Here’s a Thought: Why Aren’t We Talking More About Preventing Cancer?

Despite trillions spent, cancer keeps rising. Jenna McCarthy asks: What is cancer, who profits from it—and why is prevention so often ignored?

Modern science has sent men to the moon (supposedly *adjusts tin foil hat*) and mapped the human genome, yet it still trembles at the mention of cancer. We treat the C-word like some sort of invisible boogeyman, one that descends from the shadows at random, sparing some and claiming others. And despite the billions of dollars funneled into research and the endless parades of pink ribbons and awareness months, we rarely stop to ask the most basic questions.

You know, like, what even is cancer? Why is it always on the rise? Who really benefits from the current “treatment” model? Why are alternative therapies attacked instead of researched? And most importantly: why aren’t we doing everything we can to prevent it?

At its core, cancer is a breakdown of cellular order. Healthy cells follow rules. They divide when needed, repair themselves when damaged, and die when their time is up. Cancer cells, on the other hand, are rebels. They’re immortal. They grow uncontrollably, ignore the body’s signals, and refuse to die. They hijack biological resources, form tumors, and, in many cases, spread from organ to organ with wild abandon. What makes this even more unnerving is that it rarely happens overnight (turbocancers notwithstanding). Cancer can grow quietly over years or even decades before making its presence known.

And here’s the kicker: your body is making “cancer-like” cells all the time. Every day, in the normal chaos of cell division, a few cells pick up DNA damage—from environmental toxins, chronic inflammation, radiation exposure, and sometimes just a random replication error. Most of the time, your immune system catches these rogue cells, repairs the damage, or destroys them before they can cause trouble.

Cancer happens when this surveillance system fails—or when the damage is so extensive the “bad” cell slips through, keeps dividing, and recruits other cells into its network. Over time, these rule-breakers can accumulate enough mutations to truly become cancerous: cells with no off switch, no respect for boundaries, and zero regard for the body’s overall balance.

We call it progress when we invent a new “early detection” tool or discover a new treatment option—but wouldn’t true progress be avoiding the disease in the first place?

“But cancer runs in my family!” Yes, some cancers are genetic—but that’s true for only about ten percent of cases. The other 90%? That’s on us. As they say, your genes may load the gun, but your lifestyle pulls the trigger.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. We know that certain behaviors and exposures can dramatically raise or lower the risk of developing cancer. Tobacco. Excessive alcohol. Processed foods. Radiation. Sedentary lifestyles. Chronic inflammation. Unchecked stress. Poor sleep quality. Chemical exposure. Yet mainstream medicine continues to treat lifestyle like a footnote at best, and a punchline at worst.

Ask any oncologist how much nutrition training they got in medical school, and the answer is usually: little to none. Meanwhile, patients with Stage IV cancer are routinely served processed slop and sugary desserts in hospitals, as if fueling rapidly dividing cells with glucose is peak medical intelligence.

It’s not just the dismissal of diet that raises eyebrows. The gold standard treatments for cancer—chemotherapy and radiation—are themselves carcinogenic. That’s not hyperbole. They damage healthy cells along with cancerous ones and often leave patients weaker, sicker, and more vulnerable. Of course, some people do survive because of (despite?) these treatments. But many others don’t, and few would argue that they are blunt tools with harsh side effects.

But… but… what about the American Cancer Society (ACS)? Aren’t they racing diligently for the cure? Despite its public-facing mission to eliminate cancer, the ACS has been widely criticized for avoiding any genuine effort to end the disease. As Dr. Samuel Epstein, former Chair of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, documented in his report American Cancer Society: More Interested in Accumulating Wealth than Saving Lives, the ACS has extensive financial ties to industries responsible for creating cancer—including the pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and junk food sectors. The ACS is also closely affiliated with manufacturers of mammography equipment and chemotherapy drugs, creating a powerful incentive to promote screening and treatment—not prevention or cure. After all, no multibillion-dollar nonprofit is designed to render itself obsolete.

Adding to the confusion is the lesser-known, but very real, risk that common procedures like biopsies or surgeries can actually help cancer spread. This isn’t conspiracy theory; it’s been documented. Studies have shown that tumor cells can be dislodged during biopsy or surgery and end up traveling through the bloodstream or lymphatic system, potentially seeding new tumors elsewhere. While medical experts argue that the benefits of confirming a diagnosis usually outweigh the risks, the fact remains: it’s not as straightforward as “cut it out and call it a day.”

Yet even raising these concerns publicly gets you labeled a crank.

Just try bringing up alternative treatments. Ivermectin, for example, has proven to have powerful anti-tumor properties, inhibiting the proliferation and metastasis of a variety of cancer cells. Still, no major health organizations or regulatory agencies have approved it for this purpose. In fact, some bodies, like the American Medical Association actively advise against its off-label use. And why wouldn’t they? It’s just a lowly horse dewormer, after all.

And then there’s Fenbendazole, another common pet dewormer, which has been used by countless desperate patients with profound success. Although studies have shown it warrants further research, mainstream medicine categorically dismisses it. Similarly, Laetrile (a synthetic compound derived from amygdalin, a natural substance found in apricot kernels) has been banned in the U.S. despite decades of global use and interest.

Are these “alternative treatments” silver bullets? Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know, because there’s no money in studying them. The same goes with safe, inexpensive repurposed drugs as complementary therapies (like the ones the IMA’s Dr. Paul Marik has studied at length). And when promising treatments are ignored, blocked, or ridiculed without real investigation, it stops being about science and starts looking like sabotage.

We keep pouring money into the same playbook: drug development, surgical interventions, and toxic treatments. (Cancer is expected to cost the world $25 trillion—not a typo—over the next 30 years.) Prevention remains a back-burner priority on a good day, despite its immense power. And when someone comes along and suggests that maybe, just maybe, what we put into our bodies matters more than pricey annual screenings, they’re dismissed as granolas or anti-science kooks.

The subliminal messaging: “Prevention? What’s that? Around here, we like our diseases diagnosed late and treated expensively!”

But the evidence is there. Not just in studies, but in real-world outcomes. Cancer rates are skyrocketing globally, especially in developed nations with high chemical exposure and poor diets. Meanwhile, indigenous populations eating traditional diets have lower incidences of cancer—until they adopt Western habits.

Maybe the real question isn’t “What even is cancer?” Maybe it’s: How did we get so far from common sense that questioning the idea of preventing it is seen as quackery?

SHAMELESS SOLICITATION: The IMA, as you might already be aware, is questioning everything when it comes to cancer. Right now they’re running a Hope in Action campaign to fuel a new standard of oncology care, and for the next few weeks, donations are being matched—meaning you make double the impact. Every dollar helps provide patient access to evidence-based integrative protocols, challenge outdated treatment models, and support a growing community of independent doctors and researchers—something I think we can all agree is precisely what the medical world needs right now. Click here to learn more or make a donation.

I know that followers of the IMA are well-versed in prevention. Head to Substack and tell us what you’re doing to avoid a future stint in the oncology unit. (Bonus points if you’re already digging into IMA’s cancer prevention and nutrition guides!)