Re: Chemo Harms More Breast Cancer Patients
- From: "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:08:35 GMT
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44e6404d$0$22363$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Ilena Rose" <BIA@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:o3rbe215jid5m6r983t4495902jg0m3ims@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/EMIHC268/333/21291/491039?d=dmtICNNews
(thanks to CFM)
Chemo Harms More Breast Cancer Patients
August 16, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Younger breast cancer patients seem to suffer more
serious side effects from chemotherapy than previously thought.
Roughly one in six of those women wind up at the emergency room or
hospitalized because of such side effects as infection, low blood
counts, dehydration or nausea, researchers reported Tuesday.
This is of concern now that chemotherapy is being used more often in
breast cancer. But it certainly does save lives.
"Allocation to about 6 months of anthracycline-based polychemotherapy (eg,
with FAC or FEC) reduces the annual breast cancer death rate by about 38%
(SE 5) for women younger than 50 years of age when diagnosed and by about
20% (SE 4) for those of age 50-69 years when diagnosed, largely
irrespective of the use of tamoxifen and of oestrogen receptor (ER)
status, nodal status, or other tumour characteristics."
ALSO
"For middle-aged women with ER-positive disease (the commonest type of
breast cancer), the breast cancer mortality rate throughout the next 15
years would be approximately halved by 6 months of anthracycline-based
chemotherapy (with a combination such as FAC or FEC) followed by 5 years
of adjuvant tamoxifen. "
Source: Lancet. 2005 May 14-20;365(9472):1687-717.
Most alternative medical criticisms of the mainstream contain elements of
truth, such as that chemotherapy and other mainstream treatments of cancer
can have serious side effects. The aberration lies in their tendency to
take part of the truth, and run with it as though it was the whole truth.
Look WHO is talking!!!
Peter Moran wrote:
All medical advances have entailed risk, ever since the first caveman said"I
wonder what this berry does?".
Using retroviruses to try and correct lethal and potentially lethal gene
defects is a very legitimate and logic alavenue of medical research. So this
is
nothing to do with "conspiracies", "coverups" .
It is a matter of the quality of informed consent that was applied. It
would
be unusual these days for such issues to not be addressed carefully by the
researchers and the ethics committees to which all clinical trials are
submitted thesedays. We cannot know how culpable the doctors are from this
rather emotive news item.
Peter Moran
*Years earlier, a scientist just a few miles away from the Gelsinger's home
in
Tucson had raised serious questions about whether the experiment was safe.*
Documents
. Feb. 8, 2002: FDA letter, attempt to ban Dr. Wilson from other
experiments.
.. March 3, 2000: FDA Warning Letter, original findings about the gene
therapy experiment.
(No coverups there,,,,,,,,,,,,,)
The trouble is, Paul Gelsinger says, Dr. Wilson's team had never told him
that anyone had ever raised questions about safety
(That's fine and dandy according to organized medicine member, Peter Moran.)
ADVERSE REACTIONS WERE NOT REPORTED
And that was just the beginning. Federal investigators, pouring
through
Penn's records, announced at the conference that they had made a series of
startling discoveries, raising questions about whether the doctors had
covered
up problems and broken basic test rules.
In fact, just a few months before Jesse had signed up for the experiment,
several monkeys given viruses similar to Jesse's got sick. And two of them
died.
(No coverup there)
The rules for the experiment said: Even if volunteers didn't get visibly
ill,
if tests showed that any of them had a significant reaction called "grade
3," the experiment was supposed to be "halted" immediately.
Records show there were "grade 3" reactions in more than one
patient. The first time, doctors stopped, called the government and got
permission to continue, saying an unusual condition with the patient might
have
been the cause.
The second time, they stopped, called and got permission again,
citing
another unusual condition.
But when it happened a third time, they didn't stop, didn't call.
Then, a fourth time. They didn't stop or call then either
(No coverups there).
For their own safety, volunteers weren't supposed to have a blood
ammonia level higher than 50. But people were coming in with higher levels
and
without proper approval. The limit was raised to 70.
When Jesse signed up over the summer, he was within the limits, but
records show that when Penn doctors tested him, just days before the
experiment, his reading was 114 - more than double the original safety
limit.
(That's way cool huh Peter???)
HIGH FINANCIAL STAKES
With so many red flags from the monkey deaths to the reactions in
other
volunteers, even to Jesse's own ammonia levels, Why had Dr. Wilson's team
allowed the experiment to continue?
(Wonder if Peter can answer this question?)
At the University of Pennsylvania, the conflict committee approved
Dr.
Wilson's arrangement with Genovo.
In fact, the university itself owned a piece of his company and stood
to
profit, too.
(Hmmmmmmmmm).
In a statement, the university acknowledged that some information
"should have been shared with the FDA sooner."
(Just a minor little slip,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,)
There was no information given to Jesse or his family about the monkey
deaths.
