Posts Tagged: drugs

Response to an Oncology Fellow

I came across an article on Forbes that was found on Quora. A person asked a question about alternative cancer treatments and wondered why alternative cancer treatments like vitamin C aren’t being used even though they are said to selectively kill tumor cells without side effects.  The answer was given by a Stanford oncology fellow.
He basically comes out and makes unsubstantiated claims and statements about various alternative cancer treatments. He says that vitamin C simply doesn’t work for cancer treatment by saying that it’s been out since the 1970’s (it’s really been around a lot longer than that). He makes the same blanket statement about all the other alternative cancer treatments, specifically naming Gerson therapy, Laetrile, coral chelation therapy, Japanese mushroom extract, and alkaline water.
Curiously, he mentions that some of his patients had paid ‘out of pocket’ for the above alternative cancer treatments but never addresses what the results of these treatments were. He does mention that all of them are cheaper than conventional cancer treatments. I was curious about the results of those people’s experiences with alternative cancer treatments (even though those would be anecdotal reports and not technically ‘scientific’).
His biggest proof of his claim that no alternative treatments work (he actually said that they don’t even qualify as treatments) is that the organizations paying for the treatments (i.e., the national health services in the various countries) would pounce on these treatments if they were cheaper and effective. He says that all you need to know is that since none of these organizations are even investing in any research on these alternative cancer treatments, that means that it’s because they simply don’t work.
Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…
Of course, you know that this isn’t such an airtight reasoning exercise as he has argued that it is. He has left out a number of elements that impact this situation greatly.  It’s not as simple a situation that he describes it to be.
I had a simple question that I haven’t seen any authorities answer. I want to know why there haven’t been any studies where an alternative cancer treatment, or even no treatment at all, is directly tested against a standard cancer treatment? If chemotherapy, radiation and surgery are so much better than these alternative treatments that don’t work, then why won’t anyone test them directly and compare the results.
In fact, why don’t they test chemotherapy drugs against controls that receive no treatment? They claim it’s an ethical issue, but how would you really know if chemotherapy and/or radiation work better than no treatment at all if you never directly test them? One researcher found that chemotherapy was virtually useless for treating cancer.
And why do they have such a huge problem admitting that their approaches to cancer treatment are a dismal failure, especially considering the enormous amounts of money that they’re spending on cancer treatment and cancer research.  Even more perplexing is that they continue to direct the research down the same old lines, using the same failed paradigm. In short, the body is viewed as a battlefield instead of as an integrated working mechanism with interrelated parts.
This is manifested in the thought that bad foods can cause disease, but good foods can’t lead to health. How can one be true and the other be false? This is what I’ve heard from mainstream medical sources, but it doesn’t make sense to me.  If bad food can make you sick, how is it possible for good food to not make you healthy? In fact, for decades, mainstream medicine denied that your choice in foods could even affect your level of health.
A problem with medical research in general is that the experiments are designed to evaluate drugs, as if drugs are the only way to treat diseases.  And because of this bias, there is no real incentive for Big Pharma companies to run expensive trials for natural substances for which they cannot secure patents. No company could finance an $800 million study (the average cost for running a properly recognized study) for a substance that they couldn’t patent and recoup that investment. And unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, no non-Big Pharma companies have the funds to run an $800 million dollar study on any of those natural substances. So it’s basically a “Catch-22” situation.
Get More Alternative Cancer information right here…
There are plenty of promising, non-patentable substances out there that are being studied all the time, but because they can’t be patented, we’ll never see a “double blind randomized” study on them for the above reasons. And although a lot of national health services pay a lot of money for health care, it doesn’t necessarily logically follow that they would want cheap, effective treatments for cancer or any other diseases. In government, they are usually incentivized to want bigger budgets because many departments and administrators are judged on the size of their budget. So to shrink their budgets would be akin to shrinking their fiefdoms, which they don’t want to do.
Lots of scientists and physicians challenge the status quo, but virtually all who do get punished by the mainstream medical establishment. There’s simply too much money that is being made because of the status quo, and anyone that challenges the conceptual framework of it is seen as an enemy of entrenched financial interests. And they ruthlessly defend their profits with an ‘by any means’ strategy. There isn’t a dirty trick in the book that is too sinister for them to employ.
I don’t want to believe that this is the state of affairs in modern medicine. But as I’ve studied, observed and analyzed it (as have others, including scientists and physicians), it’s a fact that there is bias and dogma in modern medicine. We’d like to think that everything they do is proven science, but there’s a lot more to it than that. It’s not such a simple situation. Most people don’t even want to entertain the idea that there is corruption and profiteering in modern medicine, but it’s the sordid truth. Not that this is proof, but I know of doctors who are very disgusted with the way that their options for treating and educating patients are severely curtailed by the medical authorities. They are simply not able to suggest or use treatments that they believe would be better for their patients. In my mind, that is a problem.

