If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Over half of new cancer drugs 'show no benefits' for survival or well being. Of 48 cancer drugs approved between 2009-2013, 57% of uses showed no benefits and some benefits were 'clinically meaningless'. Happy Breast Cancer Month   ( theguardian.com) divider line
    More: Sad, Cancer, cancer drugs, survival, The Canon of Medicine, survival benefits, Forty-eight cancer drugs, Better, Pharmacology  
•       •       •

556 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Oct 2017 at 11:20 AM (32 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2017-10-05 10:36:28 AM  
3 votes:
And yet they got approved by the FDA and are being pushed by oncologists nationwide for top dollar prices
2017-10-05 11:32:12 AM  
2 votes:

ToastmasterGeneral:   Their arguments for the necessity of keeping Medicare coverage were nearly nonsensical.  involved very large checks.

2017-10-05 03:45:08 PM  
1 vote:

ThatGuyOverThere: SaladMonkey: 2) there are drugs where statistics misrepresent their value.  For example, you could have a drug that's extremely effective for 5% of cancers, but not effective for 95%.  A study like the one in the article would suggest that it's useless, when in fact, it is an extremely useful drug to have in the arsenal.

This is really all you need to know. A drug may work fairly well on one particular line of cancerous cells. However even the cells in that particular line are not all the same, so the drug kills some cells and not others. So a drug may give you a 99% reduction in cancer cells, but that 1% is still there and thriving.
On top of that... What works on henrietta's cervical cancer cells may not work the same on maryetta's cervical cancer cells because the cancer came from a different genetic profile as a starting place.

even when a single tumor metastasizes, the cells that take root in your lungs have to be different to survive there compared to the cells that take root in your bones. Cancer just sucks. It's not about profit or marketing (though those do play into it), it's about the fact that every farking cancer cell is different, and they have potential to be stem cells and make new tumors.

Have you been staring at an Oklahoma map all day?

/swapping the 'i' and 'y' notwithstanding
//agree with the post, but was amused by the specificity of the names
///you forgot Norman's prostate cancer
2017-10-05 02:55:38 PM  
1 vote:

ds615: Tr0mBoNe: Ineffective treatments are a critical component of the billable hours shell game that is for-profit medicine.

Kickbacks for politicians.
Cancer organizations profit.
Advertising profit.
Pharmaceutical profit.
Insurance profit.

There is no up side to an actual cure.

They must be out there somewhere, but I've yet to personally meet any doctors deliberately giving out ineffective treatments to pad their pockets. There are a few examples of TV doctors (on par with televangelists/faith healers) who are doing this with "natural" products and patent medicines.

There are lots of options for endstage cancer treatment that are pretty terrible. Usually they are for when you're out of options but there is some reasonable probability of more time, quality of life, symptom control, etc.
2017-10-05 09:48:01 AM  
1 vote:
Ineffective treatments are a critical component of the billable hours shell game that is for-profit medicine.
Displayed 5 of 5 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.