Nexus - 1104 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

A study of ovarian cancer found that the risk of developing became worse and removal of her adrenal glands was recommended leukaemia after treatment with chemotherapy increased 21-fold or and performed. Hopefully, that would prolong her suffering for 2,100%. Chemotherapy showed a clear dose-dependency whereby another year. After that, the removal of her pituitary gland might the incidence of triggered leukaemia doubled between low-dose and _ give her a further three to six months to live. moderate-dose groups and then quadrupled between the moderate- "By now her faith in her medical advisers was sufficiently shaken dose and the high-dose groups. Also, other tumours commonly that she came to Dr Livingston for help. She asked to be examined develop after treating malignancies with chemotherapy.” In a trial without her husband being present, as she wanted to spare him the for multiple myeloma, no advantage was found by using chemother- agony of seeing her naked body, distorted, mutilated and shrunken apy as compared to no treatment.* with an immensely swollen abdomen and thin legs. Finally she The respected German biostatistician Ulrich Abel presented a whispered: 'Doctor, shall I kill myself?" comprehensive analysis of over 3,000 clinical trials on the value of chemotherapy for advanced carcinoma (for instance, breast cancer). A Conspiracy of Silence (Oncologists tend to use chemotherapy because this may induce a Why are they doing this? (By "they", I am referring to what is temporary shrinking of the tumour, called a response; however, it commonly called "the Cancer Establishment".) I believe the answer also tends to produce unpleasant side effects.) Abel concluded that was given by the eminent medical commentator and former editor of there is no direct evidence that chemotherapy New Scientist, Dr Donald Gould, in a timeless prolongs survival in these cases. Abel stated: article called "Cancer: A Conspiracy of "Many oncologists take it for granted that Silence".* The subtitle summarises his posi- response to therapy prolongs survival, an opin- tion: "The commonest cancers are as resistant ion which is based on a fallacy and which is to treatment today as they were 40 or 50 years not supported by clinical studies."* ago. Nothing is to be gained by pretending Ralph W. Moss, PhD, in Questioning that the battle against cancer is slowly but Chemotherapy, provides a detailed analysis of surely being won." this subject. The overall conclusion of the "Many oncologists This truth has been deliberately concealed book is that there is no evidence in terms of . from the general public. According to Gould, the majority of cancers that chemotherapy take it for granted that the reason for this conspiracy of silence is extends life. 7 response to therapy money. The public must continue to see the However, even if chemotherapy could . Cancer Establishment as a winner to continue extend life for a few months, what about the prolongs survival, providing money. One of the quoted scientists quality of this life? Tom Nesi, a former an opinion which is said that with tens of thousands of radiologists Director of Public Affairs at the pharma- ceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb, wrote in the New York Times about the successful treatment of his wife, which statistically extended her life for three months.* Two weeks after the treat- ment, she scribbled on a notepad: "depressed—no more—please". I am not surprised about reports that most oncologists would not have their own family members use these treatments. and millions of dollars in equipment, one just gives radiation treatment even if study after study shows that it does more harm than good. Gould also is of the opinion that patients who could be comfortable with- out medical treatment until their inevitable death, with medical treatment are made miserable in a pointless attempt to postpone death for a few unhappy weeks. But, of course, that is when most of the money is being made. Gould feels that they poison their patients with drugs and rays and mutilate them with unnec- based on a fallacy and which is not supported by clinical studies." The Full Treatment Virginia Livingston (later Livingston- Wheeler), a remarkable cancer essary surgery in a desperate attempt to researcher and therapist, in her book, Cancer: A New Breakthrough, treat the untreatable. gives an account of one of the many patients she saw who had come Not much has changed since Gould wrote this article in 1976. In to her only after receiving the full medical treatment for breast can- arecent edition of The Moss Reports, we can read that long-term cer:” survival from common cancers such as prostate, breast, colorectal "After discovering a small breast lump, she had radical mastecto- and lung "has barely budged since the 1970s".” In summary, this my. None of the lymph nodes removed from the armpit [was] means that there has been no significant improvement in cancer sur- involved; all of the cancer had been successfully removed. To make _ vival rates in the last 70 to 80 years. extra sure that there was no regrowth in the scars, she received radia- tion treatment, and also her ovaries were taken out. The Scientific Basis for Drug Approvals "To her dismay, a year later several small nodules appeared in the It is also interesting to know the scientific basis for the approval of old breast scar. Again she received radiation. More lumps appeared _ cancer drugs. Most of these drugs come initially from the USA. In on the neck that called for still more radiation. In addition, she the past, a company had to submit two favourable, large randomised received male hormone therapy, resulting in acne and coarse facial _ trials to obtain US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. hair. Still the nodules came back. Now she received chemotherapy "Favourable" means that there must be a certain rate of tumour with the usual side effects. shrinkage lasting for at least one month. It was not necessary to "Before her hair could regrow, pain in her bones was diagnosed as__ show that the treatment prolonged survival, and it was not necessary bone cancer. More chemotherapy and hormone therapy was to submit the results of any unfavourable trials for the same drug. expected to help. However, several months later the bone lesions These "strict scientific" guidelines were relaxed in the Clinton era, became worse and removal of her adrenal glands was recommended and performed. Hopefully, that would prolong her suffering for another year. After that, the removal of her pituitary gland might give her a further three to six months to live. "By now her faith in her medical advisers was sufficiently shaken that she came to Dr Livingston for help. She asked to be examined without her husband being present, as she wanted to spare him the agony of seeing her naked body, distorted, mutilated and shrunken with an immensely swollen abdomen and thin legs. Finally she whispered: 'Doctor, shall I kill myself?" "Many oncologists take it for granted that response to therapy prolongs survival, an opinion which is based ona fallacy and ---bEek | which is not supported by clinical studies." treat the untreatable. Not much has changed since Gould wrote this article in 1976. In a recent edition of The Moss Reports, we can read that long-term survival from common cancers such as prostate, breast, colorectal and lung "has barely budged since the 1970s".” In summary, this means that there has been no significant improvement in cancer sur- vival rates in the last 70 to 80 years. The Scientific Basis for Drug Approvals It is also interesting to know the scientific basis for the approval of cancer drugs. Most of these drugs come initially from the USA. In the past, a company had to submit two favourable, large randomised trials to obtain US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. "Favourable" means that there must be a certain rate of tumour shrinkage lasting for at least one month. It was not necessary to show that the treatment prolonged survival, and it was not necessary to submit the results of any unfavourable trials for the same drug. These "strict scientific" guidelines were relaxed in the Clinton era, JUNE — JULY 2004 NEXUS + 27 www.nexusmagazine.com