There's more to this then the title suggests. But I do disagree with this quote from the fifth paragraph:
As the nation’s war on cancer continues, with little change in the overall cancer mortality rate ...
As a matter of fact, the cancer death rate has dropped in the last several decades - from a cure rate of one in three to a cure rate of one in two. And many cancers that are not "curable" (like my lymphoma, supposedly) are "treatable", with dramatic increases in life expcetancy.
given that caveat, the article is very good -
Forty Years' War - Medicines to Deter Some Cancers Are Not Taken - Series - NYTimes.com
But prevention has proved more difficult than many imagined. It has been devilishly difficult to show conclusively that something simple like eating more fruits and vegetables or exercising regularly helps. And, as the response to the prostate drugs shows, people are not enthusiastic about taking anticancer pills, or are worried about side effects or not really convinced the drugs work. Others are just unaware of them.
And prostate cancer is not unique. Scientists have what they consider definitive evidence that two drugs can cut the risk of breast cancer in half. Women and doctors have pretty much ignored the findings.
Companies have taken note, saying that it makes little economic sense to spend decades developing drugs to prevent cancer. The better business plan seems to be looking for drugs to treat cancer. That is a sobering lesson, said Dr. Ian M. Thompson Jr., chairman of the urology department at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio.
“A scientific discovery that is very clear cut and that is not implemented by the public is a tragedy,” he said.
Comments