This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: While conceding that Politics of Cancer Revisited 1998 offers much valuable information, Dr Meyer's¹ review is replete with serious misunderstandings.

First, Meyer incorrectly charges that my book "declares political war between a basic preventive approach and a general patient care approach to the cancer problem." The book's fundamental thesis is that the cancer establishment—the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS)—is fixated on damage control in the form of diagnosis and treatment and on basic genetic research, with little interest in prevention.² The NCI currently allocates less than 3% of its budget to primary prevention, while the ACS allocates less than 0.2%. More critically, the cancer establishment has never provided Congress, regulatory agencies, and the public with scientific information on a wide range of avoidable and involuntary exposures to industrial and other carcinogens that have been incriminated in the increasing incidence of nonsmoking-related cancers . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

The Politics of Cancer Revisited
Richard L. Meyer
JAMA. 2000;283(17):2304.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT