CANCER AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The lies behind the ‘cure’ search

ECOLOGY

ECOLOGY

By RICHARD LANE

“Almost all cancers appear to be
caused by exposure to factors in the
environment. The most promising ap-
proach to the control of the disease is to
identify those factors and eliminate
them.’ — John Cairns, Nov. 1975,
Scientific American.

There is no big argument any longer
about the cause of cancer. Ten years ago
cancer was considered to be caused by
viruses — just find the virus and a cure
could be ensured. Hundreds of millions
of dollars are still being spent on viral
cancer research. Yet, a definite human
cancer virus is still to be found.

Heredity has always been cited as a
main causal factor — a sort of answer for
all unexplained cancers. Everyone can
remember some relative who died of
cancer. This is an easy solution, but
hopeless. :

Cancer is mainly caused by exposure
to chemical or physical agents, called
carcinogens, found in the environment.
The more carcinogens the more expo-
sure, and the greater chance of develop-

ing cancer. There is no known method of
predicting or measuring a ‘‘safe level’’ of
exposure.

“If by the appropriate public health
measures the incidence of each kind of
cancer could be reduced to the lowest
level observed anywhere in the world,
the overall incidence of cancer would be:
reduced at least tenfold.” — John
Cairns, 1975.

In 1971 the U.S. Government enacted
the National Cancer Act, under which
government agencies were to fund the
so-called war on cancer. The strategy of

the war is to find ‘tthe cure’ forcancer. .

heavily biased because they are based on
cancer figures from only 100 of the
USA’s 7,000 hospitals. Further, he has
found that only the best hospitals with
better ancillary care are allowed to con-
tribute data. :

Enstrom is quoted as saying: “‘It,is not
unusual to find twice as many patients
dying of cancer in the poorer hospitals.”
Their statistics are not represented in the
NCI sample. :

Still, using this data, it can be shown
that in fact the cancer war is being lost
and that there is really an epidemic of
cancer.

Data altered to prop up research

individual Responsibility

Although it is at a more primitive stage
in Canada, a similar establishment has
control of most of the cancer research
monies; and its program also mainly re-
volves around ‘‘the cure’’. Thus the ef-
forts of most of some 800,000 cancer re-
searchers in Canada and the USA are
based on early detection programs and
the various ‘‘cures’’ using chemo-
therapy, surgery and radiation treat-
ment. Fundamental investigation of the
mechanism of cancer development is
also being pursued. Almost forgotten is
the obvious approach — prevention.

Why?

At the same time the cancer estab-
lishment has control of the statistics on
cancer, which it presents to the public.
Through certain manipulations, this data
‘‘proves’’ that: 1. the ‘‘cancer war’’ is
being won; 2. ‘‘life style activities’’ (peo-
ple’s preferences of foods, sexual acti-
vities, sunbathing, alcohol, and above all
cigarettes) are the main cause of cancer,
and that, therefore, cancer prevention is
an individual responsibility; 3. work re-
lated cancer is a minor cause, probably
1% of all cancers (at most 5%), and; 4.
pollution from the industrial complex
may cause some cancer but there is no
firm epidemiological evidence to prove
pollution increases the cancer risk.

Why all out for a cure? Why neglect
prevention? Why manipulate the data?

The Data

Dr. James R. Enstrom (UCLA School
of Public Health) claims that National
Cancer Institute (NCI) statistics are

Science News (Jan. 3, 1981) states: **
... the death rate for all major physical
sites of cancer has inched slightly up-
ward and has actually soared for lung
cancer since 1971.’’ Using the same data,
Elizabeth Whelan (Director, American
Council on Science and Health) in Min-
ing Congress Journal (Jan. 1980), finds
that since 1930 ‘‘the cancer death rates,
when adjusted for age, have remained
relatively constant, or in some cases de-
creased. And the overall cancer inci-
dence rate, the number of new cases ad-
justed for age distribution of the popula-
tion, has decreased slightly since 1950.”’
In other words, the cancer war is being
won!

