, it's also false the way it was presented. You can have cancer and die of stroke or heart attack or car crash, and that happens at a non-zero rate. But the generalization can is true for modern medicine overall. There's still a 100% death rate, after all. You may live 20 years longer, but hey--what's the point, you're going to die! There's a lot of truth suppressed by that omission.)

[sinkingfeeling]

8. As an eleven year, Stage IV tonsil cancer survivor, I call

bulls**t on the statement that the survival rates haven't gone down in 50 years. There have been tons of advances in diagnosis and treatment in 50 years. The newest radiation equipment pinpoints the cancer and saves surrounding tissue. Advances in autoimmune therapy are stunning.

https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2019.html

Facts & Figures 2019: US Cancer Death Rate has Dropped 27% in 25 Years

From Wikipedia

In the United States there has been an increase in the 5-year relative survival rate between people diagnosed with cancer in 1975-1977 (48.9%) and people diagnosed with cancer in 2007-2013 (69.2%); these figures coincide with a 20% decrease in cancer mortality from 1950 to 2014.[8]

[Ferrets are Cool]

16. That was my first thought too.

When I was coming up, (50 years ago) it was pretty much a death sentence to "get" cancer. Now, there are more survivors than ever before. My wife will be one of those next year. She is fighting Stage 4 lymphoma right this moment. She has been undergoing chemo treatments for almost 3 months now and hasn't been sick once. She just gets a bit tired. It has already eradicated most of the cancer from her body. I do not like this article.

[mucifer]

51. Pediatric cancer went from a 20% survival and is now 80% survival

There are amazing strides in pediatric cancer in the past few decades.

[still_one]

31. Thank you.

[sl8]

48. Dr. Rasa says there's been 26% decline in mortality, which seems pretty close to the 27% you found

DR. AZRA RAZA: [...]In the last three decades, we have seen a 26% decline in cancer mortality, which is about 1% a year, as you pointed out.In the last three decades, we have seen a 26% decline in cancer mortality, which is about 1% a year, as you pointed out.[...]

I didn't find the first couple of paragraphs, by the interviewers, particularly helpful.

[dawg day]

9. 1% annually?

I'm confused by this:
a drop of more than 1% annually in the cancer death rate over the past couple of decades.” A drop of just over 1%? For the trillions of dollars that have been poured into cancer research, just over 1%?

1% annually over a couple decades is 20 times more than "just over 1%". Am I reading that wrong?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. It's very badly written and hard to know what is meant. I had your question too. . . . nt

[defacto7]

21. Agree but I don't think it's written.

It's a transcript of an interview and many times those are badly spoken on the cuff. I try not to take interviws as seriously for that reason.

[sl8]

47. According to Dr. Raza, it's approximately a 26% decline in the last three decades.

DR. AZRA RAZA: [...]In the last three decades, we have seen a 26% decline in cancer mortality, which is about 1% a year, as you pointed out.In the last three decades, we have seen a 26% decline in cancer mortality, which is about 1% a year, as you pointed out.[...]

[Richard D]

10. Everyone should listen to this interview

Dr. Shaikh has a viewpoint of cancer that she earned in the trenches.

[obamanut2012]

28. It is BS woo

[Richard D]

30. What part of it is "BS woo"

Curious if you actually listened to the interview or are just jumping to conclusions.

[BeckyDem]

44. I doubt you'll ever receive a coherent response. The alleged "woo" doctor.

Azra Raza, MD
Department of Medicine
Division of Hematology/Oncology
Director, Myelodysplastic Syndrome Center



Introduction:

Dr. Raza is a Professor of Medicine and Director of the MDS Center at Columbia University in New York, NY.She started her research in Myelodisplastic Syndromes (MDS) in 1982 and moved to Rush University, Chicago, Illinois in 1992, where she was the Charles Arthur Weaver Professor in Oncology and Director, Division of Myeloid Diseases. The MDS Program, along with a Tissue Repository containing more than 50,000 samples from MDS and acute leukemia patients was successfully relocated to the University of Massachusetts in 2004 and to Columbia University in 2010.

Before moving to New York, Dr. Raza was the Chief of Hematology Oncology and the Gladys Smith Martin Professor of Oncology at the University of Massachussetts in Worcester. She has published the results of her laboratory research and clinical trials in prestigious, peer reviewed journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, Nature, Blood, Cancer, Cancer Research, British Journal of Hematology, Leukemia, and Leukemia Research. Dr. Raza serves on numerous national and international panels as a reviewer, consultant and advisor and is the recipient of a number of awards.
Board Certificates
Medical Oncology
Internal Medicine
Areas of Expertise:

Myelodysplastic Syndrome
Cancer Care
Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
Aplastic Anemia

Myelofibrosis
Myeloproliferative Disease
Acute Myelogenous Leukemia/AML

Honors & Awards:

Some of Dr. Raza's awards include The First Lifetime Achievement Award from APPNA, Award in Academic Excellence twice (2007 and 2010) from Dogana, Woman of the Year Award from Safeer e Pakistan, CA, and The Hope Award in Cancer Research 2012. Dr. Raza has been names as one of the 100 Women Who Matter by Newsweek Pakistan in March 2012.

https://cancer.columbia.edu/azra-raza-md

[Richard D]

45. Exactly

About as far from "woo" as can be.

