$14 Billion Later, Cancer Is Worse Than Ever. Where Did the Money Go?
Each year, Americans pour billions of dollars into the fight against cancer. From viral fundraisers to branded merchandise, the public gives generously—hoping their donations might lead to a cure… or at least meaningful progress of some kind.
But the global cancer burden continues to rise. Diagnoses are increasing. Deaths are also increasing. Aggressive “turbo cancers” are striking younger adults in greater numbers. Survivors face brutal long-term effects, while new cases are projected to climb toward 35 million worldwide by 2050.
Despite decades of research and spending, we’re far from seeing the breakthroughs we’ve been promised.
So where does all that money actually go?
The $14 Billion Cancer Industry
Between private and public sources, cancer funding in the U.S. now exceeds $14 billion every year.
Private cancer charities collectively raise over $6.8 billion per year.
The $6.8 billion dollar figure includes organizations like the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen, Stand Up to Cancer, and others.
Source: Public charity reports + aggregation by sites like Charity Navigator, Forbes’ Top Charities List, and tax filings (Form 990s)
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) receives $7.3 billion annually.
The NCI receives over $7 billion in federal funding each year, with more increases already requested in future budgets. That’s an enormous sum—one that continues to grow year after year.
Source: NCI Budget Fact Book | NIH Congressional Justifications
These are not fringe institutions or niche donations. This is the mainstream cancer machine, backed by government appropriations and national fundraising campaigns, all dedicated—at least on paper—to ending cancer as we know it.
But while the money flows upward, outcomes haven’t kept pace.
As a small nonprofit conducting real-world cancer research on a lean budget, we’re not just curious, we’re concerned. Because if this much money isn’t moving the needle in the right direction, something is clearly broken.
Billions Raised. But What Results?
While funding for cancer has exploded, patient outcomes haven’t kept pace.
- Cancer incidence is rising, especially in younger adults and women under 50
- Metastatic and aggressive cancers remain largely untreatable
- Survivors often endure brutal side effects with limited quality-of-life support
- Little funding supports repurposed drugs, metabolic therapies, or integrative approaches that could improve outcomes affordably and safely
Despite the progress we should be making with over $14 billion per year in funding, the system continues to sideline promising, lower-cost strategies—simply because they don’t fit the pharmaceutical or institutional profit model.
Negligible Support for Low-Cost Innovation
Despite strong emerging evidence for:
- Repurposed drugs (like ivermectin, mebendazole, metformin)
- Metabolic therapies
- Nutritional and integrative care
- Individualized, real-world care strategies
…these strategies receive little to no funding from the major players in cancer research. Why? Because they can’t be patented, don’t drive industry profits, and don’t fit neatly into pharma-driven trial models.
Many cancers can be slowed—or even reversed—by targeting cancer stem cell (CSC) pathways using existing drugs in novel combinations. The protocol emphasizes:
- Ivermectin, doxycycline, curcumin, and mebendazole (among others, including lifestyle interventions)
- Two core strategies:
- Limited therapy: Conservative use with conventional care
- Aggressive therapy: High-dose, multi-agent support for aggressive tumors
This individualized model provides hope where none was offered by mainstream oncology.
Read the rest at imahealth.substack.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
A cancer cure means the end of this income stream. Rockefeller worked that out years ago.
Reply
Tom
| #
One of the greatest con games ever invented. The only winners are the grifters collecting the donations from the dumbed-down public.
Reply
Aaron
| #
No profit in the cure
Too bad government is more concerned with money than our health
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Cancer or Misdiagnosis? An Uncomfortable Truth
I have long argued that many cases labeled as “cancer” may actually be misdiagnoses. While direct, irrefutable proof is hard to obtain, the pattern of illness and its response to treatment point strongly in this direction. In several cases, the condition has improved with antimicrobial treatments such as ivermectin, doxycycline, curcumin, or mebendazole — drugs designed for microbial infections, not cancer.
This possibility is rarely considered because cancer is defined and classified largely through imaging and pathology — methods not unlike the “imagery” used to depict viruses that have never been truly isolated or characterized. Image-based diagnosis alone is not a valid scientific method; at best, it is an observation or an educated guess. A truly scientific approach would require independent physical and chemical confirmation: isolating the microorganism, identifying its components, and proving treatment efficacy with antibiotics or antimicrobials.
It is no wonder, then, that cancer is rarely “cured” and often continues to spread despite billions spent on so-called research. If that level of investment has failed to deliver meaningful results, something fundamental in the system is broken.
The problem is compounded by physicians who observe that antimicrobial drugs help, yet still claim they are “treating cancer” rather than a microbial infection. This reflects a deep-seated dogma — or outright indoctrination — in modern medicine. These drugs work because they target microbial infections with low toxicity, not because they target cancer itself.
Why don’t doctors see this? Likely because modern medicine operates within a rigid, centrally controlled system that limits diagnostic and prescribing freedom. Physicians are expected to follow high-cost, protocol-driven treatments tied to lucrative research funding. Low-cost, older treatments are often ignored or dismissed due to their lack of profit potential. Remove the big-money incentives, and many current “medications” and even “illnesses” would likely vanish.
With no real accountability for failed diagnoses or treatments, almost any research outcome — no matter how unscientific — is accepted and used to justify the next grant or donation request. The most dangerous misconception of all is the assumption that medicine is science-based and that doctors are scientists. In reality, most physicians have limited training in actual science, particularly chemistry. False science and unfounded claims have become the foundation of modern medical practice — and they demand urgent scrutiny.
Reply