FACT CHECK: Bush Has Cut Funding For Cancer Research
FACT CHECK: Bush Has Cut Funding For Cancer Research
Health officials reported yesterday that cancer deaths in the United States dropped for the second year in a row. President Bush teed off this news with a speech at the National Institutes of Health, touting the increased funding for cancer research since 2001:
First, I’m pleased that we’re funding cancer research. We’re up about 25 percent or 26 percent since 2001; it’s a commitment that I made when I first came to Washington, it’s a commitment we’re keeping. And the reason why it makes sense to spend taxpayers’ money on cancer research is that we can make some good progress, and have.
The total budget for the National Cancer Institute has increased $1.2 billion since 2001. But as ABC News’s Medical Editor pointed out last night, “most of that occurred in those early years under a Clinton initiative. The budget was actually cut last year and the projected budget for this year is to be cut even further.”
Watch it:
Bush’s 2007 budget proposed cutting funding for the National Cancer Institute by $40 million.
Digg It!
Transcript:
CHARLES GIBSON: The President today was pointing to all the money that the government has put into cancer research. Other people say, look, it’s earlier diagnosis. Others say better treatment is responsible for these numbers. Some people say better living. So, what is it?
TIMOTHY JOHNSON, ABC NEWS MEDICAL EDITOR: Well, it’s a combination of all of the above. But when the administration tries to take credit for increased spending, per se, I think they’re misleading. It is true that the total budget for the National Cancer Institute has gone up by $1.2 billion since 2001. But most of that occurred in those early years under a Clinton initiative. The budget was actually cut last year and the projected budget for this year is to be cut even further. So, I think it’s a real tragedy that we are cutting the budget for the National Cancer Institute at a time we’re on the verge of many exciting discoveries.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
53 Responses to “FACT CHECK: Bush Has Cut Funding For Cancer Research”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Typical.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:04 amHA HA lol. Jokes on YOU again!
January 18th, 2007 at 11:09 amNone of what this Numbnuts does surprises me anymore. Such a moron.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:10 amnobody will care until they themselves or a loved one is diagnosed with cancer….just like the war - doesn’t matter until my kid gets called up and killed.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:13 amIn 2000 global leaders made a commitment known as the Millenium Goals. The sixth of the eight goals is to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases. Our government shouldn’t be cutting down on cancer research. Instead we should be promoting this important field of research and other vital issues such as global poverty. We should let our representatives know that we care about these issues and the Millenium Goals.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:13 amBombs and tanks are expensive. Just a matter of priorities. Next story please.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:13 amAmerican Medical Model. There is no money in a cure. The largest industry, making tobacco, car manufacturers, and soda companies look like impoverished wannabees, the pharmeceutical industry has no interest in a cure.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:18 amKeep the meds rolling. Treat it, don’t kill it is their greed mantra.
To make this story “fair and balanced” why not let our readers know how much money the evil pharmaceutical industry spends on cancer research? Oh, that’s right….Progs HATE those guys…….
Toooodles…..
January 18th, 2007 at 11:19 amHey mighty
gvo ahead
Link?
Source?
Study?
Report?
Spreadsheet?
Be sure to list the profit margin. Oh I am sorry I mistook you for a credible poster not the smarmy rape-public-can apologist that you have become.
tooodles Mr. Credebility
January 18th, 2007 at 11:25 amAgain, MA, your meds must be working today.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:26 amYou pose a good question about pharmaceuticals and research.
The latest data I’ve perused shows them spending about 10% on
research and 25-30% on advertising product.
If that was reversed, I could support it.
But when you hear about a company offering $40 million to a generic
producer to keep the Lipitor market free of a competitor, it sounds very much like the same old crap that drives your party’s agenda, eh?
Piddles,
…how much money the evil pharmaceutical industry spends on cancer research? Oh, that’s right….Progs HATE those guys…….
Comment by mighty aphrodite #8
puny,
…once again you’re confused…
…there’s a huge difference btwn “hate” and “mistrust”…
…”thinking people” (and with good reason) “distrust” big pharma…
…our tax dollars go to help fund the research/development for their miracle drugs…
…and make no mistake their discoveries have helped our society tremendously…
…yet we (Americans) are taken to the cleaners (compared to the rest of the world) when buying these drugs…
…(in essence paying too much for them A SECOND TIME)…
…and Billy Tauzin certainly didn’t do anything to alleviate that mistrust…
January 18th, 2007 at 11:31 amOf course now all the money going to the Iraqi war bucket…40 Millions is not a big money compared to what we spend on wars…but since the emphasis remains here on wars,all other areas have to wait… Even the few drops that is left still can be cut ,even 40 millions.This way we can sign more contractors to the Iraq war,with more and more escalations…more cuts have to be made,to feed the Iraqi war bucket,where money dries faster than anywhere else…
January 18th, 2007 at 11:31 amAllow us to assist Smarmy Aphrodite.
Profit margins;
As their profits skyrocketed during the 1980s and 1990s, so did the political power of drug companies. By 1990, the industry had assumed its present contours as a business with unprecedented control over its own fortunes. For example, if it didn’t like something about the FDA, the federal agency that is supposed to regulate the industry, it could change it through direct pressure or through its friends in Congress. The top ten drug companies (which included European companies) had profits of nearly 25 percent of sales in 1990, and except for a dip at the time of President Bill Clinton’s health care reform proposal, profits as a percentage of sales remained about the same for the next decade. (Of course, in absolute terms, as sales mounted, so did profits.) In 2001, the ten American drug companies in the Fortune 500 list (not quite the same as the top ten worldwide, but their profit margins are much the same) ranked far above all other American industries in average net return, whether as a percentage of sales (18.5 percent), of assets (16.3 percent), or of shareholders’ equity (33.2 percent). These are astonishing margins. For comparison, the median net return for all other industries in the Fortune 500 was only 3.3 percent of sales. Commercial banking, itself no slouch as an aggressive industry with many friends in high places, was a distant second, at 13.5 percent of sales.[11]
In 2002, as the economic downturn continued, big pharma showed only a slight drop in profits—from 18.5 to 17.0 percent of sales. The most startling fact about 2002 is that the combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion).[12] In 2003 profits of the Fortune 500 drug companies dropped to 14.3 percent of sales, still well above the median for all industries of 4.6 percent for that year. When I say this is a profitable industry, I mean really profitable. It is difficult to conceive of how awash in money big pharma is.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
Retort please.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:36 amIt is important to understand that Big Pharma is not interested in CURING disease, rather with TREATING and managing disease.
If diseases were actually cured, revenues would plummet. Like the Medicare Part D program, Bush would never do anything to keep Big Pharma from making billions off the lives of Americans. Off the lives of all humans, for that matter.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:37 amHhhmm, I wonder how many drugs our returning soldiers and Marines from Iraq are going to need to buy for the next few decades because of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, pain, etc.?
January 18th, 2007 at 11:37 amGood news that deat declined, but R&D should not be neglected in Health Care.
http://blogs.ibibo.com/TechnicalJournal
January 18th, 2007 at 11:41 amCNN did a piece last weekend on cancer. It ran both Saturday and Sunday. It was hosted by CNN’s Sanjay Gupta(spelling) and Lance Armstrong. Cancer is fast becoming the leading cause of death, replacing heart attacks. It talked about funding being cut. It’s been over 30 years, since Nixon declared war on cancer. Now it seems the war has become weak, and there’s a loss of real interst. Why, I don’t know. If someone in your family doesn’t have cancer, then it seems most people at least know of someone who has or had cancer. Maybe because so many survive cancer nowaday, it’s lost it’s edge?
January 18th, 2007 at 11:47 amCheck it out. Hopefully, I wrote this down correctly.
cnn.com/saving your life.
#14 -heterodoxy– Agree with you,that profit margin of these Pharma companies is high.What is worth mentioning here is their ability to shift any cost they like to customers…they don’t have the comptitions other industries have,and they cash on the fact that this product means life or death to buyers.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:50 am$14, Heterodoxy, great post.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:56 amThanks for bringing facts to the table.
I was relying on brain cells, which can be as reliable as the
fairly unbalanced Fux News.
Funding for HIV/AIDS research is also being cut. 30% of the clinical research sites of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG), argueably one of the most important HIV research groups in the world, are being closed! Just think of the all the HIV care and antiretroviral medications that could be available with the $1.2 trillion we have spent on Iraq.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:57 amHow much longer will we put up with this lying sack of *%^$? Demand impeachment and now!
January 18th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI suppose we should be grateful Bush did not declare War-On-Cancer. I wonder how many innocent lives that “war” would have cost.