[BeckyDem]

46. Thank you.

[Habibi]

49. I'm reading her book now.

Not a molecule of woo in sight.

[BeckyDem]

50. Thank you!

[cab67]

11. I'm a huge believer in early screening.

My mother had genetic predispositions to both breast and uterine cancer. Because she was very proactive about being screened, she wasn't only the first woman in her family to have had both; she was the first to have survived either. And in both cases, it was caught early enough to be treated without chemotherapy.

I don't want to minimize what she went through - the surgery and radiation therapy were rough. But it could have been a lot worse.

[bucolic_frolic]

12. Dr. Raza needs to make first cell prevention profitable

otherwise no industry will care about it. And if successful, prevention puts oncology out of business. Lots of vested interests will fight that outcome.

But I wouldn't worry. Trump's pollution for America program should cause ten times more cancer than ever before. It will be a great opportunity for pharma and the medical industry. GOP portfolios will be fat indeed.

[defacto7]

22. That's as it has always been and shall always be, amen.

unless our entire culture of profit over humanity changes. You think cancer is hard to stop?

[yardwork]

15. This is unscientific nonsense. Cancer treatments have improved greatly.

[Ferrets are Cool]

17. This

[still_one]

32. +++

[D23MIURG23]

18. Saying it has "failed" is a huge and unjustifiable overstatement.

It works in a lot of cases she herself notes that "we are curing 68% of cancers that are diagnosed today". The prognosis is especially good when you can find the cancer early. So she is not wrong that we should be looking for ways to detect cancer earlier.

I do think she is wrong to imply that there isn't research doing exactly that, though; there is plenty of research looking for links between proteins found in blood and solid tumors and other novel diagnostics. She ought to know since she is doing research in that vein. The reason this research hasn't changed medicine massively is that tumors are human cells, so they tend to blend in, and the smaller the tumor - the less likely you will feel symptoms from it, and the harder it will be to detect. There are already some routine screening technologies, such as mammograms, aiming to pick up cancers early but there are high standards for these kinds of tests, because you have to justify the cost of routinely scanning people who aren't presenting symptoms, and you generally want such tests to be as minimally invasive as possible. You also don't want a lot of false positives, because then you are terrifying healthy people by making them worry about a deadly disease, and charging them more money to rule out the spurious diagnosis with additional costly and/or invasive procedures.

Dr. Raza sadly isn't wrong that cancer research has not made much tangible difference in cancer in the last 50 years, but I wish she and others would quit implying that this is because researchers forgot about some blindingly obvious and popular avenue of research such as "early diagnosis". This is akin to asking whether physicists looking for dark matter would have better luck if they tried pointing their telescopes at it. It's frustrating coming from someone who doesn't understand cancer research, and even worse coming from someone who does. I also don't see how it's fair to characterize therapies that save or extend a lot of lives as "stone age treatments". Those "stone age treatments" are still around because decades worth of lab results, clinical trials, and so on have not led to better options.

[PatrickforO]

19. Well. Looks like I owe you all an apology!

Last edited Tue Dec 24, 2019, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

I posted here that it was capitalistic pressure for shareholder earnings from big pharma that was holding up cures for cancer.

Several of you took exception to this and so I did a bit of research. To my dismay, I realized I was propagating a conspiracy theory.

The article I read - actually an answer to the question on Quora - showed me that I was wrong. There are too many people working too hard around the world on a cure for a few big pharma companies to be able to squelch potential cures. Though I am sure that if they could, they would, it is clear that the haven't because the do not have that kind of power.

So there you have it. I'm eating crow.

All of you have a happy holiday season!

[yardwork]

24. What you're saying about research charities is not true.

Reputable research charities are independent of corporations and many of them have supported important advances in treatments and even cures.

[obamanut2012]

27. BULLSHIT -- St. Jude alone has shattered the death rate for cancer

It's why they get the bulk of my charity donations every year.

[still_one]

33. Not only St Judes, but like you St. Judes is on my list of charitable contributions every year

[D23MIURG23]

42. Nah, this is just pure BS.

There is no conspiracy to not find the "cure", and if you knew anything about cancer you would understand why that's absurd.

[Fritz Walter]

20. As a very recent survivor, may I offer a couple of thoughts?

First and foremost, a big shout-out to fellow survivors! Stay strong and stay well! I hope your families, friends and care-givers continue to give you the support and love you need.


