[profound (OP)]

A report today confirms that most cancer drugs are actually Snake Oil and are quack treatments and don't do anything at all, apart  from making the patient suffer from the hideous side effects and apart from making vast amount of money for the companies that make them.

The question is how do these snake oil drugs and quack treatments get approved in the first place?

Who approves them and why?

What are the names of these people and who do they really work for and what kickbacks do they get?

Are the people who approve theses snake oil quack treatments get kickbacks from the companies making them?

https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/many-new-cancer-drugs-show-no-clear-benefit-argues-review/

"Over half of new cancer drugs 'show no benefits' for survival or wellbeing," The Guardian reports. That was the finding of a study looking at the evidence supporting new cancer drugs approved between 2009 and 2013 by the European Medicine Agency (EMA).

The study found only half of drug approvals had clear evidence showing they either prolonged people's lives, or improved their quality of life. That's not the same as saying these drugs would not help anyone. But research presented at the time of the drugs' approval, and gathered in the three to eight following years, did not show that they worked better than existing treatments in terms of prolonging or improving quality of life.

The study raises questions ....''



Links to the headlines

Over half of new cancer drugs 'show no benefits' for survival or wellbeing

The Guardian, October 5 2017

Majority of recent cancer drugs approved for use in UK show no survival benefits, study finds

The Daily Telegraph, October 5 2017

The costly cancer drugs that DON'T help patients: More than half of treatments do nothing to improve or extend their lives

Mail Online, October 5 2017

Cancer patients given new drugs that won’t help them

The Times (subscription required), October 5 2017
Links to the science

Davis C, Naci H, Gurpinar E, et al. Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13The BMJ. Published online October 4 2017

[Colin2B]

A report today confirms that most cancer drugs are actually Snake Oil and are quack treatments and don't do anything at all, apart  from making the patient suffer from the hideous side effects and apart from making vast amount of money for the companies that make them.

That is not what the report actually says. Did you read it?

[smart]

A report today confirms that most cancer drugs are actually Snake Oil and are quack treatments and don't do anything at all, apart  from making the patient suffer from the hideous side effects and apart from making vast amount of money for the companies that make them.

That is not what the report actually says. Did you read it?

I just did.

I think @profound original post is accurate and raising interesting questions.

The question is how do these snake oil drugs and quack treatments get approved in the first place?

Cancer research is a big business.

cancer research may be financed by global corporations aiming to replace cancer prevention with cancer
treatment.

[Colin2B]

A report today confirms that most cancer drugs are actually Snake Oil and are quack treatments and don't do anything at all, apart  from making the patient suffer from the hideous side effects and apart from making vast amount of money for the companies that make them.

That is not what the report actually says. Did you read it?

I just did.

I think @profound original post is accurate and raising interesting questions.

Then you have made the same mistake in not reading it properly. There is a big difference between saying that some new treatments are no more effective than existing ones and saying that most cancer drugs are snake oil and do harm. The report contains none of the false reporting and hysteria of the latter statement.

[smart]

Then you have made the same mistake in not reading it properly. There is a big difference between saying that some new treatments are no more effective than existing ones and saying that most cancer drugs are snake oil and do harm. The report contains none of the false reporting and hysteria of the latter statement.

Regardless of the conclusions of this article, cancer research is snake oil because cancer is generally not curable.

[Kryptid]

I wonder how long it will be until somebody says "Big Pharma" in this thread (other than this post, I mean).

[Bored chemist]

Then you have made the same mistake in not reading it properly. There is a big difference between saying that some new treatments are no more effective than existing ones and saying that most cancer drugs are snake oil and do harm. The report contains none of the false reporting and hysteria of the latter statement.

Regardless of the conclusions of this article, cancer research is snake oil because cancer is generally not curable.

It is sufficiently often curable to mean that your claim is just wrong.

[smart]

It is sufficiently often curable to mean that your claim is just wrong.

I don't think there's enough cancer survivors in this forum to support your assertion.

[Colin2B]

I wonder how long it will be until somebody says "Big Pharma" in this thread (other than this post, I mean).

Ok, I will.