We must be careful and not use metaphors like “war” in the presence of the mentally challenged.
January 18th, 2007 at 12:06 pmI suppose we should be grateful Bush did not declare War-On-Cancer.
Comment by Abby
This clown shouldn’t be trusted with any type of ‘war’.
January 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pmMA: “To make this story “fair and balanced†why not let our readers know how much money the evil pharmaceutical industry spends on cancer research?”
According to Public Citizen, over 55% of all research conducted by the pharmaceutical industry is taxpayer-funded. After paying for research, the American public has no rights to the patents which follow. The pharmaceutical industry also gets special tax breaks which account for the fact that they pay, on the average, 40% less taxes than similar sized corporations from other industries. The pharmaceutical industry is currently the third most profitable, behind insurance and energy. Coincidentally, over the course of the 12 years of Republican control, these industries gave over 80% of their money to republicans and the RNC.
January 18th, 2007 at 12:32 pmIs there any time when psycho Bush and his criminal gang haven’t come down on the side of death, destruction, and misery?
Any examples at all?
WTF is up with that? Republican voters don’t get cancer? Why are those people so stupid? Why?
January 18th, 2007 at 1:25 pmMighty?
…are you still there?
…I believe Bluedog49 (#24), Maddie Peterson (#14), and Heterodoxy (#13)…
…deserve a rebuttal from your august intellectual “legal” perspective…
…c’mon bi*ch…
…speak up!
January 18th, 2007 at 1:37 pmMaybe the reason why cancer deaths are dropping is because people are not getting it diagnosed.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pmGreat posts. Actual information. Mighty, they answered your slam with data. Not fear or self loathing but information. Any rebuttal?
You do realize this shows how unaccountable GW is. He’s doing a song a dance routine using the benifit of a previous presidents plan.
And to make it worse (for you) It’s none other than your nemisis Slick Willy. How can GW sleep at night knowing he’s feeding off the positive work that President Clinton committed to?
This rings familiar. That’s right, remember the Kerry gaffe of “I voted for it before I voted against it”. I’m sure you do. Bush is for it while he’s cutting it. What cliche’ is best for this? Flip flop, liar, neocon or add your own.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:48 pmWhat cliche’ is best for this? Flip flop, liar, neocon or add your own.
Comment by hellinabucket #28
…”we create reality”…
-conned’self-servative Bushites-
January 18th, 2007 at 1:53 pmI thought I’d put this “argument” into some real world perspective from the researcher side.
When Bush became President, around 25% of grant applications to the NCI were being funded. Last year, this number fell to 8%. Besides that, funding of the funded grants is approximately 20% lower than it was in 2001.
It’s absolute Hell trying to run a cancer research lab right now. And so frustrating, working at least 12 hours a day, generating lots of exciting data that people should know about, but not having the funds to push it forward. And, worse, I’m one of the luckier ones.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pm#30. So you’re seeing the results of the “compassionate conservative”. Countless lives are grateful.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:19 pm****Dear think pessimists, you clearly missed the rawstory link that says those hateful *librul* canadians found a *cheap* cure for most cancers this week! Of course no pharma company will ever support its FDA in america - as is the case! Why would we want to *cure* something that costs billions of dollars in health care costs! It would undermine our capitalist desire to make money on the suffering of mankind! Those canadians must be stopped, so we can continue to have a *tax-break* on all of the money we spend on research, while making a *killing* on the deathbed suffering of cancer patients we poison to death!
January 18th, 2007 at 3:21 pmShrub, you troglodyte, moronic, feeble excuse for a MAN!
I’d love to WUP yer ass in a chess match, BOY, at the very least…
January 18th, 2007 at 4:54 pmZimzone - I have no problem with your agreement or disagreement with the amount of advertising pharmas engage in. I was making the point that too many see the government as the primary source of funding research and the truth is the pharmas spend more
“The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) represents the country’s leading pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies, which are devoted to inventing medicines that allow patients to live longer, healthier, and more productive lives. PhRMA companies are leading the way in the search for new cures. PhRMA members alone invested an estimated $39.4 billion in 2005 in discovering and developing new medicines. Industry wide research and investment reached a record $51.3 billion in 2005.”
http://www.phrma.org/about_phrma/
NOTEProgs are whining about a $40 million cut in government funding and FORGET to mention (!!) the BILLIONSspent by the industry….
