Lee Euler, Editor
Beware the Double-Dose Poison Approach to Treating Cancer
Recently, scientists across the U.S. paired all different variations of the 100 approved cancer drugs into 5,000 drug combinations. The goal was to find a two-drug combo more effective than any single drug. Since the agents tested were already approved for use by patients, the hope was that any promising new combinations could quickly be brought to market.
The scientists involved called this approach "the first systematic characterization of approved drugs in a large number of cancer cell lines." I'd call it something else. . .
The scientists involved called this approach "the first systematic characterization of approved drugs in a large number of cancer cell lines." I'd call it something else. . .
I prefer Bill Frezza's interpretation, a writer for Bio-IT World. He called it "curing cancer by throwing spaghetti at the wall."
Latest generation of medicines: Stuck in the mud
The rationale behind this barbaric search for a better poison is that the agents in use already have FDA approval as individual drugs. So combining them to see if they make a miracle union is a lot cheaper and quicker than actually taking the time to come up with a new, truly effective drug.
They've got plenty to work with. The FDA approved an unprecedented 31 new cancer drugs this year. In 2011, the agency approved 30 drugs, marking a seven-year high. But it's rare these drugs bring any kind of real breakthrough, like we saw with tamoxifen — and that was way back in the 1960s.
Hoping for a quick-fix instead of putting in the effort to do things right is exactly what you never want to see in healthcare. The authorities who control the billions of dollars in cancer research are out of ideas.
Even worse is that some of these combinations can be so toxic, it's only safe to administer them in tiny doses that might not be effective. You see, the experiments that tested 5,000 possible cancer drug combinations were performed in the lab on cancer cell lines.
Doctors may not be able to use the resulting combos on real humans because they're deadly to the patient as well as to the cancer. When you put together two toxic cancer drugs you get a double-dose of poison.
What we need is a medical establishment that diversifies its strategy beyond the exhausted drugs we know don't work. The National Institutes of Health even has something called an R21 Exploratory grant, intended to finance research into alternative treatments. But, according to Bill Frezza, that money appears to be too tied up in the Good-Buddies club of established researchers who peer-review and vote to fund their colleagues' projects more often than they give a grant to any innovative new researcher's ideas.
Yes, the precious "War on Cancer" taxpayer dollars are parceled out to the pals of people in power.
They've got plenty to work with. The FDA approved an unprecedented 31 new cancer drugs this year. In 2011, the agency approved 30 drugs, marking a seven-year high. But it's rare these drugs bring any kind of real breakthrough, like we saw with tamoxifen — and that was way back in the 1960s.
Hoping for a quick-fix instead of putting in the effort to do things right is exactly what you never want to see in healthcare. The authorities who control the billions of dollars in cancer research are out of ideas.
Even worse is that some of these combinations can be so toxic, it's only safe to administer them in tiny doses that might not be effective. You see, the experiments that tested 5,000 possible cancer drug combinations were performed in the lab on cancer cell lines.
Doctors may not be able to use the resulting combos on real humans because they're deadly to the patient as well as to the cancer. When you put together two toxic cancer drugs you get a double-dose of poison.
What we need is a medical establishment that diversifies its strategy beyond the exhausted drugs we know don't work. The National Institutes of Health even has something called an R21 Exploratory grant, intended to finance research into alternative treatments. But, according to Bill Frezza, that money appears to be too tied up in the Good-Buddies club of established researchers who peer-review and vote to fund their colleagues' projects more often than they give a grant to any innovative new researcher's ideas.
Yes, the precious "War on Cancer" taxpayer dollars are parceled out to the pals of people in power.
The Band-Aid approach
Medical research on traditional chemotherapy has stalled. We're not the only ones who see it. In a recent meeting of 100 cancer specialists at the World Oncology Forum in Switzerland, experts at least agreed on one thing: urgent action is needed. Not only are we lacking in innovative approaches, but cancer rates are rising both in the developed world and in poor countries.
It wasn't long ago that they thought designer medicines built to interfere with tumor growth and suppression would make all the difference. Instead, those treatments only buy patients a month or two of life, and any excitement in the medical establishment quickly wanes.
Just look at vemurafenib, a BRAF-inhibitor that melted tumors associated with malignant melanomas in only two weeks. Six months later, the cancer would come back, often stronger than before. Or Tarceva (for lung cancer), Avastin (for breast and colorectal cancer), Sutent (for renal cell carcinoma). All prompted great expectations but brought disappointment.
