Cancer and the drug companies

[Laava]

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.

Haha! Fortunately it can be had without prescription as well! In my wifes case, she is a very positive person and coincidentally at the time when she was having chemo and looking and feeling like death warmed up, she had the appearance of her first grandson with whom she is joined at the hip. Was the best thing ever as far as I am concerned. I can't help feeling she was very lucky, as was I, I suppose!

[Edbear]

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.

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

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.



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?

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.

All very good posts!

[oldrider]

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.

Statement? - sorry try reading that again - more as a question - didn't put a question mark on that comment and I am not qualified to make that as a statement!

I seem to read a lot of stuff that criticises chemo and radio therapy as having a very low % of success!

Also that hospital and medical deaths are higher than the road toll but never read much that verifies exactly what is correct.

Me - I don't claim to know the correct answer - if you do - what is it?

[Edbear]

Statement? - sorry try reading that again - more as a question - didn't put a question mark on that comment and I am not qualified to make that as a statement!

I seem to read a lot of stuff that criticises chemo and radio therapy as having a very low % of success!

Also that hospital and medical deaths are higher than the road toll but never read much that verifies exactly what is correct.

Me - I don't claim to know the correct answer - if you do - what is it?

I recommend visiting the Oncology ward at Auckland Hospital, it will change you. It changes everyone. Talk to the Dr's and nurses there.

[mashman]

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

No. Treatment would be tailored.

[Ocean1]

No. Treatment would be tailored.

Oh aye? It costs billions to develop treatments that benefit almost everyone, and you figure we can do that for each and every patient?

[mashman]

Oh aye? It costs billions to develop treatments that benefit almost everyone, and you figure we can do that for each and every patient?

Yup... although it'd be cheating, coz we wouldn't be hindered by budget constraint. Alas... when you put it the way you put it, money is more important than people.

[Laava]

Thing I don't understand is, when two women are making love, how do they know when they are finished?

[mashman]

Thing I don't understand is, when two women are making love, how do they know when they are finished?

They both want to hug.

[Ocean1]

Yup... although it'd be cheating, coz we wouldn't be hindered by budget constraint. Alas... when you put it the way you put it, money is more important than people.

Let's just pretend that what everyone else understands about money equalling resources is correct, OK?

Still going to spend billions on developing custom treatments for everyone?

[mashman]

Let's just pretend that what everyone else understands about money equalling resources is correct, OK?

Still going to spend billions on developing custom treatments for everyone?

Ok.

Why not? Better than spending it on stuff that makes stuff go boom or cause people to die unexpectedly.

[Laava]

They both want to hug.

Wouldn't that just set the whole thing in motion again?

[mashman]

Wouldn't that just set the whole thing in motion again?

Dunno. Will think about it for a while.

[Brian d marge]

They both want to hug.

the talking starts more like ....signal noise ratio goes through the roof and men shut down

Stephen

[Ocean1]

Ok.

Why not? Better than spending it on stuff that makes stuff go boom or cause people to die unexpectedly.

Because just as there isn't that much money in the world there's not that many resources in the world.

Which brings us back to using the health resources we do have most effectively. Which means treatments that benefit almost everyone.