January 18th, 2007 at 5:10 pmYou missed the entire boat on this MA. How can GW stand for it and then cut it? How can you account for that?
January 18th, 2007 at 5:21 pm“NOTEProgs are whining about a $40 million cut in government funding and FORGET to mention (!!) the BILLIONSspent by the industry…. Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 18, 2007 @ 5:10 pm”
****Of course, never mind that for that 39.4 billion in R&D, the top ten pharma companies alone received 37 billion in profits! That’s right folks, the amount of profits was higher than the amount of R&D!
In fact the profit margins for this *generous* pharma industry is 18.5%, compared to an average of 2.2% for the fortune 500 as a whole.
And despite this *generous* economic bonanza the pharma companies experience - they miserly fund R&D into anything that isn’t a potential blockbuster. So why *cure* something, when you can simply *maintain* the disease? Who needs to *cure* AIDS or CANCER, when you can be assured people will pay you daily to keep it in remission. Why do new, risky and innovative R&D, when you can spend billions in just incrementally tweaking the drugs returning an 18.5% profit margin. That profit is after the extravagant advertising, *lobbying* - *cough* and general wastefulness of the industry.
Yet we wonder as a country why our health care costs skyrocket. It couldn’t have anything to do with the 10Bln a year in tax credits given to an industry with over 40 billion a year in profits, could it?
January 18th, 2007 at 5:24 pm“You missed the entire boat on this MA. How can GW stand for it and then cut it? How can you account for that? Comment by hellinabucket — January 18, 2007 @ 5:21 pm”
****Dear satan worshiper, our *king* can flip-flop as much as he wants. We will never hold our own to *any* standards, as long as they’re working to bring about Zion and the *rapture*. So blow it out your hell-hole!
January 18th, 2007 at 5:25 pmIt couldn’t have anything to do with the 10Bln a year in tax credits given to an industry with over 40 billion a year in profits, could it?
Comment by _am_mighty_aphrodite_and_a_zionist_fool — January 18, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Excellent post!
January 18th, 2007 at 5:33 pmWell, I’ll just point out the obvious and say that Pharma research is not peer-reviewed and leads to as many mistakes as errors. More errors, I’d submit. Pharma is all about high-thoughput trial and error. One small flaw in the study design and the results that come from them are flawed. And it’s to the advantage of the study designer to put forth a flawed study, one that’s weighted disproportionately towards success of a drug, so they can market a “successful” drug. The recent spate of drug catastrophes were caused by precisely that.
In basic, government funded research, not only are we peer-reviewed, our goal is to UNDERSTAND the disease so that we (and drug companies) can take an intelligent approach to drug design. We don’t use trial and error, we use the scientific method. When we think we’ve found something about cancer that a drug can exploit, we either make it ourselves or we partner with Pharma to make it. If we left it to Pharma we’d have 10-fold the drug disasters that we’ve had in the past 10 years.
January 18th, 2007 at 5:33 pmHmmm… I did mean “as many mistakes as successes”…
January 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pmIt’s as predictable as night and day. When you talk to a corporatist like MA about the corporation’s responsibility to the community, they usually say that the corporation’s only responsibility is to maximize profits. When you talk about corporate welfare, they talk about the great service to the community the corporation provides by making new drugs purely for the benefit of the people.
January 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pmI couldn’t make up the humor and ignorance that comes from you progs on these posts! You’re complaining about $40 million? Where do you think that money was going to go? There are currently thousands of universities, private institutes, public companies, and governments around the world spending TRILLIONS of dollars on cancer research. How much have the governments of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Russia contributed? Why is it that the US government is the only one you chose to criticize when they decide to cut back on contributions that isn’t even a drop in the total bucket?
January 18th, 2007 at 7:44 pm“I couldn’t make up the humor and ignorance that comes from you progs on these posts! You’re complaining about $40 million? Where do you think that money was going to go? Comment by michael — January 18, 2007 @ 7:44 pm”
****Exactly angel michael, it will just go into *research*, at some useless university, that has some overly edumacated feller that’ll just apply sciency stuff that I don’t undermastand!
“There are currently thousands of universities, private institutes, public companies, and governments around the world spending TRILLIONS of dollars on cancer research. Comment by michael — January 18, 2007 @ 7:44 pm”
****Who cares if the bulk of that research *begins* as pure research at universities that the government funds as *seed* research! It doesn’t matter that much of our modern medicine comes from these approaches!
