Cancer drug trial halted in UK for being too successful

[tawadi]

Source: http://www.news.com.au/world/cancer-drug-trial-halted-in-uk-for-being-too-successful/story-e6frfkyi-

Doctors at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London concluded that it would have been unethical not to offer it to all 922 cancer patients on the trial after the drug was shown to ease pain and cause only minor side-effects, The (London) Sunday Telegraph said.

The drug - Radium-223 Chloride, known as Alpharadin TM - targets tumours with alpha radiation, reducing the damage to surrounding tissue.

Dr Chris Parker, lead researcher on the project, said, "It's more damaging. It takes one, two, three hits to kill a cancer cell compared with thousands of hits for beta particles. They have such a tiny range, a few millionths of a meter. So we can be sure that the damage is being done where it should be."


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world/cancer-drug-trial-halted-in-uk-for-being-too-successful/story-e6frfkyi-1226145901409

---

This is good news, actually.

[Orrex]

1. Another sickening example of Big Medicine helping people!

K/R

[ronnie624]

6. I still won't like it,

the next time a pharmaceutical industry executive is appointed to head the FDA. No matter what, it's a huge conflict of interests.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. +1

:evilgrin:

[DissedByBush]

44. I think the bad title helped you reach that conclusion

The test they were performing was working so well they did halt it.

They stopped giving placebo to the control group and gave them the real stuff.

They couldn't ethically not give it to them when it was so obvious it worked.

This is good news.

[msanthrope]

46. I think you need to adjust your sarcasm meter....nt

[DissedByBush]

106. What's the problem?

Would you suggest taking the trials to the end, giving people placebos when you could be helping them?

I couldn't do it.

[No Elephants]

67. The link did not work for me, so pardon my question, but was "Big Medicine" involved in this?

[pam4water]

76. It's not big medicine helping in Britain. It's big government :P

[mwooldri]

80. In this case, the two are the same.

Big government offers big medicine. The NHS as a whole has a huge workforce: only the Chinese Army, US Department of Defense, Wal-Mart and the Indian Railways have more employees.

[Avalux]

2. This is GOOD news that the trial was halted!

The trial design was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, where a number of the participants received no drug, as the control group. The trial was halted because it was UNETHICAL to continue those people on nothing during the course of the trial. Preliminary results show the drug works and has little side effects. Now it can be offered to everyone who needs it. :applause:

[Xtraneous]

89. Woohoo! Yeah, stopping the trials worked out great for AZT too!

Yay, just like Governor Perry, let's put emotions (and quick profits) over safety!!!

As a Thalidomide child (no defects except for a general disdain for mindless human sheep) and friend of many who were killed with AZT, I concur, let's kill some more humans to see how it all works out! Long live short term ethics! Long live big profits of Big Pharma!

1961,1986(http://alturl.com/d3bgd) and now 2011! Woohoo!

[Avalux]

95. I see you posted an article here.

Interesting read. During that time, everyone was desperate for SOMETHING that would work against HIV; the people I knew were dropping like flies after diagnosis; we didn't even have a way to measure the virus in the body. CD4 counts are too variable and not a good indicator of progression.

AZT was it - a lot of people hung their hats on getting it approved. The toxicity was something that people thought would be tolerable if the benefits outweight the risks. We know now AZT wasn't the saviour everyone wanted it to be.

The deaths that occurred in studies, in the treatment and placebo groups; often were from comorbidities from symptomatic HIV and not the drug alone.

[Xtraneous]

98. Comorbidities

It is bs like this. AZT killed period. But nice job taking the fault away from the profitable fast-tracking with some fanciful nonsense term. As someone who has first hand experience with hospitalization of "hiv/aids" patients, including recently - 20 years later, there is no way that a conclusion of comorbidity could ever be determined in that very sloppy atmosphere. Hey, but it sure sounds good and will do the job convincing the sheep.

[Avalux]

100. So what was the alternative to AZT? Certain death.

This is clearly an emotional subject for you and I understand completely. Please also try to understand though; so many of those enrolled in the trials in the 80s were already very ill and facing certain death. During the trials, it was difficult to discern side effects from illness. Makes me sad to remember it all...

[pinto]

3. Good news, good call.

:hi:

[Stuart G]

4. k & r

[kestrel91316]

5. If it works really well we can expect that it either will never get to market in

the US, or will be so hideously expensive that it will bankrupt even the insured who avail themselves of it.

And the uninsured won't have any access to it at all due to cost.

[Schema Thing]

9. Have a nice day, Sunshine.

[durablend]

12. He's absolutely right

But keep living in De Nile

[Schema Thing]

19. No, he's not right.

Keep living in Makeshitupbecauseitfeedsmynarrrative land.

[Yo_Mama]

15. Oh, get a grip

FDA fasttracked this drug in August of this year for prostrate cancer victims with bone metastases.
http://www.press.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/358206475E11B4F6C12578F4004D9375?Open&setprintmode=1

It's not a cure. It extends life spans.

[EC]

20. Or, it's released on a grand scale at reasonable costs

so the medical and insurance industry can save money on years of cancer treatments for the longterm ill.

[No Elephants]

59. Same underlying principle: "Follow the money."

[crunch60]

53. drug cost

You are absolutely right. I took a drug that cost $300.00 per month, I had insurance. Women without insurance, were left out. If a drug is not affordable, it is useless. Don't ask Nancy Brinker, who is the CEO of Komen foundation and Race for the Cure..she won't help you. She makes $532,000,00 a year. She is making big bucks from her sister, Susan Komen, who died of breast cancer in 1980. After 25 years of running, over one billion dollars raised, they are not one step closer to finding a "cure", Why, because there is NO incentive. Please go to the link below and help stop the "pink-washing" of woman's breast cancer, a project of Brest Cancer Action. We are Aware, now we need Action.

http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/

[saras]

8. Interesting "drug"

More at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8786451/Early-success-in-cancer-drug-trial-gives-patients-promising-future.html

It's a particular isotope of radium, with a half-life of eleven days. It does its work and goes away. The most common isotope, on the other hand, has a half-life of many centuries.

The "medical" science involved is relatively trivial. The hard parts were discovering and extracting the correct isotope. Beyond that it's an improvement on, but the same principle as, "kill 'em all and let God sort it out", or "bring them all near death and trust healthy cells to recover faster than cancerous ones". This stuff's kill range is "millionths of a meter", so if you put it in a tumor, it doesn't kill anything else.

This is indeed good news for some particular kinds of cancer sufferers. It promises to work really well for at least a few things.

[separationcs]

10. A cure can't happen fast enough.....

....my people are dropping like flies.

[patrice]

13. Oh! noes! Don't threaten the Cancer Industry!!

Twice widowed here.

I know, "everybody's got a story", but . . . .

HOW can anyone help but wonder about what the HELL is going on!

[Deep13]

23. Trial was stopped because it was clear it worked...

...and they had to give it to the placebo group too. Good news.

[patrice]

30. It really is good news, so I shared that with FB, but . . .

I do wonder what we could do about this disease if we'd spend as much time and resources on it as we do upon war.

[Deep13]

40. I wonder that too. nt

[veness]

81. Patrice, I am sorry for your loses. n/t

[Yo_Mama]

14. It's not a drug - it's a type of radiotherapy

And ethical guidelines for these types of trials do sometimes require halting the trials.

If the treatment's action is so positive that it becomes clear that not offering it to the control participants is getting close to the Tuskegee experiment (following syphilis cases to see what would happen when a treatment was available), then the trial is ended and the treatment is made available to all participants.

[provis99]

16. the researchers will lose their jobs for this.

I expect the company to print out a press release any day apologizing for the researchers doing "flawed" research. We'll never see this therapy come to market.

[Confusious]

17. It's been fast tracked by the FDA

so.... you're wrong.

http://www.press.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/358206475E11B4F6C12578F4004D9375?Open&setprintmode=1

while the drug companies are evil, some of you just go over the top.

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. Well, that's scary in itself - usually, if something is fast-tracked by the FDA

it winds up killing thousands and gets pulled off the market after five years.

[Confusious]

60. Do you happen to have the number of drugs

That were fast tracked vs the number pulled? I'd like to see that.

Real, hard numbers.

There must be hard numbers because you said "usually"

[Avalux]

79. That statement shows you need to understand what 'fast-tracked' means.

Cancer drugs, anti-infectives - those drugs that exhibit efficacy and can prevent death (like many anti-retrovirals for HIV infection) are fast-tracked.

Drugs like Vioxx are not. Phase III clinical trials for Vioxx went on for years and it was still pulled once millions and millions of people starting taking for long periods of time, for chronic problems.

BTW - can you name a drug that winded up killing thousands after it was approved by the FDA?

[Xtraneous]

90. AZT: Fast-tracked with eerily similar trial stoppage.

Emotional ethics and profit rule over safety and truth. Those who died aren't alive to tell the story and most who survived are too distraught to tell it. So let's just keep on doing it again and again and again...

[Avalux]

94. Really? Please give me specifics on the "eerily similar trial stoppage" with AZT.

And before you go there, I need to tell you I was intimately involved in the development of that drug, not similar to the OP's article. ZDV is still a vital component to HIV treatment.

[No Elephants]

57. Not necessarily over the top, but maybe in the wrong direction.

The underlying idea is, "follow the money," which almost always is the correct way to go, anymore.

People may be misperceiving the factual realities of this particular situation, but the cynicsim is warranted.

FDA fast tracked genetically engineered seeds for Monsanto, too. Already, farmers as far away as Oxaca, Mexico have noticed that crops that have been grown one way for 10.000 years are genetically altered.

[Confusious]

61. Over the top

Some here seem to think that if anything is effective, it'll be suppressed. They have a cure for cancer, but they don't use it because it won't make money. etc, etc, etc...

Over the top. Into the loony bin.


Just because the FDA does some things wrong doesn't mean they do everything wrong.

Or are you the type of person who thinks people shouldn't be vegetarian because Hitler was a vegetarian?

Maybe we shouldn't speak English, because Republicans speak English too?

[No Elephants]

63. Um, I never said anything remotely like "if anything is effective, it will be supressed,"

Nor did I engage you in anything but a polite way.

Maybe you should address your attempts to belittle at someone who actually did say that? Or, better yet, try addressing what people actually posted and with the same degree of courtesy as they addressed you.

[Confusious]

66. If you had read the start of the thread, post #16, I did.

[No Elephants]

68. I did read the thread. Still, my post did not say what you claimed, nor

was the tone of my post anything but respectful.

You could have apologized, or remained silent. Instead, you chose to reply to me by implying that your post to me was somehow my fault.


You've told me more than enough about your idea of posting.

[Confusious]

103. You seemed to be lacking understanding in the reason

I replied the way I did. I'll explain it to you, since you were not the person I was responding to.

Now, I have nothing against someone coming into a conversation, this is a discussion board after all. but you seemed lost as to how and why.


I also responded to this in your post:

FDA fast tracked genetically engineered seeds for Monsanto ( Implying fast tracking was bad because they did it for Monsanto )

to which I replied:

Or are you the type of person who thinks people shouldn't be vegetarian because Hitler was a vegetarian?

Maybe we shouldn't speak English, because Republicans speak English too?

Which was to show you how ridiculous your point about the FDA was.

Now you claim it's rude. Well, I dispute that too, unless examples are rude.

If you want rude, I can show you rude. That wasn't rude.

[HuckleB]

25. Nice fantasy you've got there.

Goodness.

[jmowreader]

31. No, no...

The company is probably eating this shit up. "It works! It's great! We have fast-track approval! Now we can go out and SELL this to people!"

It's a form of radiation therapy, which we've been using successfully for a really long time, so there's no real reason it shouldn't work.

[No Elephants]

56. Sure we will. How will anyone make money on anything that never comes to market?

[Zoeisright]

82. Oh bullshit.

That's the ethical way to run a medical trial. If the drug is dangerous, or is so good it is unethical to NOT give the treatment to one group, the trial is stopped.

[usrname]

18. How does it work?

The placebo is a pill. But I don't think I want to take a radioactive pill and have the contents coursing around my bloodstream.

If it's injected into the tumor, I can see how that might be efficacious. Were the control group injected with a placebo solution? The test should be double-blind, meaning even the people performing the injection do not know whether it's a placebo or not.

[davepdx]

41. Probably administered by IV injection...

It is probably administered by intravenous injection. I get a server error on the first link and the second link in the OP doesn't indicate the route of administration of the radioactive dose. IV injection is the method of administration for prior radionuclide therapies. The idea is to get the radioactive material inside the metastatic cancer cells so that the radioactive dose can produce as much damage as is possible to those cancer cells.

Both Strontium and Radium are treated in the body as Calcium and they clear the bloodstream and concentrate in the bones fairly rapidly. The metastatic tumors being treated have a much higher metabolic rate than the normal bone cells so the metastatic tumors concentrate the radionuclide at very high levels.

I left the field of Nuclear Medicine in 1997 but I don't think things have changed all that much. At that time this type of therapy was only performed on patients who were not able to get any more external beam radiation therapy because they had received so much radiation that they couldn't tolerate any more external beam radiation. This is a palliative type of treatment - it reduces pain but it does nothing to "cure" the underlying cancer. The use of radionuclides of this type is intended to reduce pain in order to improve the quality of life for the person's remaining time.

[gateley]

48. But I think relieving pain - even without a cure - is wonderful,

don't you? I'm assuming people wouldn't be in an opiate-like induced state and could maybe live out their remaining time more "present"?

You explain this so well, but I'm unsure if you think this is a good option or not -- what do you think?

[davepdx]

54. Absolutely it is good idea. I wholly support pain relief with a

technique of this nature. Sorry I wasn't clear on that. The idea of an alpha particle based radionuclide therapy product is exciting to me as it is sort of the holy grail of radionuclide therapy because an alpha particle delivers a higher dose but it doesn't penetrate as far as a beta particle which means less radiation exposure to surrounding tissues. A non-radioactive toxic agent that concentrates in just cancer cells would be preferable but that kind of specificity (with an extremely high target-to-nontarget ratio) has not been achieved to my knowledge. Someone who knows about the current state of chemotherapy could address that aspect of oncology much better than I can.

There is a range of palliative response to this type of therapy - from having "just" some degree of reduction in pain and/or being able to reduce the dose of morphine that they were taking a little bit to quite dramatic responses. Most of the patients that I remember had fairly substantial pain relief but had a dramatic reduction in need for morphine. They weren't "drugged out" any more. I remember a 90 year old man who had so much pain that he couldn't move from his wheelchair. He couldn't move in any way. He was sort of frozen in place because any motion was painful. Any type of movement of his arms or legs was extremely painful for him and he couldn't take any more morphine as he'd already taken as much as he was supposed to take. Prior to having prostate cancer both he and his wife were avid ballroom dancers. Two weeks after getting his Strontium-89 dose he came back in to the hospital for a follow-up blood test. He joyfully told us he was now able to dance again with his wife. He became overcome with tears of happiness and he and his wife couldn't say "thank you" enough because they were now able to enjoy dancing together again. It was a moment that I will always carry with me.

In 1997 the cost of the Strontium-89 dose was $2000 (the actual cost to the hospital). Medicare covered its use. I always thought it was the bean counters that thought that was expensive. I know I sure didn't as I saw what its use could do for someone in dire pain. I always thought it was a bargain.

[gateley]

83. What an amazing story about the 90 man! It's what we would

consider "miraculous".

Is what they're doing in England essentially the same thing? Hopefully the buzz around it (if there IS a buzz) will get people interested and maybe make it into the mainstream. And $2000 sounds like NOTHING compared to some of the prices you hear tossed around. Plus, part of the Medicare "reform" is rumored to be better prices for prescription drugs, so crossing my fingers...

[davepdx]

96. This new therapy may be better...

http://cancerology.blogspot.com/2011/08/radium-233-for-prostate-cancer.html
This article is much more informative. This article refers the extended survival of patients taking this drug (14 months vs. 11.2 months for those on placebo). The article does not address anything about pain reduction in these patients though.

http://uk.health.lifestyle.yahoo.net/prostate-cancer-drug-success-halts-trial.htm
Again, it mentions lifespan improvements which is certainly fantastic, but nothing about pain reduction. For me, the quality of life of these added months would have to be a factor in determining whether I am gung-ho about it or not.

I have no idea about the pricing of this new radiopharmaceutical. The Strontium-89 Chloride radiopharmaceutical that I worked with was $2000 per dose and each patient got one dose. This new Radium-233 chloride radiopharmaceutical is administered (according to the first article) as six doses. I imagine it will be even more expensive per dose than Metastron (the Strontium-89 chloride agent) but that is only conjecture on my part.

[gateley]

97. These therapies, like prescription drugs -- are they way overpriced?

I understand the R&D is costly as are the clinical trials, and I've heard (don't know if it's true) that pharmaceutical companies have to have their own insurance pile of cash as they are un insurable. So, I understand they can't give their products away, but am curious if you feel, at least with the $2,000 dose, that it was greedily OVERpriced.

I don't think I'd want to hang on if I were in that much pain, so I agree that the pain management would have to be a big factor.

[davepdx]

101. I have no clue as to the actual economics

of making a radiotherapeutic agent of this type today. There are a few big differences to consider between the production of this type of agent and the normal type of non-radioactive prescription drugs that everyone knows about.

First, the source of the radioisotope used will be costly. Some radioisotopes used for medical uses are produced in specialized nuclear reactors and others are produced in machines (cyclotrons). The two reactors that produced medical isotopes in the U.S. have been closed down. The only other medical reactor that I'm aware of in the Western Hemisphere is in Canada but I don't know if they are capable of making the radioisotope Radium-233. My *guess* is this would be reactor produced but it is only a guess as it is outside my sphere of competence.

I'd also imagine that after acquiring a pure source of the radioisotope that the costs of physically producing the sterile end product could cost more because of all the specialized instrumentation that was needed along with personnel that have different skill sets from those that compound "normal" pharmaceuticals.

Then one has to consider the volume of patients that will use the product. 100 per day nationally? 1000 per day? etc.? I have no clue as to demand. Think about the volume of mass produced conventional pharmaceuticals (to lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure, etc.) used daily and their pricing. At the Nuclear Medicine Dept. that I managed (320 bed hospital), we did 2-3 of the Strontium-89 therapies each month - not a big volume.

I hope that informs you a little bit about some of the variables that differentiate this type of product from "standard" pharmaceuticals.

Another factor to consider is if the patient needs to be hospitalized. With the Strontium-89 therapies it was an outpatient procedure - took about 30 minutes. At least one other therapy of this type (more recent than Strontium-89 but not the one we are talking about) did require hospitalization so the costs there were much higher. The effectiveness of the therapy comes into play here as to whether it is worth it or not.

To your question about this type of therapy product being overpriced: Initially in the mid-90's I thought they were. In my Nuclear Medicine Technology career each decade brought significantly higher prices for new radiopharmaceuticals - way higher than inflation. I literally laughed out loud at our radiopharmaceutical rep who told me about the actual pricing. Strontium-89 chloride for this therapy was also the first radiopharmaceutical that I recall that was not sold with a discount based on volume of use. It was $2000 per dose period. After a short while when I got to see the actual frequency of use of the therapy agent I thought the pricing actually might be closer to valid for the reasons I specify above, in particular volume of use. I had a gut feeling but no hard evidence that the pricing prevented its use more often to some degree - that Doctor's wouldn't consider its use or order it just because of the price.

We are over an emotional barrel when it comes to the costs of managing pain though. I saw enough pain relief happen and morphine use reduction occur in so many patients (not all, but the large majority) that I stopped thinking/worrying about the price. IMO, one has to be pretty heartless to worry about cost in these situations involving pain.

[colsohlibgal]

21. It Needs To Be a Priority

We need to change our priorities and make this available for a pittance or based on a very flexible and fair ability to pay system .

I just read in my SciAm magazine about the progress on cancer vaccine, what a blessing if we could make the Big C go the way of polio and smallpox.

[Deep13]

22. Huzzah!

Screw you, cancer!

[a2liberal]

24. I've always thought that the way medical trails work is unethical

Because half the people get nothing of real value while the other half do (if a drug is being tested it presumably does some good) and they don't even get to know what group they're in. yes I know science claims they need a control for good experiments and maybe that's true but that doesn't change the ethics of it in my mind.

[Confusious]

33. I really don't see how it's unethical

They're getting the drugs for free, most of the time it's not life or death. In this case it was, and the trial was stopped and given to every patient.

There's not really another way of doing it unless you have some thoughts on it, besides "It's bad." Maybe a new way of doing these trials?

[a2liberal]

104. Here's one idea

Let people choose which group they're in. As someone else said, there could be downsides to being in the test group too. Keep the researchers that are observing the results blind to the group composition. I don't think placebo effect has as much of a significance in major life-threatening conditions and if it does that's just something we have to deal with. To whoever said patients are aware of what's going on (sorry I'm replying to everyone in one place), yes I know that but they have no other choice than to not participate. Note that I'm not claiming the method isn't scientifically sound... as a somewhat nerdy guy I know that it is. But to me that doesn't excuse the ethics of the situation. Other than some minor placebo effect concerns, there is no reason I shouldn't be allowed to try potentially life-saving experimental drugs. I guess part of my issue stems from the restricted nature of experimental drugs. If everyone who wanted to was allowed to try them (after receiving full disclosures about risks) then I wouldn't have problems with also having double-blind trials that those interested in furthering science could participate in. Right now I have no other choice if I want (potential) access to the hypothetical drug that could possibly save my life.

[Gormy Cuss]

42. Two things to understand about that method. First, participants give informed consent.

That is, they are made aware of the chance that they will be in the control group (the ones who don't receive the new therapy, but who are receiving the standard interventions for the condition) and that if chosen for the experimental drug or therapy they may benefit, they may do as well as those on the standard approach, or they may fare worse.

This isn't the first and it won't be the last clinical trial where the experiment was ended early because it was unethical to keep such a robust treatment from those in the control (placebo) group.

Second, using a proper controlled experiment allows for much stronger research results because it's know ahead of time that participants and the placebo recipients are statistically similar and the difference in results can be ascribed to the treatment. IOW, just trying out the drug or therapy on a bunch of people doesn't allow the researchers to say whether factors outside of the treatment are responsible for the outcome.

[gateley]

50. I participated in a trial and I was more than willing knowing

that even if I got the placebo, they might come up with something that WOULD actually help as a result of the testing. I wasn't getting better anyway, so why not? Turned out I got the placebo. :)

[boppers]

72. That's not how it works.

Half the people get "standard treatment", half the people get "new treatment".

Nobody gets "no treatment".

[Lance_Boyle]

105. Not all trials involve placebo.

Standard of care treatment is most often tested versus the unproven test treatment in trials where it would be unethical to give placebo to the control group.

[sheldon]

26. There is already a cure for cancer in the VAST majority of cases

It's called a healthy immune system.
Sadly, people are eating foods that weaken the immune system, instead of eating foods that strengthen it.

[bitchkitty]

28. You're right, kind of.

But people with healthy immune systems generally don't get cancer. Cancer is, as Dr. Andrew Weil says, a result of the failure of the immune system. Not to say that cancer patients shouldn't try to eat healthily and boost their immune systems but when a person has cancer, especially advanced cancer, carrots and peas ain't gonna cut it by themselves.

I am not speaking as a health care professional but as a cancer survivor - we tend to do our research!

[Confusious]

35. Oh please

No it's not. Total new age alternative medicine bullshit.

[HuckleB]

45. Oh, really?

If you eat the right stuff, exercise, meditate, get daily acupuncture, take your anti-cancer homeopathic remedies and overdose on vitamins X, Y and Z you can live forever!