Read on »

Big Pharma-Profits Determine Which Drugs are Developed

We must remember that Big Pharma companies are businesses first! Profit is their first priority. They call it ‘maximizing stockholder equity’ in business school, which is a fancy way of saying they are focused on making the most money for owners as possible. So if we are to extrapolate a bit, we know that any Big Pharma company is going to work to produce drugs that make the most money.
This is why they will never, ever announce or promote anything as a treatment for cancer (or any other disease) outside of a drug they can patent and make billions of dollars off of. Big Pharma companies are not in the altruism business. They’re not in business for the good of humanity, or to find cures for diseases. They make a lot more money treating diseases than they ever could curing or eradicating diseases!

And they’re not financing medical education in medical schools, or research studies, or paying mass media television stations to promote or lead to messages or information about cures and treatments that would reduce or eliminate their profits. So you’re never going to hear much about natural cures or treatments for diseases. Those things are bad for profits, regardless of whether or not scientists and lobbyists have families that contract these diseases. It doesn’t matter whether or not the researchers and other people in the industry are good people. Ever hear the saying that ‘nice guys finish last’?  Well, when there’s many billions of dollars at stake, honest researchers get steamrolled, or even killed.  When the chips are down, the people that run these institutions are ruthless about protecting their profits. Profits at any cost. No lie is to big to tell, no truth is too big to suppress, no researcher is too big to attack, malign or destroy.  It isn’t personal; it’s just business.
With that said, you must really read this article below and grasp the concept here. It’s time to wake up and stop buying the mantra that only drugs can treat disease. It’s a message that’s all about making Big Pharma huge sums of money. Regardless of what they say, no disease was ever caused by a drug deficiency!

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are businesses, not healthcare companies. Their business is making profitable drugs that will be widely prescribed by doctors and used by as many consumers as possible. As business people, their primary loyalty is to their shareholders. All decisions on which compounds to develop into drugs and which to bring to market are driven by profit, the competitive landscape, and speed to market.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet
There are several key therapeutic areas that are dependable money makers and have the potential to produce possible blockbusters: drugs to treat cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and central nervous system disorders. Many of the diseases that these drugs treat are lifestyle related illnesses. If many of these symptom sufferers led a healthy lifestyle, they could reverse and/or prevent many of these diseases. But Pharma is not in the disease prevention business. They are in the disease treatment business. Doctors are not taught to promote wellness and prevent disease, they are taught to treat disease. So, prescriptions are dispensed as first line therapy for most symptoms.
When consumers feel they can control their symptoms and ultimately, their health, by just popping a pill, they mistakenly believe that they are also overcoming their disease. But by not changing their lifestyle, they are just masking the symptoms. For example, in the case of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes, by not choosing a healthier diet and by retaining extra weight (especially abdominal body fat), patients remain prone to other diseases and will subsequently require more medications. Patients who take daily medication are also unknowingly taxing their organs incrementally. It is in Pharma’s best interest that you not make lifestyle changes, but instead choose to take their drugs to treat your symptoms. Your disease may stabilize, but it will not reverse. If you will not change your disease-causing lifestyle, you will become dependent on the drug to manage your symptoms. Any side effects of the drug will lead to more drugs to treat those symptoms. It’s a vicious cycle that keeps Big Pharma profitable.
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” – (source)(source)Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal

So how do pharmaceutical companies choose which drugs to develop? They look at what have been blockbusters (big sellers) in the past and make more of those. Hypertension is great example of a blockbuster gateway drug. The Framingham Heart Study, under the direction of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), began studying cardiovascular disease (CVD) in 1948. After each study, they report their findings. In 1967, the Framingham Heart Study reported: “Physical activity found to reduce the risk of heart disease, and obesity to increase the risk of heart disease.” Yet physicians were not trained to recommend increased physical activity to their hypertensive patients. They were trained to prescribe drugs to treat hypertension (HT). Guidelines were set as to what constituted HT and at what number doctors should prescribe medication to reduce blood pressure.
In 2015, The New York Times reported that SPRINT, the study on 9,300 men and women who were at risk of heart disease, would be terminated early because the results were so compelling that the researchers wanted to publish as soon as possible. As a result of the published data, doctors and prescribing nurses were trained to prescribe HT medicines to people with lower diastolic and systolic numbers than they had prior to the published study. More patients on more meds. Nowhere are patients taught that hypertension can be lowered immediately with a 20 minute walk.
Not only were the “favorable” data pushed down through the medical community, they were “pulled through” the patient community via major news publications such as The New York Times. Even more compelling, major media via magazine advertisements and promotional news spots on television called video news releases (VNRs) were used to reinforce the consumer messaging. All medical communications and consumer information is produced by Pharma’s ad agency. The SPRINT trial (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was designed with the outcome in mind. As soon as they reached their desired conclusion, the study was stopped to deliver the “good news” to the public and to change the protocol for what determines HT. Now, doctors were prescribing HT meds earlier to patients who might not be at risk in the interest of protecting their vasculature from possible future heart disease.
As an aside, the SPRINT study was named by the advertising agency used to brand the clinical trial. Controlled brand building generates excitement and allows the marketing message dissemination to begin with a catchy name that connotes a positive forward-thinking movement. These names are not pulled out of the air. They are carefully crafted by expert marketers who know how to prep and sell the target market on the concept they endeavor to get adopted by program, protocol, and product advocates. The advocates are Thought Leaders in CVD who are already talking about the trial before it has even been completed, thus influencing lower-tier prescribers all the way down the chain to your own General Practitioner.
Homeopathic Remedies Sale at Botanic Choice
The protocol was written in advance of the study by the medical education agency, a subsidiary of the advertising agency, and the spin began long before the trial did. As a result, a soon-to-be launched new HT medication was not only embraced, but reached blockbuster status right out of the gate. The SPRINT trial was funded by the NHLBI and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Those organizations received their grant money from the pharmaceutical industry, most notably from the company whose drug was planned to launch upon the release of the new data.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and long time Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ)
In summary, I’ll quote J. Michael Pearson, CEO of Valeant Pharmaceuticals, who flat out admitted on April 13, 2016 that his first responsibility is to the shareholders, not to the furthering of healthcare outcomes and the consumers of their drug products. Instead of investing in new breakthroughs, Valeant relies on lucrative drug acquisitions and price hikes. “If products are sort of mispriced and there’s an opportunity, we will act appropriately in terms of doing what I assume our shareholders would like us to do.”
More and more, it is only the wealthy who can afford quality healthcare, not the average consumer with modest healthcare insurance plans. In 2016, 56 of Valeant’s drugs increased in price by 66 percent. Their latest drug acquisition prompted a 550 percent price increase. “My primary responsibility is to Valeant shareholders. We can do anything we want to do. We will continue to make acquisitions, we will continue to move forward.” Stock prices for Valeant rose 1,000 percent since Pearson became CEO. With that message coming from the top, it’s easy to see how patients are the ones who will suffer from Pharma’s greed. Pharmaceuticals continue to make choices based on how much money they will make, not on how many patients they can help.
For more info, go to:

Read on »

The transatlantic drugs divide: Patients in the US pay THREE TIMES more for drugs than those in the UK

Just more evidence showing that Big Pharma is really sticking it to patients in the United States.  The only reason is profits.  I can’t think of any other reason.  Big Pharma has too much influence over government regulators.  This is the result.  People also need to step up more and fight against this.  Or better yet, people may want to just say no to Big Pharma drugs.  They’re not that great anyway.