Just look at those guys at the University of Alberta this week, that think they found a *cheap* and already available treatment for cancer! Without that *government funded* pure research, the *corporate* research would probably never have stumbled onto it!
Of course, without government support, it’ll also never see patients since no company will want to FDA process a drug that’s cheap to make, and fully cures a patient!
“How much have the governments of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Russia contributed? Why is it that the US government is the only one you chose to criticize when they decide to cut back on contributions that isn’t even a drop in the total bucket? Comment by michael — January 18, 2007 @ 7:44 pm”
****Yeah, those blame america first types, that instead of relying on foreign governments and foreign companies to come save us, expect us to grow research and new companies domestically! How dare they! We should be relying on Iran to find the breakthrough in medical care for americans suffering cancer! Dam Iranians!
January 18th, 2007 at 7:51 pmKO just named the Bush Admin the “Worst Persons in the World” for this one. That was too easy.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:48 pm“****Exactly angel michael, it will just go into *research*, at some useless university, that has some overly edumacated feller that’ll just apply sciency stuff that I don’t undermastand!”
Have you ever had cancer I_am? I have, twice. Colon & lung. I survived both and it wasn’t because of any cure a government agency produced. It was because of a great relationship with my doctor, family, and friends. It was also because of all the incredible research and trillions of dollars that private companies have invested into finding a cure. They have more to gain by finding this cure than the government has. Would it have been more comfortable for me to take a pill as opposed to having those chemicals injected into me? Of course! But I won’t hold my breath waiting for our government to fund that cure. $40 million out of trillions? Do you really think that $40 million reduction will set us back 1 second in finding a cure? Tell me yes after you’ve experienced the disease.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:33 pmMighty?
…are you still there?
…I believe Bluedog49 (#24), Maddie Peterson (#14), and Heterodoxy (#13)…
…deserve a rebuttal from your august intellectual “legal†perspective…
comment by big papa
The troll won’t reply, because in reality it has no specialized legal (lawyerette) knowledge–just neo talking points. It is just like this troll, who is famous for posting links that don’t work, to finally post one that does work–except that it’s really just PR material for phrma.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:54 amGeorge W., your days as Dick tater-head are numbered. The Democratic Congress is gonna git ya, and git ya good!
January 19th, 2007 at 4:54 pmWhy should anyone be surprised that W. is trying to “scorch and burn” his playing field? I’m not. I’m also not assuming for a minute that any of this crap is going to stand. W. is as a desperate and whining drunk, trying to track down his next cheap drink. This administration is going down and will make Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal look like a choir boy’s innocent wet dream.
George, stay off the television. My cat can sense lies and evil and just won’t stop meowing, whenever you are on the channel. Your pointed ears and crossed eyes do not help, either. She hisses like crazy. So, leave my cat alone and do not disturb my pussy, anymore. Comprendez?
January 19th, 2007 at 5:13 pmif we are to win war on cancer, we have to wage a war first. We can not win a war as we have not waged a war. I know as i lost my 15 year old daughter http://www.peaceisthecure.org two years ago to-day.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:44 pmbeena
Trillions? Where is that coming from? The U.S. Government spends $5 billion a year (which is really nothing compared to a $1.2 trillion budget) on cancer research. I’ve looked at the pharma site, but I can’t determine how much of that is for cancer research. Any idea MA?
January 27th, 2007 at 12:24 pmTrillions? Where did that come from? The info which I have found shows the U.S. Gvmt. spending $5 billion/year (which is almost nothing compared to a $1.2 trillion budget) on cancer research. The Pharma site shows $39 billion and change per year on R&D, but doesn’t specify how much of that was on cancer. Any idea MA?
January 27th, 2007 at 12:30 pmNo one mentions that there are many treatments that work - they’re just not available! Does anyone remember hydrazine sulfate? It reduced tumors, stopped tumor growth, stopped cachexia, and caused “spontaneous remission” in 66% of ALL cancers. Trouble was, it was cheap (about 50 cents per dose), it worked well, and would have ruined the cancer treatment business, and that’s only one treatment. The AMA and other agencies sabotaged the tests, “concluded” it was useless, and NOW try to get it.
As long as medicine is run by money, there will be no cure, period, whether one actually exists or not.
Ian.
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:57 pm[…] Bush & the Environment Bush & Cancer Funding […]
March 28th, 2007 at 10:45 am