Being somewhat pragmatic, I feel very strongly about this issue. Ok, that’s an understatement – I get very emotional about this issue. Just over 3,000 American civilians have died in the past decade due to terrorism, the overwhelming majority of those on 9/11. We lose that many to cancer EVERY 48 HOURS. That’s right – the threat from two days of cancer equals ten years of terrorism. Moreover, the death loss to three days of cancer matches our nation’s entire history of loss to terrorism.

Which do you think is the bigger threat?

Hypothetically speaking, I know if China or Russia launched a nuclear attack on the US (what else could cause such catostrophic death rates – 550,000 killed EVERY year?), we would be out of Iraq in a heartbeat. There would be no debate, as we would unanimously point to the numbers and agree our priorities lie elsewhere. Is it about time we give the same objective view to cancer?

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Bush-basher or a nay-sayer; for me, this is much more about the war on cancer than it is about the war on terrorism. True, terrorism is a monster to deal with; but while terrorism is nipping at the heal, cancer has entirely consumed the other leg.


NEWSWEEK: A 'Surge' in the War on Cancer?
by Jonathan Alter

Aug. 27, 2007 - Presidential campaigns are not just about winning, they’re about putting big ideas on the national agenda. Even though some candidates were elsewhere, that happened Monday at Lance Armstrong’s Livestrong Presidential Cancer Forum in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

The four Democrats who showed up (the Republicans come Tuesday) all committed themselves to at least doubling the $5 billion spent annually for cancer research—in other words, to backing a “surge” in the long-neglected war on cancer. Considering that cancer kills 550,000 Americans a year (that’s 1,500 a day—the leading cause of death for those under 85), it’s about time. As Bill Richardson said, “it's pathetic” that we now spend the same in two weeks in Iraq as we spend all year fighting cancer.

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich were also convincing in explaining how they would use the power of the presidency to change national priorities. “That money needs to come home,” Clinton said, and end the “stalemate” in the war on cancer. “It’s a moral obligation.” Edwards took note of the millions of people with cancer who don’t have the advantages he and his wife Elizabeth enjoy. They lose all their money, he said, on top of getting sick. But even the Edwardses cannot read their incomprehensible medical bills. And Edwards, along with the other candidates, believes that insurance companies often limit necessary treatment. He also noted that only two in 10 proposals for cancer research get funded these days. This is driving young reseachers out of oncology toward other fields, dramatically slowing the search for cures. Until recently, when cancer budgets were cut by President Bush, it was five of 10.

There was a passion to the event that will no doubt be obliterated by the news about Alberto Gonzales. That’s too bad. But Armstrong, who co-moderated with Chris Matthews of MSNBC, can take comfort in the fact that the marker has been laid down. Every candidate will now be asked: Do you favor doubling the funding for cancer research? And if not, to what better use would you put that money?

Ultimately, politicians are forced to deal with the real issues in people’s lives. With cancer touching every family in the country, we may be seeing the beginning of new priorities in the big tent of American politics.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.