The price of the world’s 20 top-selling drugs are, on average, three times more expensive in the US, than Britain, it has emerged.
The findings underscore a transatlantic gulf between the price of treatments for a range of diseases, from breast, lung and kidney cancer to diabetes and arthritis.
And it comes as industry critics, including Democratic presidential candidate Hilary Clinton, demand lower drug costs in Amercia.
The analysis, carried out for Reuters, shows the 20 medicines, which together account for 15 per cent of global pharmaceuticals spending in 2014, are a major source of profits for companies.
Those firms benefitting include AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Roche and AbbVie.
Researchers at the University of Liverpool also found US prices were consistently higher than in other European markets.
Elsewhere, US prices were six times higher than in Brazil, and 16 times higher than the average in the lowest-price country, which was usually India.
In the US, pricing is left to market competition.
As a result drugs’ prices are higher than in nations where governments directly or indirectly control medicine costs.
This means the country is by far the most profitable market for pharmaceutical companies.
It has prompted concerns that Americans are effectively subsidising health systems in other countries.
Manufacturers say decent returns are needed to reward high-risk research and prices reflect the economic value provided by medicines.
They also point to higher US survival rates for diseases such as cancer and the availability of industry-backed access schemes for poorer citizens.

Top 20 drugs by 2014 (drugs firm)
Price ($bln)
What they treat
US vs UK list price multiple

1. Humira (AbbVie)
arthritis, Chron’s disease

2. Lantus (Sanofi)

3. Sovaldi (Gilead)
hepatitis C

4. Abilify (Otsuka)
schizophrenia, bioplar disorder and depression

5. Enbrel (amgen)
rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and plaque psoriasis

6. Seretide (GSK)
asthma, COPD

7. Crestor (AstraZeneca)
high cholesterol

8. Remicade (J&J)
rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis

9. Nexium (AstraZeneca)
heartburn, stomach ulcers

10. MabThera (Roche)

11. Avastin (Roche)
brain tumours, cancers of the kidney, colon, rectum and lung

12. Lyrica (Pfizer)
diabetes, shingles, fibromyalgia

13. Herceptin (Roche)
breast cancer

14. Spiriva (Boehringer)
emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or COPD

15. Januvia (Merck)
type 2 diabetes

16. Copaxone (Teva)
multiple sclerosis

17. NovoRapid (Novo)

18. Neulasta (Amgen)
chemotherapy drug

19. Symbicort (AstraZeneca)
asthma, COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis

20. Lucentis (Roche)
age-related macular degeneration

Median – 3.1

Source: Andrew Hill, University of Liverpool; IMS Health

In recent years, the price differential has been exacerbated by above-inflation annual increases in US drug prices at a time when governments in Europe have capped costs or even pushed prices down.
In fact, US prices for top brand-name drugs jumped 127 per cent between 2008 and 2014, compared with an 11 per cent rise in a basket of common household goods, according to Express Scripts (ESRX.O), the largest US manager of drug plans.
In Europe, meanwhile, the impact of austerity on health budgets since the financial crisis has led industry executives to complain of single-digit percentage annual price declines.
The U.S. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) says international comparisons are misleading because list prices do not take into account discounts available as a result of ‘aggressive negotiation’ by US insurers.
These discounts can drive down the actual price paid by US insurance companies substantially.
However, similar confidential discounts are also offered to big European buyers such as Britain’s National Health Service.
Holly Campbell, PhRMA’s director of communications, said: ‘The US has a competitive marketplace that works to control costs while encouraging the development of new treatments and cures.’
PhRMA also argues that while Americans may pay more for drugs when they first come out, they pay less as drugs get older, since nearly 90 per cent of all medicines prescribed to US patients are now cheap generics.
In Britain, generics account for just over three-quarters of prescriptions and that level is lower in other parts of Europe.
Still, the United States is slower to see the arrival of generic competition to some top-selling drugs, which explains some of the differences in pricing for certain medicines on the top-20 list.
Overall, the analysis found that price differentials were slightly smaller for complex antibody-based drugs, which are used to treat conditions like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis.
Many of the biggest differences were evident for older drugs, reflecting the fact that prices are typically hiked each year in the United States, said University of Liverpool drug pricing expert Andrew Hill.
‘It shows the US drug pricing situation isn’t just a matter of isolated cases like Turing Pharmaceuticals,’ he said.
The latest furor over US drug costs was prompted by the decision by unlisted Turing to hike the cost of an old drug against a parasitic infection to $750 a pill from $13.50.
It has since promised to roll back the increase.
The same medicine is sold in Britain by GlaxoSmithKline for 43p (66 cents).
For more info, go to:

Read on »

100 years to find a cure: Can the process be accelerated?

If the process is as complex and convoluted as these authors have found, it’s no wonder that it’s taking researchers so long to find treatments (cures?) for cancer and other diseases.  It looks like it will take a very long time for them to learn how to cure anything. But if they are thinking (and they say so in this paper) that only drugs are cures for diseases, then they have already shown that they have a strong bias that will color all the research that they conduct.  If you’re only looking for drugs, that’s all that you will find, and you won’t find anything that may be a cure for a disease if it isn’t a drug.
But these researchers implicitly understand some of what I’m saying as indicated by the very title of the paper, “100 years to find a cure.”  What good is a cure for anybody today going to do if it takes them 100 years to find it?  By asking if the process can be accelerated, they’re implying that there is definitely something wrong with the current methodology.  It didn’t take 100 years for them to reduce the mortality rate for infectious diseases, heart disease, and other diseases. What’s going on with cancer?
I bet they’re wondering why public support is waning for basic scientific research.  If it takes 100 years to find a cure, then what real value is this basic research? At this rate, our great-great grandchildren will still be waiting for cures for diseases!  They need to take the fluff out of research and take off the Big Pharma drug blinders so that they can really see what good health is and what it comes from.  (Hint: Diseases aren’t caused by drug deficiencies!)

Scientists from the Gladstone Institutes have provided a detailed map of how basic research translates into new treatments for deadly diseases. Charting the network of discoveries that led to the development of important therapeutic drugs, the investigators revealed that, up to now, the path to a cure has required thousands of scientists and many decades. Writing in the journal Cell, the authors propose that a clearer understanding of how past successes have come about can reveal ways to accelerate the process of finding future cures.
“We started with a big question: how do scientific discoveries lay the foundation for successful development of new drugs?” says author Alexander Pico, PhD, a staff research scientist at the Gladstone Institutes. “We all have an intuitive understanding that basic research provides the starting point for new drug development, but in this paper we wanted to quantify and illuminate features of that path. Our data show that it takes contributions from a surprisingly large and complex network of individual scientists working in many locales to reach a cure.”
Using newly developed, unbiased data modeling methods, the investigators retrospectively mapped the discovery path to two drugs that have been recently approved by the FDA and could be characterized as “cures”–ipilimumab for certain forms of cancer and ivacaftor for cystic fibrosis. The researchers relied on citations from published research findings, using “bibliometrics” to work backwards to uncover the stepwise scientific advances that led to the new medications. According to the networks of cited publications, ipilimumab resulted from research conducted by 7000 scientists from 5700 institutional affiliations over the course of 100 years, while ivacaftor took 2900 scientists with 2500 different affiliations 60 years to develop.
To extract additional information from the data, the researchers developed new metrics–the Propagated In-Degree Rank (PIR) and Ratio of Basic Rankings (RBR)–to quantify the influence and selectiveness of each scientist in the network. These rankings identified “elite performers” who contributed disproportionately to the development of the drugs.
This work provides an initial step towards the development of new predictive metrics that may enhance decision-making in ways that would accelerate future research progress. Ascertaining–and then emulating–certain qualities of the elite performers may be one way to accelerate discovery and propel scientists more rapidly down the path toward cures.
What’s more, in light of waning public and governmental support for funding basic science, the researchers are hopeful that enhanced public understanding of how scientific research leads to urgently needed drugs will translate into increased and sustained Congressional support for the National Institutes of Health.
“As shown by our analysis, new treatments depend upon a broad base of scientific knowledge plus special contributions from a few exceptional scientists,” says first author R. Sanders Williams, MD, president of the Gladstone Institutes. “The ultimate goal of this work is to find ways to accelerate progress towards future cures for cruel diseases that remain unsolved: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, heart failure, deadly viruses, diabetes, many cancers, and others.”
For more info, go to:

Read on »

Problems With the Research Paradigm of Conventional Cancer Research

It’s not that the current research ideas and procedures are totally worthless.  But from what I’m seeing, there have been no big breakthroughs or revolutionary discoveries of ways to extend the lives of cancer patients, much less anything remotely approaching a cure.  Improvements on 5 year survival rate (which is not really analogous to a cure) are usually measured in months, not years or decades.  Something must be wrong with the paradigm, which is obvious to anybody who is actually paying attention.
It’s probably a good thing to try to understand complex metabolic pathways, hormone interactions, gene expression, gene sequences, and other minutiae in regards to cancer.  But while all of this knowledge and facts are interesting, they haven’t really yielded any meaningful results. I’m not saying that a extra month or so of life is not important, but I would tend to think that cancer sufferers are more interested in a cure.  I would tend to believe that they would actually want to be cured. I know that I would prefer a cure to a temporary remission.  And I would also want a high quality of life. What’s the value of an extra month of life if you’re sick as a dog and in intense pain?
Get More Alternative Cancer information right here…
My belief is that conventional scientific research is totally focused on finding treatments for cancer by the use of drugs, and drugs only.  This is why all of the research is directed to finding drugs and invasive, highly technical treatments and procedures.  Since the purpose of a corporation is to make profits, only profitable cancer treatments are going to be researched.  Corporate CEO’s are legally responsible for ‘increasing shareholder value’, which is business-speak for making more money. There’s a huge difference between:
a)finding a cure for cancer, wherever and however we can, and
b)finding a cure for cancer that we can make billions of dollars selling.
So that effectively prohibits them from spending research dollars on approaches that are not going to yield a profit.  And there is really no corporate profits that will be made by Big Pharma corporations by pushing or researching cheap, natural products that can’t be patented.  It doesn’t matter whether or not the natural substances and diet changes are effective.  In fact, it may be worse if they are highly effective because it would render all of their cancer medicines and other things obsolete and nobody would succumb to them, thereby killing their profit potential.  That would not increase shareholder value.
The end result is that you have a self-serving, self-preserving cancer research paradigm.  One paid for and financed by Big Pharma advertising dollars, research dollars, research endowments made to all of the allopathic medical schools, research institutes and government regulatory agencies.  This is why there is a career revolving door between research agencies, Big Pharma companies, lobbyists and government regulatory agencies.  It’s just a big money party. Meanwhile, people with cancer suffer and die.
The more I thought about it, I finally came up with the way that cancer research works.  They research cancer with the same methods that someone who is trying to understand and study an elephant with a microscope.  You could study an elephant for decades with your microscope, and you will probably make a whole lot of discoveries. After all, you have a huge amount of ground to cover. But it will probably take you several lifetimes to actually figure out and understand the elephant.  And this is obviously because your focus is way too narrow to yield any meaningful information quickly!
Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…
The same thing can be said for cancer research.  They study everything with painstaking detail. Everything except the obvious things.  Diet, toxins in the environment, the general nature and characteristics of cancer cells, are all ignored or thought of as minor.  But they can tell you about all of these arcane metabolic pathways and gene sequences and cellular messengers and other factoids that don’t amount to a hill of beans in terms of tangible, meaningful results for cancer patients. But these approaches have yielded mega profits for Big Pharma companies and the entire cancer establishment.
If the true goal was to find a cure for cancer, regardless of profits, it was already done. And most of those people who found them were maligned and/or destroyed.  But with that said, if any cure for cancer was found, alternative or mainstream, then that would kill the proverbial ‘golden goose’.  A cure would shut down the majority of the cancer profit bandwagon. No more ‘pinkouts’ by the Susan Komen organization, no more donations, no more American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, or the other plethora of cancer organizations that are only around because there is no acknowledged cure for cancer.  No more billions spent on researching cancer drugs.  It would mean that many thousands, maybe even millions of people would have to find new jobs.  Evidently, that is not an option because no matter how futile and non-productive the approach, the current medical establishment is obstinately wedded to this approach, and nothing short of a popular uprising or a conventional cancer treatment boycott will change it.