Second, I’d like to relay the first bit of advice that my doc gave me right after giving me the diagnosis: “Stay off the Internet!” At least try to avoid social media and certain websites and chat-sites that offer anecdotal and other potentially misleading information. It’s hard to do, but by following that guidance, I was able to avoid a LOT of confusion and discombobulation. Find caregivers you can trust with your life and seek guidance from them.


Happy Hanukkah, y’all!

[TNNurse]

34. I was diagnosed with Stage 2 breast cancer at 62.

I had it all, surgery (including lymph nodes), chemo and radiation. I am now 70. I am released from my oncologist (but she "will always be there if I need her).

My husband and I were both RNs, many of our friends were RNs. One started sending me a lot of things to read online. My answer to him was this: I have chosen my doctors (surgeon, oncologist and radiation oncologist) and I am going with a plan. They have seen me and my biopsies and we have a plan. It does not include further research online for me.

I am now a seven year survivor. I am pretty sure that research, education and technique all helped me but staying with a plan is what worked.

I also asked that no one on FB mentioned my diagnosis. They complied. I did not have to read about myself there.
We set up an email group for people who really needed to know what was happening.

Merry whatever holiday is in your heart.

[Fritz Walter]

40. Thank you for sharing your wisdom!

I may borrow your words about planning, should the need arise.

Knowing enough about medical issues to be dangerous, I asked a close friend (retired RN) to accompany me to the office visits. I highly recommend that to anyone facing similar situations. Interpreter, (devil’s) advocate, or even just a shoulder to lean on. Patience and objectivity are strongly recommended. And a sense of humor.

Warm, safe, and joyous (fun!) holiday wishes to you and your family. Stay strong. Stay well.

[TNNurse]

41. Having been "consulted" by several woman facing breast cancer,

we always recommend someone accompanying the patient to every appointment. My husband always said my eyes glazed over and needed someone else to listen. I might remember what they said days later..but only maybe.

[mopinko]

23. well, that's a steaming pile of bullshit.

there was a thread here about the selling of "wellness", and how much of it is just targeted at the same female insecurities as diet bullshit.i pointed out in that thread that this kind of shit is part of the dust cloud over reality that we are all suffering the effects of right now.
nautralnews, et al, are as much a part of all this fud as breitbart.

if this idiot thinks that earlier and earlier detection is the key, but doesnt know that a blood test that detects all cancers is in human trials right now, no one should listen to these fools.

[obamanut2012]

26. +1

[obamanut2012]

25. This article is BS

My BIL was DXed with a form of leukemia a decade ago that had a 97% SURVIVAL rate, but guess what? If he had been DXed with it just a few years earlier (as in literally two years earlier), he would have been dead, because it had an almost 100% DEATH rate within 18 months. He is now nine years in remission, with no issues.

St. Jude is one hospital who has really kicked ass in this front, including the form of leukemia my BIL was DXed with.

So, fuck this article.

[lonely bird]

35. Re: Advances in Disease Prevention and Cancer Treatment

Look to the government. Grants from the NIH. Work by the CDC. The private sector stumbles without the government. Whether utilizing government as help or perverting government through legislative capture and regulatory capture the private sector needs government to survive.

[captain queeg]

36. The way it's worded people are just as likely to die of cancer nowadays

I think what is missed as that people are living decades longer before they die of cancer as opposed to a couple years in the past. I’ve heard it said many times you are never cured, but you can have long term remission.

[dawg day]

38. When I was a kid, cancer was a death sentence.

Now I know far more people who have survived cancer than have died from it. One friend beat Stage 4 cancer (two different cancers) twice. She credited the doctors, nurses, and researchers for the two additional decades she loved life until she died of something else entirely.

I know... anecdotal. I've read articles like this before, however, and others contradicting the gloomy message.

[dugog55]

37. While not exactly cancer related, I have

to say something about the life expectancy quote by Nermeen Shaikh. While the life expectancy has gone up since the early 20th Century, it has nothing to do with modern medicine, easier life styles, or really anything else but this; more people are living to the age of 30 than ever before. One hundred and twenty years ago, many babies and children died of smallpox, influenza, pneumonia, and tuberculosis. If you lived to be 30, generally you would live into your 70's or 80's barring accidental death.

Once better awareness, vaccines and treatments were developed, more children lived to advanced adulthood. This drove up the "average" lifespan. Look into your own family tree how generations ago there were always very old relatives. But, there were also stories of relatives that lost siblings when they were young.

Really, starting with the Boomers, childhood deaths plummeted. After the war people were making more money, had nicer housing, saw doctors more often, ate consistently and were clothed better.

[captain queeg]

39. I got diagnosed with cancer a little over a year ago

They found it so early they aren’t event treating it. Multiple myeloma; cancer of the bone marrow. Finding so soon means I’ll probably have plenty of years left. But my sister had breast cancer 15-20 years ago. She was never cured, just in remission and it’s come back now more aggressively. We are all going to die and maybe cancer will be the ultimate cause of death but nowadays people can live a long time after initial diagnosis.

[Loki Liesmith]

52. This is just completely wrong