There was no information given to Jesse or his family about toxic results in
prior patients. There was no information that would allow Jesse and his
family
to make any kind of informed decision."
(Peter STILL can't see any coverup!!!! NO dishonesty!)
CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS
He told congress that other private companies in the race for cures
had
also been doing gene therapy experiments and had also gotten adverse
reactions.
But instead of sharing the information, government rules allowed them to
stamp
those reactions "confidential," classifying them as trade secrets to
protect their research investments.
So, while the government knew about them, other researchers like Dr.
Wilson and volunteers like Jesse Gelsinger were never allowed to see them.
(TRust the government!!!)
"I was outraged," says Paul. "I had a right to know. Jesse had a right to
know.
(Oh my,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,emotions).
***In February, the Food and Drug Administration said that because Dr.
Wilson
filed "false and misleading" reports and "repeatedly and deliberately
violated regulations ****
REPEAT FOR THE HARD HEADED!!!
***Dr. Wilson filed "false and misleading" reports and "repeatedly and
deliberately violated regulations ***
(No coverups,,,,,,,,,,no fraud,,,,,,,,,,no deliberate
violations,,,,,,,,,,,,)
This week marks the third anniversary of Jesse Gelsinger's death. At
the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Wilson
****is still on the faculty****
(Soooooooooo in organized medicine,,,,,,,,,,,)
****Filing *false and misleading reports* is A OK,,,,,,,,,,,,****
****REPEATED and DELIBERATE violations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is A OK.***
but no longer in charge of its gene therapy program. And, in Congress,
lawmakers are still debating legislation to provide more protection for
medical
volunteers.
******in the end, whether Jesse was betrayed by the doctors he and his
family
thought they could trust.*********
Perhaps the basic problem is an inability to cope with the complexities of
medicine, such as that the worth of most medical treatments is determined
by a mixture of considerations regarding effectiveness, risk, temporary
side effects, what happens if the illness is not effectively
treated and whether there is anything else that works as well.
Peter Moran
www.cancerwa
Some of the side effects occurred at rates three to four times higher
than earlier research had predicted.
Tuesday's study marks the first attempt to assess the real-world risks
of chemotherapy for some 35,000 breast cancer patients under age 64
who get the drugs each year.
Most side-effect information comes from clinical trials of medications
that can underestimate toxicity. Those trials are designed to prove if
the drugs fight cancer and therefore should be sold, and they tend to
enroll only the best candidates instead of women who might be
particularly sensitive to side effects.
Adding to that conundrum: Many breast cancer patients don't need
chemotherapy in the first place; surgery, radiation and hormone
treatment are enough. But doctors don't always have an easy way to
tell who would benefit from chemo on top of all that.
And for women in the to-treat-or-not gray zone, age sometimes is the
deciding factor -- because those under 64 are thought to tolerate
chemotherapy better than older women.
"We don't believe our study is saying that chemotherapy is not
helpful," stressed Dr. Michael Hassett of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer
Institute, who led the research, published in Tuesday's Journal of the
National Cancer Institute.
But, "we've been struggling as a professional community to understand
which women benefit from chemotherapy," he added.
If a woman knows how often she is likely to be admitted to the
hospital, it may help her decide whether to gamble on the drugs or
skip them, he explained.
Hassett and colleagues culled a massive database of insurance claims
to study how often breast cancer patients under 64 wound up at the
hospital in the year after diagnosis, and how often some leading
chemotherapy side effects were blamed.
A total of 16 percent of chemo recipients received either emergency
room care or hospitalization for those side effects. Most common:
infection and fever, afflicting 8 percent of the patients. That's not
a high number - but it is four times what previous clinical trials had
predicted, the researchers reported.
Moreover, 61 percent of the chemo recipients had an ER visit or
hospitalization for some reason -- not just a chemotherapy-related
side effect -- compared with 42 percent of breast cancer patients not
on the drugs. The study couldn't explain the difference.
"The study highlights the importance of studying how drugs affect
people in everyday medical care" so they can "make informed decisions
about the risks and benefits of their treatment options," said Dr.
Carolyn Clancy, director of the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality, which funded the work.
Better understanding of the risks is especially important for those
patients who choose chemo despite a good prognosis, when it may
increase their chances of survival by less than 5 percent, Dr. Joseph
Lau of the Tufts-New England Medical Center wrote in an accompanying
editorial.
The extra care of course meant extra medical bills. Hassett estimated
that serious chemo side effects could cost health plans up to $45
million a year.
~~~~
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
.
- References:
- Chemo Harms More Breast Cancer Patients
- From: Ilena Rose
- Re: Chemo Harms More Breast Cancer Patients
- From: Peter Moran
- Chemo Harms More Breast Cancer Patients
- Prev by Date: Re: Are Supplements Neccessary?
- Next by Date: Re: Wikipedia articles under attack
- Previous by thread: Re: Chemo Harms More Breast Cancer Patients
- Next by thread: Re: Chemo Harms More Breast Cancer Patients
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
