Re: SOC: Canadian poll on biotech issues

Date: Sat Jan 08 2000 - 23:07:52 MST

Damien Broderick, <>, writes, regarding
the FX "cancer cured" claim:
> *Which* cancer? Some are *already* under control, some on the verge of it.
> The general understanding of what goes wrong at a genetic level is now in,
> [...]
> I'd expect some very high success-rate treatments by 2010 (or 2005), others
> a bit later.

The actual wording at

   Cancer mortality in the United States will be reduced by 90%, relative
   to 1994, in any year through 2010. (Mortality rates are determined
   by dividing the number of deaths by the population.) Cancer includes
   leukemia, but excludes non-invasive solid tumors, and benign tumors. No
   adjustments will be made for age-related risk, or for reduction or
   increase in cancer-causing behavior or conditions, such as smoking,
   air pollution, or ozone loss.

I think this is pretty well worded. It tries to define what is cancer,
and has an objective definition for a "cure". After all, what really
matters with cancer is that it kills, and reduction in cancer mortality
is the bottom line in any putative cancer cure.

The main problem is that it requires that a cure not only be found, but
put into near-universal use in the US. This would imply that the cure
must be relatively inexpensive and not require a large capital outlay
of machinery and equipment to be in place. It also would probably be
necessary that the cure be proven in the lab several years before the
2010 cutoff so that it could be approved for human clinical use by 2010.
Of course something as significant as a true cure for cancer would
probably get expedited approval.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:09 MDT