Last week I told you about how a research lab hired by Big Pharma got in trouble with the FDA for allegedly cooking their books. Basically, the FDA says the chemists “falsified” data to make it look better.
Well, there’s another way Big Pharma keeps the bad news about their drugs from ever reaching your ears. It’s very simple. The just don’t publish it.
Now it may surprise you that drug companies aren’t required to publish results from their clinical trials.
But they’re not.
So if testing on a drug doesn’t go well… if the test shows the drug doesn’t work so great… they just throw the results in the corner to collect dust. According to a Canadian investigation, this leads to “overestimation of treatment benefits and may adversely influence clinical practice.”
Translation…?
Your doctor gives you a drug that doesn’t work as well as you think it should. Remember — all the published reports are positive and show GREAT results! So even your doc gets duped by this scam. He thinks the drug should work wonders on you too!
And to matters worse, the new Canadian investigation only looked at “systemic cancer treatments.” So here, we have patients with cancer. They take chemo, hoping for a cure. The treatments don’t work. But no one knows about it because Big Pharma doesn’t publish the results. And then, some of these chemo drugs actually wind up getting FDA approval!
Or sometimes, the bad results are for drugs already on the market! Big Pharma suppresses those bad studies as well.
Investigation finds “substantial” amount of unpublished data
Canadian researchers investigated phase three clinical trials for cancer. They looked at 709 clinical trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology between the years 1989 and 2003.The investigators found that:
- 66 clinical trials remain unpublished to this day
- 94 clinical trials were published five or more years after the initial presentation
Overall, ¼ of the clinical trials were never published or greatly delayed. The majority of these trials pertain to the treatment of breast, gastrointestinal, blood, and lung cancers.
And shockingly, over 70 percent of them reported negative results. So if the results weren’t good, 70 percent of the time, they just didn’t get published.
And this has an impact on how oncologists treat cancer patients.
Investigators say the biggest problem arose from an unpublished lung cancer treatment. Typically, oncologists treat lung cancer patients following a set protocol. This is with cisplatin, vinblastine, and radiation. Typically, the trend is for oncologists to give you this all at once. They say it improves overall survival rate.
But that’s not what the unpublished study found.
They unpublished data revealed that survival rate is no different when you get these treatments all at once versus getting them one at a time in sequence.
So now, you have hundreds of thousands of lung cancer patients in the U.S. getting heavy doses of chemo and radiation at the same time. When really they would do just as well getting them one at a time. Sure, the treatment will take longer…say six months instead of three. But it’s probably gentler on the patient.
Plus, what about all the patients who signed on for the advancement of cancer treatments?
Nameless, faceless and unnoticed sacrifice
Dr. Vincent C. Tam, MD from the University of Toronto, in Ontario led the investigation into unpublished clinical trials. He believes there is a moral obligation to publish the results of these trials. He said:
Approximately 23,770 patients participated in the unpublished trials listed in our compendium — an astounding number of patients with cancer who participated in trials after being informed that the results would contribute to public knowledge, and might improve cancer treatment.
But their sacrifice went unpublished and, therefore, unnoticed by the medical community.
Dr. Tam wants to see a change in policy. He hopes that organizations that fund big clinical trials — like NIH — will require that all the results get published. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Plus, he wants to see medical journals offering up space for short reports on negative trials.
For goodness sakes, pharmaceutical news is the only kind of news in the world where you only hear about the success stories! Wish my local nightly TV news would do the same.
Dr. Allan Spreen
Latest posts by Dr. Allan Spreen (see all)
- Mom’s “prescription” for brain health fights Alzheimer’s - August 22, 2016
- Is your doc making this deadly drug mistake? - July 29, 2016
- This berry tag team could slash heart attack risk 32%! - June 28, 2016
Funny…..that is how our POLITICIANS GET ELECTED TOO!!!!!!!
Be Well And Happy.
Steve
Cancer, AIDS. Essiac. Sheep sorrel tea with adjunctives. 98% permanent full recovery rate for even terminal cancers, 100% for terminal AIDS and non-terminal cancers. In humans, not just lab rats. Nobody ever mentions it, ever since, less than 24 hours after President Kennedy’s PCP announcing on TV that “Indian Tea” (aka Essiac aka Ojibwa Tea) “cured” his own colon cancer without any other intervention, the AMA bribed Congress to make it illegal to tell anyone about anything that “cures” anything. Congress later passed a law making it illegal to bribe Congress, based on that event–but never rescinded this law they were bribed to initiate and pass with a quorum too large for Kennedy to veto–in less than 24 hours from start to finish. Essiac scared AMA that badly. It is also an effective viricide (even for AIDS/HIV virus which is too small for other viricides to affect), bactericide, systemic fungicide–and, unfortunately, an abortifacient for foetuses or nursing infants. But most people dying of cancer aren’t trying to get pregnant, so it’s a moot point. What’s not moot is anything with less than 98-100% full recovery rate being discussed while this remedy is swept under the carpet in favor of cancer treatments that are KNOWN not to work: in a survey, 80+% of oncologists surveyed responded they would not use their cancer treatments on themselves or loved ones because the treaments they used were “ineffective”–according to more than one source referring to that survey. It really boggles the mind why the lawmakers make their kind of grand-scale crime-against-humanity type of behavior be legal, and non-lethal crimes like bank robbery, which look absolutely wholesome by comparison, be punishable. Essiac. There, said it again. Didn’t say it “cured” anything, so maybe they won’t drag me to Leavenworth. Hope this helps. It helped a BFF with AIDS _and_ cancer. So far as I know, the AMA hasn’t yet bribed Congress to make the word “help” a felony to say.