What bothers me is that medical pundits say the future is in combining these drugs together, and exploring combinations between both new and old drugs. But instead of investing their energy in working out the cause of cancer, their biggest concern is that mixing drugs will be radically expensive. They've directed their focus to regulation and funding, instead of true innovation.
Granted, cancer and money are inseparable. Americans spent over $23 billion last year on cancer drugs. Treating cancer has never come cheap, but now the cost of every new treatment seems to eclipse the ones that came before it. In spite of their hefty price tags, those drugs continue to overpromise and under-deliver.
It wasn't long ago that they thought designer medicines built to interfere with tumor growth and suppression would make all the difference. Instead, those treatments only buy patients a month or two of life, and any excitement in the medical establishment quickly wanes.
Just look at vemurafenib, a BRAF-inhibitor that melted tumors associated with malignant melanomas in only two weeks. Six months later, the cancer would come back, often stronger than before. Or Tarceva (for lung cancer), Avastin (for breast and colorectal cancer), Sutent (for renal cell carcinoma). All prompted great expectations but brought disappointment.
What bothers me is that medical pundits say the future is in combining these drugs together, and exploring combinations between both new and old drugs. But instead of investing their energy in working out the cause of cancer, their biggest concern is that mixing drugs will be radically expensive. They've directed their focus to regulation and funding, instead of true innovation.
Granted, cancer and money are inseparable. Americans spent over $23 billion last year on cancer drugs. Treating cancer has never come cheap, but now the cost of every new treatment seems to eclipse the ones that came before it. In spite of their hefty price tags, those drugs continue to overpromise and under-deliver.
You call this a War on Cancer?
It's bad enough that this approach is like putting on a blindfold and trying to hit a moving target. But my real beef with the issue is that it's got nothing to do with actually curing cancer.
Sure, the mixologists in the lab world might come up with a concoction that extends survival by an extra month or two. Some patients will choose the misery of chemo to gain those extra weeks.
But better than that would be a cure. After 40 years and billions of dollars, you'd think we'd be further along.
The question that remains, is what can we do about it? I believe the alternative treatments we talk about in this newsletter and in our books and reports are more promising than conventional chemotherapy.
For late stage cancer, chemotherapy buys a few extra weeks or months (and sometimes not even that; the data are often manipulated to make it look like patients last a little longer on these drugs than do patients who don't receive them.) Meanwhile, my colleagues and I have seen and talked to people who gained years of life and sometimes complete remission thanks to alternative cancer treatments. And they did it without sickness, nausea, hair loss, "chemo brain," or the destruction of their immune systems that chemo brings.
Even for early stage cancer, where conventional treatments are more successful, my first choice would be alternatives.
One of the things you can do right now to improve your health, whether you have cancer or not, is to avoid the toxic chemicals found in processed foods. Our last issue covered the most deadly food additive of all. If you missed this important info, you can read it now.
"Safe" Ingredient Found in 6,000 Products Can Lead to Cancer, Seizures, Holes in Your Brain, and moreSure, the mixologists in the lab world might come up with a concoction that extends survival by an extra month or two. Some patients will choose the misery of chemo to gain those extra weeks.
But better than that would be a cure. After 40 years and billions of dollars, you'd think we'd be further along.
The question that remains, is what can we do about it? I believe the alternative treatments we talk about in this newsletter and in our books and reports are more promising than conventional chemotherapy.
For late stage cancer, chemotherapy buys a few extra weeks or months (and sometimes not even that; the data are often manipulated to make it look like patients last a little longer on these drugs than do patients who don't receive them.) Meanwhile, my colleagues and I have seen and talked to people who gained years of life and sometimes complete remission thanks to alternative cancer treatments. And they did it without sickness, nausea, hair loss, "chemo brain," or the destruction of their immune systems that chemo brings.
Even for early stage cancer, where conventional treatments are more successful, my first choice would be alternatives.
One of the things you can do right now to improve your health, whether you have cancer or not, is to avoid the toxic chemicals found in processed foods. Our last issue covered the most deadly food additive of all. If you missed this important info, you can read it now.
Source: http://cancerdefeated.com/newsletters/Beware-the-Double-Dose-Poison-Approach-to-Treating-Cancer.html