[No Elephants]

62. Didn't you post in the past that you work for the pharmaceutical industry?

Or am I misremembering?

As we all know, no one will live forever, no matter what. So, that part of your post is was very silly. As for acupuncture or homeopathy and OD'ing on vitamins, I didn't see anyone but you bring those up, so I'll pass on tilting at straw men.

Nutrition, exercise and other stress management methods are very important in both resisting and fighting illness, as well as in improving quality of life.

No, they alone are not at all likely to cure cancer once you already have it, but I did not see anyone claim that, either, so that too is a straw man you erected.

The poster did claim that a strong immune system will cure cancer in the vast majority of cases.

I am not sure if that is so. I'd rather say that a strong immune system, exercise and excellent nutrition make it less like likely that you will fall victim to cancer in the first place. Or a host of other physical and emotional problems.

In any event, addressing what a poster actually did say is probably a good place to start.

[HuckleB]

86. No, I haven't posted any such thing. Didn't you say that you sell homeopathic "products?"

Or do I misremember?

My post is in response to ridiculous conspiracy theory pushers. If you don't like my post, that's fine. However, you're not offering much yourself.

[gateley]

51. Not that easy getting foods that aren't full of pesticides, radiation,

and other profit-making 'additives', but I agree.

Don't they say that we all have cancer cells zooming around our bodies but those who don't succumb are those whose immune systems are hearty?

[boppers]

73. Astro-physics fail.

Please let me know about this mythical place where food isn't radioactive.

All food, indeed, anything made of atoms, is radioactive.

It's all about dosages.

[gateley]

84. I should have said "less" radioactive and "less" polluted but I

assumed you'd get the general point.

[jeff47]

75. Wow are you wrong.

But woo does give that nice sense of superiority, doesn't it?

[HuckleB]

87. Umm.

Boost Your Immune System?
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/boost-your-immune-system/

[Xtraneous]

91. Be careful, DU is a land mine of medical industry defenders.

I agree, there are ways out of cancer- and most other illnesses- besides profit-making poisonous unproven human guinea pig methods. And healthy food is in large part the answer. Problem is there will never be trials comparing drug treatments to food treatments because no one will profit. And then they'll have to offer courses in nutrition to doctors-in-training. That would be disastrous! These students are already overwhelmed with figuring out how to prescribe the right drugs.

[get the red out]

27. I guess that's the last we will hear of it

if it really works.

[HuckleB]

32. Say what?

:shrug:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

34. What the hell are you talking about?

What would the motivation be to bury this?

[Confusious]

36. It's on a fast track at the FDA

You're wrong, like a lot of other people on this thread.

[Stuart G]

29. Here is an example of a drug trial stopped for the same reason.

It was the late 80s,and Bayer had decided to prove if asprin could, as many had said, help prevent heart attacks.
Best kind of trial, double blind, was performed on those who had already had a heart attack and were at grave risk for another.

Now, somewhere there is a link, someone might be able to find it, but, they stopped the study........

halfway through for the same reason ...results were too good. Clearly asprin did indeed reduce the risk of heart attacks among those who were at risk for a second or third. Lucky indeed, this stuff was in the public domain and the price did not increse.

Oh, by the way, there were rumors of this effect of asprin in the late 40s or early 50s, but since there were no big bucks to be
made, no one was willing to pay for the study.... not the government...not the doctors....nobody..So if the study had been done in the 60s, tens of thousands would have not had attacks that did. oh well....

[Confusious]

37. I seriously doubt your conclusion

They didn't even know, and still don't, all the ways aspirin works.

Besides, wouldn't have Bayer paid for the study? I mean, seriously, just think about the bucket loads of cash they could have been making all those years!

A little logic goes a long way.

[Patiod]

39. OK, one more time: they stop "too good" trials to give it to the placebo group

Not for some dastardly reason, but because it would be UNETHICAL to continue to give people a placebo when the drug being tested is saving lives.

And actually, doctors say that if aspirin were up before today's FDA, it wouldn't get approved. Not because the FDA is evil, but because of the problems that result from bleeding ulcers that it can cause.

[Posteritatis]

38. ITT: Lots of examples of DUers who don't know how to read past a headline. (nt)

[No Elephants]

58. Self delete.

[dipsydoodle]

69. When I first posted this

in the Health Forum , where it belongs , I purposely kept it out of LBN to help avoid a load of dumb remarks partly ignorant of differences between the UK and the US - you don't get those in the health forum.

This wasn't even LBN - the Oz paper had reprinted a Telegraph article from the day before as would've been clear to anyone who used that link.

Original post is here : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x109678

[Overseas]

43. K&R.

[Odin2005]

47. Read past the headline, people, before you start the "EVIL BIG PHARMA" stuff, mkay?

[tawadi]

49. It seemed like good news to me. eom

[No Elephants]

64. I don't know if failure to read is the only issue.

I think the plutocracy has made people cynical.

They assume that money will be the motive and some also seem to assume that suppression will be the way to maximize profits.

I don't think suppression is the money-making route in this case, so I don't think that suppression was the right conclusion to jump to.

However, I also think cynicism is not unjustified.

[Posteritatis]

70. I do; if people read past the headline this thread wouldn't be so embarrassing. (nt)

[No Elephants]

65. I don't know if failure to read is the only issue.

I think the plutocracy has made people cynical.

They assume that money will be the motive and some also seem to assume that suppression will be the way to maximize profits.

I don't think suppression is the money-making route in this case, so I don't think that suppression was the right conclusion to jump to.

However, I also think cynicism is not unjustified.

[dipsydoodle]

74. Its not so much failure to read

Its making meaningless comparisons between the UK and the US.

[HuckleB]

93. It's not just the plutocracy. It's the Internet Conspiratorocracy!

[caseymoz]

52. This sounds too damn simple.

Here I thought I was going to read about a massively engineered molecular cure when all they had to do was use an internal alpha emitter. It's not even chemically complex. If they didn't have to refine out the radium-223, it would probably be cheap to make.

I'm wondering if the real innovation isn't the delivery system used since they have to somehow get this compound into the tumor.

[FlaGranny]

71. Good news!

I don't know this news source, but only a tabloid would write such a misleading and provocative headline.

[MrMickeysMom]

77. READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE!

"The researchers, who have pointed out the urgent need for an effective treatment for prostate cancer, will now submit their findings for approval by regulators.
Prof Gillies McKenna, Cancer Research UK’s radiotherapy expert said: “This appears to be an important study using a highly targeted form of radiation to treat prostate cancer that has spread to the bones.
“This research looks very promising and could be an important addition to approaches available to treat secondary tumours – and should be investigated further.”

Yes, tabloids do put misleading headlines into articles, don't they?

However, the researchers, having seen this significant improvement would be WRONG not to stop the placebo group of the experiment. IOW, they need to get this to market as soon as possible. Do you think the pharmaceutical won't capitalize on THAT? You all aren't that gullible, are you?

They'll probably charge the shit out of this treatment!

It irritates me when I see tin foil hat comments, which is far easier than finishing the fucking article! Reading comprehension is a good thing.... :-)

[Pacifist Patriot]

78. Reading carefully and completely takes way too much time.

Do I really need to use the sarcasm smilie? ;-)

[David Sky]

88. No sarcasm smile needed, I know I know.. it was SUCH A LONG article....

five one sentence paragraphs!!!

[Pacifist Patriot]

92. I know I want those 45 seconds of my life back. ;-)

[defendandprotect]

85. KR --

[struggle4progress]

99. Alpha radiation treats prostate cancers

23 September 2011
Last updated at 21:32 ET
By James Gallagher Health reporter, BBC News

A trial of a new cancer drug, which accurately targets tumours, has been so successful it has been stopped early.

Doctors at London's Royal Marsden Hospital gave prostate cancer patients a powerful alpha radiation drug and found that they lived longer, and experienced less pain and side effects.

The medics then stopped the trial of 922 people, saying it was unethical not to offer all of them the treatment ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15039216

[MrMickeysMom]

102. I see there are other headlines

... very different!