Regardless of the conclusions of this article

So, one moment you say the article proclaims the truth, the next you distance yourself from its real conclusions.

I have no doubt that in the pursuit of profit large corporations are not always honest about the results of research. In this I don't just mean 'Big Pharma' but, tobacco industry, food industry, sports drinks companies, bottled water companies, Big Supplements industry, alternative medicine industry, etc. However, in trying to determine the evidence based facts it is of no help to anyone's case to blatantly misquote a very clear and helpful piece of research.

It is sufficiently often curable to mean that your claim is just wrong.

I don't think there's enough cancer survivors in this forum to support your assertion.

No, but we all know many people who have survived.

[exothermic]

There is a big difference between saying that some new treatments are no more effective than existing ones and saying that most cancer drugs are snake oil and do harm. The report contains none of the false reporting and hysteria of the latter statement.

Precisely.

[exothermic]

Regardless of the conclusions of this article, cancer research is snake oil because cancer is generally not curable.

If cancer drugs were all just "snake oil".... none of them would elicit improvement.... such a notion is unequivocally false.

~

[profound (OP)]

I wonder how long it will be until somebody says "Big Pharma" in this thread (other than this post, I mean).

Ok, I will.

Regardless of the conclusions of this article

So, one moment you say the article proclaims the truth, the next you distance yourself from its real conclusions.

I have no doubt that in the pursuit of profit large corporations are not always honest about the results of research. In this I don't just mean 'Big Pharma' but, tobacco industry, food industry, sports drinks companies, bottled water companies, Big Supplements industry, alternative medicine industry, etc. However, in trying to determine the evidence based facts it is of no help to anyone's case to blatantly misquote a very clear and helpful piece of research.

It is sufficiently often curable to mean that your claim is just wrong.

I don't think there's enough cancer survivors in this forum to support your assertion.

No, but we all know many people who have survived.

You seem to be excusing the fraud of Big Pharma by drawing attention to other industries.

Do you work for them? Are you a 'consultant' for them? Do you get rewards and kickbacks for your 'loyalty'.

Yet this isn't about big pharma making drugs... it's about them creating absolute frauds and calling them drugs, and yes, that's evil because those can take away a persons chance to use an effective drug. I get it... some people are so damn scared of death they'll try anything to stay alive, even if what they try is 100% guaranteed to fail. It's a company preying on that survival instinct by offering absolutely useless "treatments" that should rile everyone... except maybe the sadists and psychopaths.

[profound (OP)]

A report today confirms that most cancer drugs are actually Snake Oil and are quack treatments and don't do anything at all, apart  from making the patient suffer from the hideous side effects and apart from making vast amount of money for the companies that make them.

That is not what the report actually says. Did you read it?

I just did.

I think @profound original post is accurate and raising interesting questions.

Then you have made the same mistake in not reading it properly. There is a big difference between saying that some new treatments are no more effective than existing ones and saying that most cancer drugs are snake oil and do harm. The report contains none of the false reporting and hysteria of the latter statement.

The study shows that cancer drugs are largely very expensive Snake Oil and Quack treatments marketed to ignorant doctors who often get kickbacks.The harm that is done is explained below.

The summary is below:-

Conclusion

Among 68 cancer drug indications approved by the EMA in the period 2009-13, and with a median of 5.4 years’ follow-up, only 35 (51%) were associated with significant improvement in survival or quality of life over alternative treatment options, placebo, or as add on treatment. For 33 (49%), uncertainty remains over whether the drugs extend survival or improve quality of life. Of the 23 drugs with a survival benefit that could be scored with the validated ESMO-MCBS tool, only 11 (48%) were judged to offer a clinically meaningful benefit.

Most new oncology drugs authorised by the EMA in 2009-13 came onto the market without clear evidence that they improved the quality or quantity of patients’ lives, and, when survival gains over available treatment alternatives were shown, they were not always clinically meaningful. Little new information to guide patients, their treating clinicians, or decisions about whether or not to pay for treatments was generated in the postmarketing period. This situation has negative implications for patients and public health.1993 When expensive drugs that lack clinically meaningful benefits are approved and paid for within publicly funded healthcare systems, individual patients can be harmed, important societal resources wasted, and the delivery of equitable and affordable care undermined.

http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4530

[profound (OP)]

Regardless of the conclusions of this article, cancer research is snake oil because cancer is generally not curable.

