A future free from the fear of cancer? Yes, but.

“Many people who saw our Facebook post understood where we were coming from. But many didn’t, and several commented that they were upset, confused or angry at what they thought we were promising.”
Sadly, many people who saw your Facebook post were parents of children with cancer. A year ago I probably would have said with confidence that Lennie was very unlikely to develop Ewing’s Sarcoma of the sphenoid bone, which would leave him blind and brain damaged for the rest of his life. Lennie is not yet 2. Ewing’s Sarcoma usually hits young people in their teens or early twenties (like Professor Evan’s children, for example) and very rarely appears in the skull. The changes of Lennie having Ewing’s were incredibly remote. So when this happened to him it was a total shock for us and completely turned our lives around.
Reading something like this quote, especially taken out of context, was incredibly painful for me and other parents of children who have suffered from cancer, too many of whom are still dying. Lennie is still fighting – we hope he will be a survivor, and I hope Cancer Research will continue to fund research into sarcoma and other rare cancers. I believe that this is a great charity which has saved many lives, but please please could you consider your audience (many of whom will have been affected by cancer) before you decide to publish any more bold, irresponsible and hurtful statements.

I would just like to no why he has come out with a comment like that & why you here on the news again that women with breast cancer maybe entitled to a new treatment but only maybe if their is such a treatment they should be treated or is it a case of costing

As a long time colleague and collaborator who has a huge amount of respect for Gerard Evan, I believe it was irresponsible to use his quote for public consumption for a number of reasons. Firstly, the quote was from a talk given by a CRUK supported researcher to head office (of CRUK). The informal talk appeared to be intended as a confidence booster for the staff (e.g. rah,rah). Secondly, in the cold light of day, the wording was not just optimistic but unqualified. There has been significant progress made in diagnosis and treatment of cancer but, as CRUK is surely well aware, the disease is insidious for the very reasons Evan gave in his talk – powerful selective pressures of variants that are drug resistant that work around our best efforts at control. Thirdly, CRUK has a conflict of interest insofar as the organization must raise funds to support its good work from the public. CRUK needs to respect that same public by being accurate and honest in how it communicates, placing quotes into context and avoiding hyperbole. The many superb cancer researchers supported by CRUK know the immense challenges very well. The idea that no one will die from cancer in the foreseeable future maybe a wonderful goal but is also, unfortunately, unlikely. Campaigning on such rarified expectations as a means to motivate fund-raising is, in my opinion, disingenuous. Is it not enough to state that cancer researchers are working to reduce the burden of cancer in every way possible? Passion cannot substitute for reality. The public is not so naive – assuming it is may well backfire.