{"id":502437,"date":"2026-10-20T17:48:13","date_gmt":"2026-10-20T17:48:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/502437\/"},"modified":"2026-10-20T17:48:13","modified_gmt":"2026-10-20T17:48:13","slug":"california-cancer-patients-disagree-over-whether-prop-38-will-help-them","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/502437\/","title":{"rendered":"California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Prop. 38 Will Help Them"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cancer patients who say their lives were saved by innovations in immunotherapy treatments are among the most vocal proponents of California\u2019s Proposition 38<\/a>, arguing the $8.4 billion bond measure to fund immune-system research would save even more lives.<\/p>\n

But those who oppose Prop. 38 are also patients, who say their illnesses are being exploited to shill for an initiative that is overly narrow, opaque, and expensive.<\/p>\n

\u201cDon\u2019t approve this measure because you want to help me or other people with Parkinson\u2019s,\u201d said Marianne O\u2019Malley, a former analyst with the state\u2019s Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office who was diagnosed with Parkinson\u2019s disease about eight years ago. \u201cThis is the wrong way to go about things.\u201d<\/p>\n

Backers of Prop. 38 proposed it as a solution to the Trump administration\u2019s attack on science: where federal research funding has become diminished or uncertain, California would step in, issuing bond money to bring stability to promising projects and turn the state into a hub of excellence for immunology and immunotherapy research. But the patients who stand to benefit from such a move are divided over whether Californians should shoulder that burden instead of taxpayers across the US, and if so, whether Prop. 38 is the right way to do it.<\/p>\n

\u201cI have never thought of biomedical research as something that needs to be centered in a particular location,\u201d said Robert Kaplan, a senior scholar at Stanford<\/a> who formerly coordinated research portfolios at the National Institutes of Health and an opponent of Prop. 38. \u201cProposition 38 money is good for California institutions, but it means that California taxpayers might be taking a disproportionate share of the responsibility for paying for that research.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"Laurie Adami, a supporter of Prop. 38, was diagnosed with blood cancer when she was 46. She holds two cancer scans, one before she received immunotherapy treatment (left) and one after (right).\u00a0(Courtesy of Trenna Travis)<\/p>\n

Blood cancer survivor Laurie Adami is in favor of the measure. She was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma 20 years ago, when she was 46 and her son was in kindergarten. She fought her way through seven different treatments, including grueling rounds of chemotherapy and three experimental trials so she could survive to see him graduate from high school. In 2018, she enrolled in an immunotherapy trial where scientists reengineered Adami\u2019s own immune cells to attack her disease.<\/p>\n

\u201cChemotherapy is like napalm \u2014 they poison your whole body in the hopes of killing off your cancer,\u201d she said. \u201cThis idea of waking up the immune system is a much more elegant way to target cancers.\u201d<\/p>\n

The therapy she received was called CAR-T. Scientists extracted a sample of Adami\u2019s T-cells and modified them in the lab so they would attach to the specific proteins on her cancer cells. Put another way, T-cells are like the Pac Mans of the immune system and scientists altered them so they would be hungry specifically for her type of cancer cells, then infused them back into her bloodstream to start eating.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Despite the speculative nature of this early-stage research, caregiver Viva Mogi said she will vote for Prop. 38 for the hope it offers. Mogi put her own life and career on hold to care for her mother, who was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer\u2019s ten years ago. At the time, doctors told them there was no cure and not enough medications to help.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey wished us luck,\u201d Mogi said. Looking ahead to her own potential diagnosis and decline from the disease, she added, \u201cI don\u2019t ever want to go through this or put my husband through this.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"Viva Mogi, a supporter of Prop. 38, is a full-time caretaker for her mother who has Alzheimer\u2019s.
\u00a0(Courtesy of Trenna Travis)<\/p>\n

But with state taxpayers on the hook for $4 billion in interest payments on top of the $8.4 billion bond, other patients say the debt the state would incur from supporting Prop. 38 is not worth the hope, especially in light of California\u2019s other long-term obligations and deficits.<\/p>\n

Cancer survivor, Dan Carson, is one of several retired financial analysts from the state Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office that broke a long tradition of nonpartisan silence to speak out against the measure.<\/p>\n

