Cancer and the drug companies

[Madness]

Madness, is it lesbian time yet?

Nah. It's high time this cycle of fuckery was broken.

[Katman]

Far be it from me to tell you how to be a good christian, but perhaps sympathy is more appropriate than narcissism when somebody tells you they have lost a loved one.

Please, the last thing I want from Ed is sympathy.

It is simply obsene to suggest that anyone should be belittled for their belief in any alternative cancer treatment.

The cancer sufferer's focus of energy is none of our business.

[BuzzardNZ]

Please, the last thing I want from Ed is sympathy.

It is simply obsene to suggest that anyone should be belittled for their belief in any alternative cancer treatment.

The cancer sufferer's focus of energy is none of our business.

I agree, Ed is pretty rotten for belittling this sensitive subject and trying to win points! ( who knows why!! ) . I'm sorry 4 your loss Katman.

[Laava]

Nah. It's high time this cycle of fuckery was broken.

Fair enough but I would hate for anyone to post anything on topic. Be it on your head!

[TheDemonLord]

It is simply obsene to suggest that anyone should be belittled for their belief in any alternative cancer treatment.

There are a few things here though that can result in a very slippery slope:

1: The placebo effect is well documented and so with any claims of alternative treatments, we must always be skeptical whether it was the treatment or the placebo effect that worked.
2: There is a Danger that someone would refuse a course of treatment (such as Chemo and Radiotherapy) that could either 'Cure' or significantly reduce the negative physical effects of the Cancer, preferring treatments that are considered more 'natural' or with less side effects as current treatments.
3: An unscrupulous Business person could profit off those desperate enough to try any thing.

By all means - let alternative treatments be tested in the same double-blind, controlled tests that every other drug has to go through to prove itself viable. But should it fail in these tests, then the treatment should be treated with skepticism at best, and ridicule at worst.

[mashman]

By all means - let alternative treatments be tested in the same double-blind, controlled tests that every other drug has to go through to prove itself viable. But should it fail in these tests, then the treatment should be treated with skepticism at best, and ridicule at worst.

Respect even though they may only work 1 person though?

[Berries]

There is a Danger that someone would refuse a course of treatment (such as Chemo and Radiotherapy) that could either 'Cure' or significantly reduce the negative physical effects of the Cancer, preferring treatments that are considered more 'natural' or with less side effects as current treatments.

If that comforts the sufferer then that is perfectly fine and although it is easy to say right now if I am strong enough I would choose not to have chemotherapy or radiotherapy having seen up close and personal how it 'works' in some cases.

Everyone should be allowed to make their own free decision without others criticising it from their own particular biased view point, it has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the person facing death.

I'm with Barry Sheene on this one.

[Katman]

1: The placebo effect is well documented and so with any claims of alternative treatments, we must always be skeptical whether it was the treatment or the placebo effect that worked.

And if the placebo effect works - well and good. Anything that forms a positive reinforcement of recovery in a patients mind should be encouraged.

2: There is a Danger that someone would refuse a course of treatment (such as Chemo and Radiotherapy) that could either 'Cure' or significantly reduce the negative physical effects of the Cancer, preferring treatments that are considered more 'natural' or with less side effects as current treatments.

And how exactly is that any of your business?

3: An unscrupulous Business person could profit off those desperate enough to try any thing.

Unscrupulous business people? There's enough of them in the pharmaceutical industry already.

[oldrider]

There are a few things here though that can result in a very slippery slope:

1: The placebo effect is well documented and so with any claims of alternative treatments, we must always be skeptical whether it was the treatment or the placebo effect that worked.
2: There is a Danger that someone would refuse a course of treatment (such as Chemo and Radiotherapy) that could either 'Cure' or significantly reduce the negative physical effects of the Cancer, preferring treatments that are considered more 'natural' or with less side effects as current treatments.
3: An unscrupulous Business person could profit off those desperate enough to try any thing.

By all means - let alternative treatments be tested in the same double-blind, controlled tests that every other drug has to go through to prove itself viable. But should it fail in these tests, then the treatment should be treated with skepticism at best, and ridicule at worst.

Really?

Chemo or radiotherapy does not cure anything - it is designed to kill everything and then leave the immune system to do the healing with whats left.

Some people get lucky - others don't - pretty low success statistics - shouldn't it be treated with skepticism at best and ridicule at worst too?

Just sayin - just sayin.

[bogan]

He has a point but has phrased it poorly I think. The treatments themselves should not be treated with scorn, but any untruthful 'results'/'branding' (see OP) being bandied about should be. Let those who have one of the hardest decisions of their lives make an informed one.

[Ocean1]

Respect even though they may only work 1 person though?

If they only worked for one person they'd never be released for use, would they?

[Ulsterkiwi]

Really?

Chemo or radiotherapy does not cure anything - it is designed to kill everything and then leave the immune system to do the healing with whats left.

Some people get lucky - others don't - pretty low success statistics

There is very little about your statements which is factually correct. Would 90% survival at 5 years for some cancers count as low success to you? If the immune system was all you make it out to be the individual would not have developed a cancer in the first place.

If they only worked for one person they'd never be released for use, would they?

It would be highly unlikely. What people seem to forget is a well designed stage III randomised controlled clinical trial, while considered the top of the hierarchy of evidence used to determine best practice, will rarely, if ever, give absolute answers.
Trials along those lines are used to assist agencies like the FDA decide whether or not to approve a pharmaceutical for use within a healthcare system. Agencies like PHARMAC will look at the evidence to hand to decide if the pharmaceutical in question justifies devoting some of its limited resources to making it available within their system. If a drug is not approved it becomes problematic for a healthcare system to provide it. If the situation were any other way there would no doubt be torches and pitchforks at the doors of government.
This is where Katman makes a very valid point, if something contributes to healing for an individual then its up to that individual whether or not they use it and they should not be prevented from doing so, whether its FDA or PHARMAC approved or not. Healing of course is not the same as cure. There are many products available which have no demonstrable benefit pharmacologically speaking but nor do they do any harm, so who cares? I would be more concerned if actual harm was being caused.
Of course many treatments have side effects which can be described as harm, so called natural products are not exempt from causing side effects either. The real harm is when any benefit gained does not outweigh the harm/side effects caused. Believe it or not that is a guiding principle for medical practice. Xrays anyone? Paracetamol? Asprin? Oxygen?

[Ocean1]

This is where Katman makes a very valid point, if something contributes to healing for an individual then its up to that individual whether or not they use it and they should not be prevented from doing so, whether its FDA or PHARMAC approved or not.

Perfectly correct.

As long as they don't expect anyone else to stump up for the price of their snake oil it's none of anyone else's business.

[Laava]

Perfectly correct.

As long as they don't expect anyone else to stump up for the price of their snake oil it's none of anyone else's business.

Yep, and sometimes it can be as simple as having a good attitude. This of course is not a quantifiable substance but I am not alone in thinking that this, as well as "the placebo effect", is not to be summarily dismissed as having not a lot of merit. IMO.

[Ocean1]

Yep, and sometimes it can be as simple as having a good attitude. This of course is not a quantifiable substance but I am not alone in thinking that this, as well as "the placebo effect", is not to be summarily dismissed as having not a lot of merit. IMO.

Oh aye, in fact there's been a bit of recent work hanging actual numbers on those variables, surprisingly high correlation between what you might call positive attitude on wellbeing in general and oncological outcomes in particular.

Unfortunately you can't prescribe it.