Read on »

Why are Big Pharma Companies Failing?

There’s a relatively recent article that I came across that deals with the trouble that pharmaceutical companies are having.  They are having major problems due to a number of factors.  The former pharmaceutical researcher (Johnathan Bloom, Ph.D.) that wrote this article speaks about the obvious factors that are negatively affecting the pharmaceutical industry.
He covers the phenomenon  of the large number of big money drug patents that are going to expire shortly. Just from expiring patents, he estimates that the Big Pharma industry will lose about $50 billion.
He also speaks on U.S. patent law, which allows a company to have exclusive rights to profits from the drugs that they produce. After taking in to consideration related issues, the effective length of the profit period is about 8 years. After that, generics are produced and the sales of the brand name drug plummet. In fact, he says that most drugs never reach a breakeven, since most of them take about a billion to develop.  In this type of pharmaceutical environment, the blockbuster multi-billion dollar profit drug is a critical element in the pharmaceutical drug paradigm.

Read on »

Is Baking Soda an Effective Cancer Treatment?

There is a lot of controversy about the findings of a Dr Tullio Simoncini regarding the use of sodium bicarbonate for cancer therapy.  He says that based on his study and experience, cancer is a fungus, candida albicans to be exact.  He also claims that he has been having great success in the treatment of solid tumors with the use of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda).  But mainstream medical authorities like the American Cancer Society have been negative about these developments.
The American Cancer Society web site on sodium bicarbonate is precisely worded.  They never actually come out and say that baking soda does not work on cancer.  They make a bunch of leading statements about the topic.  They basically say that available scientific evidence does not support claims that cancer is caused by yeasts or molds, that sodium bicarbonate treats cancer, and that these claims are not supported by clinical or scientific evidence.

Read on »

The Medical Mafia is At It Again…

The Big Pharma apparatus is at it again. The latest intrusion on people’s rights happened in Detroit.
A mother, Maryanne Godboldo, of a 13 year old girl decided to refuse Big Pharma psychotropic medication.  Child Protective Services (CPS) personnel tried to abduct the child.  They accused her of not giving her daughter psychiatric medication prescribed by her doctor.  The mother says that the medication caused adverse side effects in her child that worsened her condition, so she would not give her the medication.  The medication, Risperdal, has a long track record of causing very serious side effects like vomiting, nausea, lack of coordination, anxiety and dizziness.

Read on »

Do GMO Foods Cause Cancer?

The topic of GM foods is a very controversial topic.  The companies that produce them claim that they are necessary to feed the world.  They also say that GMO foods are safe for human consumption, as well as for use in other products, such as vaccines, pharmaceutical drugs, animal feed, and other myriad uses.
Proponents in favor of GM products say that they are safe, and are not substantially different from food products derived from normal cultivation methods.  Those who are wary of their use say that they have unknown effects at best, and that they are extremely dangerous at worse.

Read on »

“New” Cancer Treatments That Use New Technology

Researchers are reporting that they have some new technology that they can use to reduce side effects while increasing the effectiveness of cancer treatments.  They are attempting to deliver the cancer drugs (presumably chemotherapy drugs) directly to tumors, while not damaging normal tissue.  Most traditional chemotherapy drugs are cytotoxic (damaging to normal cells as well as tumor cells).
One of the technologies that is to be used is that of nanoparticles.  They are to be used to create carbon nanotubes (CNT’s) to deliver the drugs directly to the tumor.  A CNT is very small, and would be used to deliver high concentrations of chemotherapeutic drugs into cancer cells, while avoiding exposure to normal cells.  This would also allow the drug to be inside the tumor cells for a longer period of time than normal.

Read on »