Part: 12         Session: 145678910111213141516171819202122         Page 861862863864865866867868869870871872873874875876877878879880881882883884885886887888889890891892893894895896897898899900901902903904905906907908909910911912913914915916917918919920921922923924925926927928929930 of 999

Yes, in the Phase I Trials Jordan Gutterman had, out of eight patients, three that got very definite responses, especially in breast cancer. Now, you've got something there.

I have an editorial which appeared in The New York Times on Friday June 12th of this year. It's titled “Protracted War on Cancer.” Since you've been so deeply involved in this whole war on cancer, I think you can make a very cogent reply to this one paragraph, which I shall read. This is a reference to a Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee series of hearings, which were held recently. “As the Senate keeps looking into the cancer program, the most important questions it can ask involve strategy and balance. How much effort should be devoted to prevention as opposed to cure? How much to research as opposed to treatment? How much focus on environment and diet as opposed to viruses and drugs? Have the gains been worth the enormous cost, or has the cancer war drained funds from equally important biomedical research?”

Well, the cost of cancer is over $20 billion a year, and that in the last ten years would have meant $200 billion. In the whole ten years we have spent $7,500,000. I think we've spent much too little on the subject, not too much.

The thing on how much should we spend on which aspect of cancer is very puzzling, and that's why you need more money to spend on all aspects of it.