HOW TO KILL CANCER
By Al Gallo
Thousands of scientists all over the world are hell bent in creating a deadly bullet that would become the pot of gold of all time. An Australian team is pursuing a more effective approach by aiming at making it chronic. To make money is obviously the name of the game, not to get rid of cancer.
The Sydney based bioscience company EnGeneIC Pty Ltd has
released details of their research, which has been published by Nature
Biotechnology. Their method consists of penetrating cancer
cells with chemotherapy drugs, effectively overcoming the resistance
these cells normally display. This would allow them to kill cancer cells
directly where they are, instead of applying chemotherapy in the usual
way, which results in the killing of not only many cancer cells but
also healthy ones. Another advantage of the proposed method seems to be
the possibility to deal with the small number of cancer cells that
usually survive conventional chemotherapy. These cells become resistant
to future treatment and eventually contribute to the patient's death.
So far so good. From a financial point of view EnGeneIC, the Australian
Government and other investors that are part of this operation may have
an opportunity to earn some money and that is alright. It is not the
first, and won't be the last effort by adherents of the so-called
evidence-based medical science to place their eggs into the prospective
big money basket. I've heard journalists asking a member of this team a
seemingly naīve but pertinent question: Is this going to cure cancer?
As it appears in a Reuters
article, Dr Himanshu Brahmbhatt said : "We want to be part of
moving towards a time when cancers can be managed as a chronic disease
rather than being regarded as a death sentence."
A chronic disease… I find this to be an eerie statement that brings to
memory something I read when New
Internationalist published it some eight years ago. It is a
reference to Alex Hittle, a biotech analyst at AG Edwards in St Louis
who said: ‘We sometimes joke that when you’re doing a clinical trial,
there are two possible disasters. The first disaster is if you kill
people. The second disaster is if you cure them. The truly good drugs
are the ones you can use chronically for a long, long time.’
For those of us who stand on the consumer side of medicine, it is
worthwhile to take a skeptical view each time the media bombard us with
these press releases from scientists announcing a new stage in their
scientific research. They showcase their new findings in order to
obtain more funds and investment. A rational approach would tell us
that cancer does not appear out of thin air, but it is mainly produced
by carcinogenic elements hidden in the stuff that we eat, we breath, we
use for our hygiene, or via medical procedures such as those that
involve radiation. The research that should be undertaken to make you
aware of all the tactics played by your enemy would produce a tangible
benefit for your personal wellbeing and enormous savings of taxpayers'
money. Public health would improve dramatically, but would deny the
billions of profit obtained by the army of warriors within the drug
manufacturing elite. You, dear reader, don't stand a chance to survive
and enjoy the pleasures of life unless you rebel and fight your own
battle before the hearse parks in front of your door.
The war against cancer shouldn't be different from a conventional war;
imagine that you're facing a battle against a huge opponent and your
intelligence services report that the enemy's badly needed supplies are
carried around your own position. Do you give priority to preparing the
medical personnel and other resources to treat your wounded fighters,
or immediately plan and execute the elimination of the enemy's
supplies? We don't need to be military strategists to work this one out.
In another example of daily life, think of you running late for work
and notice that your car is low on fuel. You stop at a petrol station
and pull up to bowser number one that is vacant, and the fuel is even
cheaper that the type you normally buy. After filling the tank your car
starts as usual and keeps on running but becomes smoky and loses power.
One of your mates at work tells you that you can solve that problem by
buying an inexpensive pill that you can easily stick into the petrol
tank. You promptly follow his advice and your car will misfire during
your trip back home but it eventually recovers and runs nearly as
normal. From now on you'll be able to quickly fill up the tank every
time with the cheaper fuel, as long as you don't forget to add the
pill. At the next service your mechanic tells you that the engine is
accumulating carbon to such a level that it will eventually come to an
early stop. You don't bother because next year you plan to trade it in
for a new one.
Would you follow a similar approach with your body? I expect you're
telling me that you'd never do anything so stupid. However, I'd dare to
say that you may be doing more or less just that. I'm very aware of the
difficulties of modern life trying to perform to standards imposed by
those who pay your salary; I know you may be competing in the race,
whether it is the rat one or the one to the top. My reminder is,
however, that among other things, the cheap and quick meal that
satisfies your stomach and the cigarette or alcohol that make you feel
the loved, mass-produced member of your community may also be the
unwelcome contributor to an outcome you certainly wouldn't like to
consider.