But, using her charts it can readily be
seen that rates of cancer for all major
physical sites of cancer have increased
since the 30s, except for cervical cancer
in women, and stomach cancer. . Neither
of these ‘‘victories’”’ can be claimed for
the ‘‘cancer warriors’ because (1) the
latency period for most cancers is
approximately 20 years, which would
put cause of improvement before the war
began; (2) in 1927 a physician, George
Papanicolaou, developed a test, the Pap
Smear, which has helped reduce inva-
sive cervical cancer by early detection;
(3) mysteriously, deaths from stomach
cancers have dropped fivefold since the
1930s. Dr. Arnold Reiff (Research
Professor of Pathology, Boston Univer-
sity School of Medicine) explains: “‘...
there has been a large decrease in
stomach cancer; while the reason for this
is not known, it may be due to the use of
refrigeration rather than chemical

preservatives or smoking of meats to |
prevent spoilage.’’ Eliminate a carcino- |)
gen — eliminate a cancer. It seems more |
practical and obviously more profitable

to use refrigeration.
Preventable Epidemic

Dr. Samuel S. Epstein writes in his |
book, The Politics of Cancer, that, “If |
one thousand people died every day of |

cholera, swine fiu, or food poisoning, an
epidemic of major proportions would be
at hand, and the entire country would

mobilize against it. Yet cancer claims |

that many lives daily... and most
people believe they can do nothing about
It.

By the end of 1980, the cancer war had
spent $6-billion in taxpayers’ money
since its inauguration in 1971. At present
it spends more than a billion dollars an-
nually in the USA.

NCI, the main distributor of the

money has been accused of ‘‘deflecting

billions of dollars into treatments that are
notoriously unsuccessful, but highly
profitable to the medical establishment
and by funding massive research that is
mainly irrelevant because it focusses on
symptomatic treatment rather than

prevention.”’ (Peter Chowka, The New }|

Ecologist, Nov.-Dec. 1978)

Newsday reported the U.S. cancer
program has a “‘complex bureaucracy
floundering for lack of direction.’’ Linus
Pauling wrote in a letter to the House
Committee on Government Operations
(in USA); ‘‘In my opinion the NCI does
not know how to carry out research nor
how to recognize a new idea.”’

Even worse than these condem-
mations of the U.S. cancer program’s

waste, and scientific and administrative —

ineptitude, is the early recognition (1975)
and Dr. James Watson (Nobel Prize
Winner), who had served on the National
Cancer Advisory Board, that, ‘‘It makes
sense rather than striving for early detec-
tion, to spend most of this (NCI) money
to see that known environmental car-
cinogens are kept away from the Amen-
can public. But such a goal will bring the
NCI into direct conflict with the very
powerful industrial lobbies ...”’

In Cancer and the Environment, Part
II, the author looks at occupational car-

cinogens and the price Canadian workers | |
pay for the fatal doses they receive.

Richard Lane is a pseudonym for a work-
ing scientist.

Social Democrats regain power

Vote in Sweden mirrors economic crisis

By BRUCE MAGNUSON

The Swedish general election Sept. 19
returned Olof Palme and his Social
Democrats to power with 166 seats in
parliament (Riksdag). The Left Party —
Communists, elected 20 members,
which gives the so-called socialist bloc a
total of 186 mandates. This leaves the
capitalist parties of the so-called
bourgeois bloc 164 seats out of a total of
350 in the Riksdag.

The election, which also chose pro-
vincial and local governments on the
same day, showed a marked polarization
to the left and right poltical spectrums
that mirror the deepening economic and
social crisis of our time. Defeating the

<<

government in power became the
bread-and-butter issue for the majority of
the population.

The unemployment situation is much
worse then the 194,000 (3%) officially re-
ported in August. To this must be added
3.5% on relief work, in re-training, etc. At
least half of the 400,000 prematurely re-
tired are able and willing to work — if
there were jobs for them. An even larger
number have stopped looking for work
since there is nothing for them to be
found and, therefore, do not for formal
reasons count as unemployed. It is no
exaggeration to say that the real un-
employment in Sweden is over 15%, and
is steadily worsening.

Much will now depend upon how
rapidly the new government will act to
save paid sick leave for workers, cancel
cuts in pensions and family allowances,
put the unemployed back to work and
reverse the trend of economic deter-
ioration.

A most important factor will be the
Palme government’s orientation away
from NATO’s aggressive posture against
detente and for a return to Swedish
neutrality and for the speedy imple-
mentation of the 1981 decision by the
Riksdag for a nuclear-free zone in north-
ern Europe. This includes a reversal of

. the previous government’s highly inflated

military budget appropriations under-

_ taken at the expense of vital social pro-

grams.

It was noteworthy, therefore, that |

Palme picked a trade union leader, Len-

nart Bodstrom, as Minister of Foreig? —
Affairs. In doing so he made the observa- |

tion that at the head of this department — |

‘‘there has to be a person with firm prin- |

ciples, strong nerves and someone who
can withstand stormy weather’.

- Almost at once the Palme government.

devalued the krona by 16% and imposed
an immediate freeze on prices saying the
moves will return confidence to the
krona and improve the economy’s effec-

- tiveness.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 29, 1982.-Page 10