More Cancer Treatment Failure
More Cancer Treatment Failure
At the recent meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncologists (ASCO), some 25,000 doctors met to discuss advances in cancer therapy. Over 10,000 scientific abstracts were presented.
Surely now, after countless billions have been spent on research since President Nixon’s war on cancer was declared in 1971, there must be some dramatic cures. Something must have emerged from this meeting to reverse the growing cancer epidemic and justify the skyrocketing medical costs for cancer treatment.
Surely.
But not so.
The meeting highlighted how that cancer therapy is shifting from conventional cut-burn-poison to a more technologically sophisticated, molecularly targeted pharmaceutical approach. It’s a cash cow heyday for drug companies and a wonderful fix for the addicted Rx generation.
A new fleet of drugs include tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as Gleevec and Iressa. Tarvesa is an ingenious pharmaceutical that targets the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in neoplasms. Another category is antiangiogenic drugs, such as Avastin, that inhibit the growth of blood vessels in tumors.
There have been some qualified ‘successes’ but not without downside serious side effect risks. For example, Avastin causes serious and even fatal bleeding into the lungs (hemoptisis). In one instance 31% of patients experienced this side effect.
But, you might say, so what if there is a good chance of cure? Surprisingly, during this meeting, little discussion could be heard about meaningful results. Everyone was giddy about the science (like kids with new toys), but the take away for the cancer victim was sobering and depressing.
There was a lot of talk about mechanisms of action and theory. There was also many numbers and charts about the effectiveness of the new drugs used alone or in various combinations with others, including conventional chemotherapy. The package presented to attendees was impressively wrapped in science, but what about the results.
In one instance it was found that the new therapies increased survival from 10.8 months to 12.9 months. Progression-free-survival (PFS) was changed in another comparison from 7.2 months to 7.6 months. In another comparison overall survival was changed from 10.2 to 12.5 months and PFS changed from 4.5 to 6.4 months. In yet another comparison the overall survival changed from 5.91 to 6.37 months– about two weeks. One week was added to remission-free survival.
These pathetic results did not dampen the enthusiasm of pharmaceutical purveyors out in force at the meeting with product booth displays rivaling those at the super bowl half time. One company called their drug a “breakthrough… providing new hope for patients with advanced… cancer.” Doctors, looking at only the statistical numbers, concluded that the results were “important” and “exciting” because they were “not due to chance”. Of course the mainstream media jumps right on with wild claims about how the cure is now just around the corner.
Please. One week!
What’s the cost benefit of this “exciting” new progress? In just two years, spending on cancer drugs will increase from 22 billion dollars to 32 billion. Just adding one of the new drugs, Avastin, to a treatment regimen will increase costs to the patient of ,000 per month. While these miracle life extensions of a couple months or a week are going on, costs are escalating 500 fold. If you submit to this leading edge cancer treatment miracle, expect to pay about 0,000.
Recently I was talking to a pharmaceutical salesman who was excitedly detailing the benefits of the drugs he represented. He had impressive numbers of how his drug produced results better than competitor’s drugs. I asked him how his results compared to no treatment at all. Stunned by the question, he had to admit he had no idea.
That’s the first and most obvious question that should be asked before submitting to any potentially toxic or invasive therapy. Those were not the sorts of answers that came out of the ASCO meeting however.
You see, the medical and patient imperative is to ‘do something,’ meaning medical intervention. Never mind that the disease may be self-limiting or reversible by simple life style, dietary or natural treatment options. Why, it would be unethical to do a study where a comparison group was not treated!
Do you see the failed logic here? Can you see that the bias that cancer is a disease that ‘strikes’ us ignores real causes—lifestyle and dietary changes that put us out of sync with our genetically adapted to environmental roots?
If you are struck with any disease, before submitting, ask the question and demand the
Pages: 1 2