MsBliss - you are absolutely correct.

Certainly there are profits involved in the cancer drug industry. But there are also profits in the supplements industry, and unlike the drug companies, supplement manufacturers arent required to invest millions into researching the claims about their products. 

I think the vitamin D thing is interesting. But although I was raised at the 45th latitude, since 1996 I have lived 13 degrees from the equator, in a coastal city where weekend recreation usually involves the beach. Three years after moving here, I got breast cancer. And I am not a sunscreen nut. Maybe the BC had already been lurking in my body microscopically since my low-vitamin-D northern latitude days, who knows. But 9 years later, all of them in Brazil, here I am with a recurrence and a metastasis.

Here is something I found on the internet about sources of vitamin D.

***************

From  http://www.sunshinevitamin.org/

Vitamin D Comes From the Sun

Sunlight is the best and only natural source of vitamin D. Unlike dietary or supplementary vitamin D, when you get your ‘D' from sunshine your body takes what it needs, and de-metabolizes any extra. That's critical - as vitamin D experts and many health groups now advocate 1,000 to 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily - five to ten times the old recommendations. Because too much ‘D' from dietary supplements may cause the body to over-process calcium, nobody really knows for sure how much supplementary vitamin D is safe. On the other hand, sunlight-induced vitamin D doesn't have that problem - it's the way your body is intended to make it!

Sunlight Exposure (full body exposure)* 3,000 - 20,000 IU

Salmon (3.5 oz. of fresh, wild salmon) 600 - 1,000 IU

Salmon (3.5 oz. of fresh, farmed salmon) 100 - 250 IU

Fortified Whole Milk, 8-oz. glass** 100 IU

Fortified Multi-vitamin 400 IU

Source: Holick, MF. Vitamin D Deficiency. New England Journal of Medicine, July 2007

* Sun exposure to the arms and legs for 10-15 minutes. The amount of vitamin D produced depends on the intensity of the UVB in the sun and many other factors. Darker-skinned individuals may need 5-10 times more exposure than a fair-skinned person to make the same amount of vitamin D. In northern climates sunlight is too weak in parts of the year to make any vitamin D - a period referred to as ‘Vitamin D Winter'.

** Vitamin D is supplemented into milk. It doesn't occur naturally in milk.

Well, I wonder about that...You see up until 1987 I was a full on su worshiper.....I could not wait to get out and sunbathe and get a really deep tan......I stopped after hearing so much about skin cancer...I decided I did not want to get skin cancer so I stayed out of the sun and got pasty white.....Well lo and behold exactly 10 years after my decision I was diagnosed with a breast caner that according to my oncologist had been growing for 8 to 10 years!....Needless to say I am happily back to sun worshiping and not worrying about skin cancer......I feel that my decision brought on my breast cancer especially since I am BRCA 1 and 2 negative!.....Yes we have a strong family history but I also found out the ones of us who did get bc did not spend much time in the sun.....This is just my own humble opinion.......

Hollyann I tested negative for the BRCA 1 and 2 as well but I do believe that there are other genetic markers that researchers have yet to located.........Shokk

I'm not sure I believe that  big pharma is  intentionally avoiding a cure -  but I do believe the underlying system of profit motivated research can be a big impediment. 

We all know there is way too little emphasis on prevention... how likely is it that  you will cure a disease when you don't have a clue about the cause? 

If you look at the current trials that are being conducted - you have to wonder, they are not asking the  question -"what will cure cancer?" but rather   "what's the potential profit of this tx?" 

Interesting article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/health/research/02cancerdrug.html

For Profit, Industry Seeks Cancer Drugs

Here are a few quotes  that relate to this thread: 

" Experts say the same factors that attract drug companies to the cancer business help explain the slow progress...

...the drug makers’ interest is financial. Patients are often desperate, and insurers risk outrage by denying payments for a cancer drug, even if the odds say it will have little benefit. That has allowed pharmaceutical companies to charge thousands of dollars a month for cancer medicines. Such prices can make drugs for even rare cancers, or drugs that do not work very well, into big moneymakers...

...“Cancer is such an emotional issue that the free market doesn’t work like it does for bicycle wheels and umbrellas,” said Robert L. Erwin, a biotechnology industry executive who heads the Marti Nelson Cancer Foundation, a patient advocacy group. “As long as the health care system will pay the price, the money will flow in that direction.”

But Mr. Erwin and some other experts say that is not always a good thing for patients because it can set the bar too low for drug companies.

“As long as the marketplace does not distinguish between modestly effective drugs and dramatically effective drugs, there won’t be an incentive to shift resources to a greater emphasis on a larger benefit,” said Dr. Neal J. Meropol, an oncologist at the University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland who has been studying drug prices.

Many executives dispute this, saying they would produce drugs offering bigger gains if they knew how. But they must balance their portfolio of experimental drugs between long shots and some drugs that have a better chance of making it to market and sustaining the enterprise...

...Pfizer is counting on cancer to help save the company. It hopes to reach $11 billion in sales of cancer drugs by 2018. That would be more than four times the category’s sales last year of $2.5 billion, which represented only 5 percent of Pfizer’s revenue. Cancer was once unattractive for big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer. There were relatively few patients with any one type of cancer, and they died fairly quickly. By contrast, there were millions of patients with chronic diseases like hypertension who would take drugs for life..."

How the profit  bandwagon veers  into  another new, but likey wrong direction - 

"

The big thrust in cancer drug development for the last few years has been so-called targeted therapies. These drugs aim, so far with modest success, to block aberrant molecules in tumor cells while leaving normal cells unscathed.

But even most targeted therapies have limited impact. One reason is that most tumors are fueled by numerous, often redundant, genetic anomalies. That means that drugs with different targets need to be used in combination. But combinations increase both the costs and side effects of therapy. And it is difficult to test two experimental drugs in combination because the regulatory system is geared to assessing a single drug at a time.

Another reason is that tumors differ among people."

 From Forbes http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/30/oncology-asco-cancer-drugs-business-healthcare-tarceva.html

"Are Cancer Drugs Worth The Money?

Drug companies are making big profits from very small increases in cancer drug effectiveness.

ORLANDO - At the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, giant banners with pictures of heroic cancer patients proclaim doctors are "Personalizing Cancer Care."

But many companies seem to be maximizing cancer profit instead. Big drug companies are making big money off smaller and smaller improvements in cancer care."

Finding starts with looking in the right places... we're only looking where the  profits are.