Many of us can remember when President Nixon declared a war on cancer.  Unfortunately, that war is still in progress, with causualty rates we could liken to a World War III scenario. And, the end is not in sight.  We have not found the perfect weapon of malignant mass destruction. Those on the front lines are not receiving the money they need to look at options and alternatives, as the money is directed overseas towards weapons that kill healthy tissue. Sadly, this war, in many cases, would not need to be fought in the first place, if the public was educated well in prevention.

Cancer survivor and champion bicylist, Lance Armstrong, recently sponsored the presidential candidates to participate in a two day Presidential Cancer Forum discussing cancer issues, issues surrounding the catastrophic war that is taking place on our own turf. 

We will be intermingling our series on book tour cancer prevention questions, with the candidates stance from that forum, and questions we should be asking each of them.

On Monday August 27th, four of the democratic candidates presented thoughts, including Senator John Edwards, Senator Hillary Clinton, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich.  On Tuesday August 28th, two of the Republican candidates, Kansas Senator Sam Browback, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee shared their thoughts.  Despite inviting all candidates, Armstrong was disappointed that several candidates did not appear.

There seemed to be a lot of common ground recommending increased spending for research on cancer.  This is commendable.  Our first question is, considering our national deficit, which candidates are looking for ways to lower cancer risk without huge increases in cost?  I would be slammed to the floor if Moderator Chris Matthews from NBC were present, since he had a come back to one candidate offering a budget-friendly approach to health care -- stating that if it could have been done so easily, it would have been done a long time ago --but my doors are locked and the shades drawn!  My come back is this.  We are number 42 in life expectancy.  Our infant mortality rate is one of the poorest of industrialized countries.  Yet, we spend more on health care, by a quarter in the closest case, than any other country on the planet.  Hmmmm...

Instead of watching the candidates re-invent the wheel, and test it on us from the oval office, we should be asking each of them if they have looked to see how the "longer-lived" 41, over the pond and above, are offering greater statistics in lifespan and infant survival...on less.

For further information on cancer prevention, or to email the authors, visit www.avoidcancernow.com