If cancer drugs were all just "snake oil".... none of them would elicit improvement.... such a notion is unequivocally false.

~

You don't know that as well as you might think - that's what the "evidence based medicine" thing is partly about.

In an area that is as loaded with emotions as medicine is (combined with a "slight" tendency of doctors to have huge egos) confirmation bias and other errors of perception run amok.

Not to mention the muddy data/results/experiences you get because of the placebo effect and the reward of billions in profit.

No wonder that, for centuries (if not millenia) even well-meaning doctors kept on killing their patients with their treatments.

Just as an example if you work for a few years on some drug and it shows only 3% efficacy what will you do?

[smart]

If cancer drugs were all just "snake oil".... none of them would elicit improvement.... such a notion is unequivocally false.

Here's what Dr. Allen Levin had to say about chemotherapy:

Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.
— Allen Levin, MD UCSF, The Healing of Cancer

https://www.cancertutor.com/deathbydoctoring1/

And since chemotherapy long-term failure rate is 97% positive, I would not call this outcome a "clinical improvement".

Source: http://drfarrahcancercenter.com/chemos-97-long-term-failure-rate/

[profound (OP)]

If cancer drugs were all just "snake oil".... none of them would elicit improvement.... such a notion is unequivocally false.

Here's what Dr. Allen Levin had to say about chemotherapy:

Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.
— Allen Levin, MD UCSF, The Healing of Cancer

https://www.cancertutor.com/deathbydoctoring1/

And since chemotherapy long-term failure rate is 97% positive, I would not call this outcome a "clinical improvement".

Source: http://drfarrahcancercenter.com/chemos-97-long-term-failure-rate/

Yes you are correct.If these medications actually worked you would not get the below:-
In males, there were around 86,500 cancer deaths in the UK in 2014. In females, there were around 76,900 cancer deaths in the UK in 2014. Every four minutes someone in the UK dies from cancer. Lung, bowel, breast and prostate cancers together accounted for almost half (46%) of all cancer deaths in the UK in 2014.

A few people die in some terrorist attack and everyone gets there knickers in a twist and peeing in their pants.The corporate controlled media instigating people to accept more curtailment on civil liberties using the national security scare tactic.

As I said before terrorism is the LEAST cause of death yet gets the MOST media coverage.Heart disease and Cancers are the BIGGEST causes of deaths yet get the LEAST media coverage.

[exothermic]

If cancer drugs were all just "snake oil".... none of them would elicit improvement.... such a notion is unequivocally false.

You don't know that as well as you might think

lol.... My statement was 100% factual - hence the reason why nobody will be able to provide any evidence to refute it.

Unless  of course you plan on attempting to convince us that all cancer drugs are failures.

~

[exothermic]

In an area that is as loaded with emotions as medicine is (combined with a "slight" tendency of doctors to have huge egos) confirmation bias and other errors of perception run amok.

I don't understand gibberish. What does this have to do with the false implication that all cancer drugs are "snake oil"?

Not to mention the muddy data/results/experiences you get because of the placebo effect and the reward of billions in profit.

There is a control for that. It's called double-blinded/placebo-controlled research.

[exothermic]

If these medications actually worked you would not get the below:-
In males, there were around 86,500 cancer deaths in the UK in 2014. In females, there were around 76,900 cancer deaths in the UK in 2014. Every four minutes someone in the UK dies from cancer.

So you're determining the effectiveness of cancer drugs from cancer death rates? Oh boy.

*News Flash*

When people die from cancer.... it doesn't mean the drugs they were taking, failed to elicit improvement.

~

[exothermic]

since chemotherapy long-term failure rate is 97% positive, I would not call this outcome a "clinical improvement".

Unless your contention is that chemotherapy failure-rates represent the "clinical improvement" from cancer drugs that I referred to.... then your statement means little in the context of this discussion.

~