Carson ran the health section of the LAO when it was tasked with evaluating the $3 billion stem cell bond initiative<\/a> in 2004 known as Proposition 71. The measure was pitched to voters as a protest against the George W. Bush administration\u2019s abandonment of stem cell research on religious grounds. Its backers said California would become a new hub for stem cell discoveries and promised the state would receive a windfall of royalty payments to pay back the bond and interest. But the money never materialized, with the state receiving just $16 million of the $6 billion it was promised, Carson said.<\/p>\n

Similarly, Prop. 38 backers say it will be cost neutral. Provisions in the measure would require 10% of any licensing fees derived from immunotherapy treatment discoveries be paid back to the state, and that such treatments be made available to Californians at a 20% discount.<\/p>\n

\u201cOnce again, we\u2019re being promised in this initiative and by its advocates that it will \u2018pay for itself with no net cost to the state or taxpayers,\u2019\u201d Carson said. \u201cI\u2019m here to tell you, that after reviewing the fine print of this measure, that won\u2019t happen. Not even close.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"Marianne O\u2019Malley, who has Parkinson\u2019s disease, works out on an eliptical trainer in her home in Sacramento, California on Oct. 19, 2026. Exercise is the leading therapy to slow the progress of the disease.\u00a0(Fred Greaves for KQED)<\/p>\n

When O\u2019Malley attended her regular boxing and rock climbing classes for people with Parkinson\u2019s \u2014 currently exercise is the top therapy proven to slow the progression of the disease \u2014 other students approached her with questions about Prop. 38 because of her experience at the LAO. Should they vote for it? they asked.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re all desperate for a cure, or at least a treatment,\u201d O\u2019Malley said. \u201cAnd the disappointing thing to tell them is, \u2018No, this measure doesn\u2019t do what you think it\u2019s going to do.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

The campaign in favor of Proposition 38 is being financed by philanthropist Gary Michelson, who also happens to be a co-founder and chair of the brand new California Institute for Immunology & Immunotherapy<\/a> at UCLA, which, according to the ballot measure\u2019s criteria<\/a>, stands to receive half the bond money directly, then help oversee the distribution of the other half in research grants to nonprofits.<\/p>\n

The measure would also exempt this institute from complying with a series of state transparency laws, including public records act requests and open meetings, O\u2019Malley said, meaning taxpayers won\u2019t have a way of knowing if their money is being spent wisely.<\/p>\n

\"\"Marianne O\u2019Malley, who has Parkinson\u2019s disease, rests in her backyard after exercising on an eliptical trainer at her home in Sacramento, California on Oct. 19, 2026. Exercise is the leading therapy to slow the progress of the disease.\u00a0(Fred Greaves for KQED)<\/p>\n

\u201cThis measure hijacks the initiative process to steer public funds to a billionaire\u2019s philanthropic project and then hides its tracks by waiving all the usual laws to promote governmental transparency,\u201d she said. \u201cThis one is so bad and supposedly being done to help people like me, I felt a moral obligation to speak out.\u201d<\/p>\n

If the state of California wants to be a center of scientific research, there are better ways to do it, said Judy Heiman, another former LAO analyst. Medical research grants should be subject to an open, competitive bidding process; they should be awarded based on scientific merit and public health need, not what\u2019s popular at the ballot box. And they should undergo independent review before more funds are disbursed.<\/p>\n

\u201cProp. 38 fails these basic tests,\u201d Heiman said.<\/p>\n

In fact, another bond measure<\/a> that includes these parameters and safeguards will be on the ballot in March 2028, she pointed out. This research fund, borne from months of democratic debate and negotiation in the state legislature, is intended for a wider variety of research, including biomedical, behavioral health, and climate.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s a legitimate argument about whether California should add billions of dollars in medical research spending to its already substantial debt burden,\u201d Heiman said. \u201cScientific merit, not institutional favoritism, should drive where the money goes.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Cancer patients who say their lives were saved by innovations in immunotherapy treatments are among the most vocal…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":502438,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[7,9,8],"class_list":["post-502437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-california","tag-california","tag-california-headlines","tag-california-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/502437","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=502437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/502437\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/502438"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=502437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=502437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=502437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}