Cancer is a global issue, which evokes strong emotions anywhere on the planet. Already recognised as the main cause of death in all developed countries, it is estimated to be the cause of nearly 8 million deaths per year. The desire to find a cure for cancer, or even better medical support for the wellness of sufferers is an intense drive for many of us, especially when we see our loved ones affected. As a result, the cancer industry is also a place of controversy, with all kinds of strong opinions at play.
Many critics of a more cynical mindset like to point out corruption in the cancer industry; citing drug patenting controls and the dubious ethics of corporate pharmaceutical companies. The stranglehold of big business is always distressing to those who seek global wellbeing, and it is quite justifiable to encourage public awareness of this. However, more important than the self-interest of pharmaceutical companies may be the direction in which a profit-led medical industry is going in terms of research. Critics claim that US research is sometimes more aimed at profit than cancer prevention, and seeks to encourage the use of expensive treatment while discrediting alternative treatments.
Controversy between alternative and allopathic health practitioners is unlikely to end anytime soon. Critics such as the writers Elaine Feuer and Samuel Epstein claim that the medical establishment maintains a focus on damage control which it achieves by aggressive procedures – surgery and chemotherapy. They would like to see massive investment and new education programmes based on cancer prevention. Here, we see further controversy about the causes of cancer, with all kinds of claims being made as to effective methods of prevention.
Certainly, a focus on diet and lifestyle is a necessary part of any public health education programme. But could there be specific advice that could actually protect individuals from the eventuality of a cancer diagnosis? One group of medical activists, following the research of 1930’s Nobel Prize Winner Dr Otto Warburg, claim that balancing the pH of the blood will prevent the development of cancer. Dr Warburg’s research had shown that cancer cells survive only in a low oxygen or acidic environment. Subsequently, Robert Barefoot demonstrated that cancer cells cease to grow at pH 7.4 and actually die at pH 8.5. The validity of the alkaline diet in preventing cancer is yet to be on general release and the reasons for this are not clear. Should we assume it is pseudo-science, of no real help to us, or might it be a valid method of cancer prevention held back from the public in the interests of profit? In either case the prospect of a solution to cancer should be investigated with utmost seriousness, in the hope of preventing the suffering of millions.
Comments are closed.