Originally published July 22 2015
Governments don't care if cancer drugs actually make people live longer; research shows agencies streamline approval for profit
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The oft-repeated claim that pharmaceutical drugs, whether for conditions as extreme as cancer or as basic as a headache, have been scientifically shown to be safe and effective is laughable. And a new study published in the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) shows that some of the worst examples of this are high-priced cancer drugs, the vast majority of which have never been shown to be effective, and in most cases have been definitively shown not to work as claimed.
But they're big money makers, which is why they're still on the market, suggests a new study. Researchers from Rowan University's School of Osteopathic Medicine and York University's School of Health Policy and Management asked the question, "Why do cancer drugs get such an easy ride?" The answer they found in their investigation is that the average cancer drug is rushed to market without solid proof of efficacy, only to later be exposed as quack medicine (but never pulled off the market).
The report, which looked at dozens of cancer drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that the vast majority of them provide only minimal benefits, at best. The average survival rate of patients who take prescribed cancer drugs versus those who take nothing is only a couple of months, the study also illustrated how drug companies have it good when it comes to pushing untested drugs as part of the multi-billion-dollar cancer racket.
"Unlike most other diseases, cancer [instills] a special fear and 'is treated as an evil, invincible predator, not just a disease,'" wrote the study authors. "The ability of drug companies to charge very high prices, even when most approved cancer drugs provide little gain for patients, drives much of the research, as desperate patients lead some governments and private insurers to pay whatever companies charge."
Cancer drugs don't work, but unholy trinity of media, government and medicine keeps pushing them on the masses This is the crux of the study, after all -- the purpose of cancer drugs is not to heal but to line the pockets of drug industry executives, government sellouts, mainstream media pimps, certified drug dealers (conventional doctors) and other stakeholders. And despite dismal improvements in survival rates, the medical system keeps churning out new cancer drugs that are rushed to market with minimal or no evidence of efficacy, perpetuating this cycle of greed.
"71 drugs approved by the FDA from 2002 to 2014 for solid tumours have resulted in median gains in progression-free and overall survival of only 2.5 and 2.1 months, respectively," said Dr. Joel Lexchin, one of the study's co-authors who examined a wealth of earlier research to make these determinations. "Also, only 42 per cent met the American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee's criteria for meaningful results for patients."
Since our own regulatory agencies clearly won't do this important legwork for us, Dr. Lexchin and his colleagues advise that people ask more questions and demand to see solid evidence that a drug works for a stated claim before signing up to take it.
"Patients and their doctors should demand that regulators require pharma companies to provide clear evidence of clinical effectiveness of the drugs, resulting from rigorous methodology," said Dr. Lexchin. "Drug agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) don't actually look at whether people live longer."
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml