The Drugs Don't Work
OK they work in some cases but are not the answer to everything as some doctors are trained to believe. Probably not a new idea to most of you guys but interesting that it makes the front page (top story) of today's UK newspaper 'The Independent'.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=471139
Glaxo chief: Our drugs do not work on most patients
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
08 December 2003
A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.
Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.
It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by £2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £7.2bn. GSK announced last week that it had 20 or more new drugs under development that could each earn the company up to $1bn (£600m) a year.
Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients.
Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said.
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody."
Some industry analysts said Dr Roses's comments were reminiscent of the 1991 gaffe by Gerald Ratner, the jewellery boss, who famously said that his high street shops are successful because they sold "total crap". But others believe Dr Roses deserves credit for being honest about a little-publicised fact known to the drugs industry for many years...
This goes against a marketing culture within the industry that has relied on selling as many drugs as possible to the widest number of patients - a culture that has made GSK one of the most profitable pharmaceuticals companies, but which has also meant that most of its drugs are at best useless, and even possibly dangerous, for many patients.
Answers:
Well, the drugs they gave to my husband in March who is fighting aggressive Prostate Cancer certainly work :D
We had a trip to the hospital today to meet with the Consultant again,and his PSA count is done from 55 to 3.3 Yipeee!!!
He was on Casodex, now on Zoladex injections, and for the first time in nearly a year we can breathe again:)
I have a friend whose breast cancer is controlled by Tamoxifen, and has been for 10 years now. Without it she wold be dead by now.
I have clients who are on ACE inhibitors and leading a normal life without the threat of heart failure.
I know of three people who would be crippled if they were not using drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis.
One boy I know of has got his life back again after 20 years of terrible migraines which prevented him from getting a job, and another lady is happily taking HRT, and that's me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hear success stories all the time along with the fact that most drugs, however much they are tested still do not show up significant abberatiions for 10 years or more, and when they do, an adaption is required.
On a purely personal basis, I would choose quality of life every time and if drugs give you that, then that's fine by me.
Oh, and countless lives have been saved from the dreadful Meningitis by using certain anti biotics. To be honest, I would rather not be back in the dark ages without modern science, even with the side effects on most drugs. I know I would not be here now if it were not for using prescription drugs in the past.
Love
Gillyxxxxxxx
Answers:
Hi Gilly
On a purely personal basis, I would choose quality of life every time and if drugs give you that, then that's fine by me. ....And me Gilly.(sometimes the quote button works for me sometimes it doesn't??)
I worked in Boots The Chemist for 15 years. I have seen the difference mediciene has made to my customerslives, a better quality of life difference.
Great news about your husband Gilly.
What with your daughter last week, now hubby your having a nice run of it. they say things come in three's...maybe one more to come;)
Much love
Sharon
Answers:
Hi Gilly,
Your reply would make a lot of sense if someone had posted that no drugs ever work. The title of the thread was only meant to be that, a title, the subject matter of this thread is... and is also an allusion to a song :D Ok maybe it wasn't a good choice of title but if you read what I said at the beginning, and what the senior executive from GlaxoSmithKline says in the article, no-one is saying that no drugs ever work. But when he says things like drugs 'for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients' I think that's pretty amazing and the editor of the Independent newspaper probably thought so too and I guess that's why it was their top story. Of course even if the drugs only work for a quarter of people, that's still a lot of people. It goes without saying that we all know people who have been successfully treated with drugs, but I think the point of the story is that in the bigger picture drugs are nowhere near as successful as the public might think.
Dr L
Answers:
Hi Dr Lightbody,
I understand entirely what you are sayng but simply beg to differ with your last statement,
[i]the point of the story is that in the bigger picture drugs are nowhere near as successful as the public might think. [/i
as I really do belive the opposite is the case.
From an entirely spiritual point of view, I also believe we are meant to use the scientific/medical progress we have in front of us, as a gift from Spirit, and to be thankful for it and to continue our research and development of how we can overcome the diseases and conditions that plague us.
How er are now is how we are meant to be and how we will become is yet to be revealed, but could bewondrous.
Love and Light
Gillyxxx
Answers:
With all due respect to the few who have had positive results from pharmaceutical drugs, one does need to look at the bigger picture.
Sacrificing the lives of many to save the lives of a few is an age-old human tradition. However, I don't think that human sacrifice is the way forward in this enlightened age:
(FROM: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp...r y_in_us.htm)
Friends, that's one point six million million dollars of taxpayer's hard-earned cash siphoned into supporting the leading cause of death. Surely any sane person looking at these figures would be questioning what kind of a world we are supporting and upholding???
I don't mean to offend anybody, but reality is reality.
Neo
Answers:
I dont take offense Jamie, on a personal level, but I do not like hysteria or Media hype.
We KNOW there are awful side effects to drugs and we are all aware that we are guinea pigs to some extent, but the fact is that without them we would be stumbling about with no cures for many diseases that are easy to cure with drugs.
And don't forget, in case we are making a big fist about 'chemicals' here, most drugs are taken from natural sources. Some are indeed chemically manufactured, but scientifically aligned to the human body.
I could list you the conditions and diseases that drugs either conquer outright or make a considerable difference in this world. Parkinsons Disese for example. I know a man who is on drugs which allow him to lead a normal life, he swims, goes out to dinner, drinks wine, makes love and he knows he will die before his time as the drugs cause liver failure, long term, but, long term to him is 88, he is now 75 and never expected to live till 88 anyway!!! It comes down to QUALITY of life.
My friend with breast cancer would tell you that her life on Tamoxifen with its side effects is infinately better than the alternative!! As would my husband on Zoladex. He would be dead in 12 months if not on this drug. Now his life expands until at least 80 years of age, another 11 years.
I know people on anti rheumatoid arthritis drugs who lead normal lives.
Jamie, in a perfect world we would have no pollution, no chemicals, no disease etc., and time and again it has been proven that supplementation and herbal products alone cannot bring about a cure nor effect any magic on those striken with MS and many other horrific states of illness. We can take them (if we can afford them)!!! on a regular basis and they can go a long way to helping boost our immune systems and help us to keep healthy, but in the end, nothing from any company other than a drug company is going to give a Parkinson's sufferer back his life!!!
My suggestion ont his is, wait until you have something that can only be dealt with my the drug cartels. You will take the drugs, believe me. My husband did and he lives,( also thanks to the power of prayer and a good diet) , you can help yourself, but in the end, reply on the Almighty, because it was Her who gave us the wherewithal and the knowledge to make these little mother's helpers inthe first place.
Physician heal thyself. [X(] Research Research Research, and when you are satisfied, then go down the road you feel most comfortable with.
Love to you Jamie
Gillyxxxxxxx
Answers:
What an interesting thread!
What always makes me curious though is how people generally put all their eggs in one basket with regards to allopathic (i.e. western) medicine.
I'll explain: if you were going to buy a car, you would shop around wouldn't you? - find the best vehicle for your needs etc, or a house or whatever... but when it comes to health people in general tend to only go to a GP!!
What about the other alternatives that could get you well by releasing the condition from your body, instead of being reliant in suppressant or otherwise drugs for the rest of your life? (not to mention the side-effects)... so when I hear things like:
"I have a friend whose breast cancer is controlled by Tamoxifen, and has been for 10 years now. Without it she would be dead by now."
It makes me want to ask "how do you know?" How do you know that there isn't another natural alternative that could have got her better?
At the end of the day, it comes down to personal choice, but with such an important topic as health, it amazes me people don't look around for more holistic avenues.
Blessings,
Answers:
Hi Maya,
Yes it is an interesting thread. In answer to your question about the friend I have with breast cancer, in remission, is that Lynn herself is a practising holistic therapist, with a Degree in Nutrition, and is always researching herbal medicines, and a wide variety of dietary aid to conquering cancer and other conditions, as well as preventing them in the first place. Her cancer was aggressive, and she was well aware that no amount of herbal concotions would save her. However, she attributes her present state of health to the Tamoxifen COMBINED with a veggie diet and herbal supplementation. (One of which was St. John's Wort for depression which worked very well).
I also have many people who ring me up in my clinic asking if my therapies will help them rather than allopathic medicine, but I know they will not do so. There is a balance in nature as in all things, and what I can do will help provide that balance, but, never a cure in itself. I think recovery can be aided, most definately by therapies and by herbs or supplements, but in my quite vast experience, none of these can cure by themselves.
You ony have to look at certain well known people, for example Steve MacQueen, who tried to cure his cancer via alternative means and failed, sadly, to know that anything 'alternative' can be very dangerous.
Life styles do have to change both for prevention of disease and when a cure has been effected, for without that the cancer will return. This is where supplementation comes into its own.
And gain, in my experience I have found not everyone is willing to put all their eggs in one basket as far as medical science is concerned, indeed, people seem very well informed these days and often seek out alternatives. Iti s merely a question of whether those alternatives will work.
There is no cure for Parkinsons, MS, Motor Nuerone Disease, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and may many more, but, there ae drugs that give people a decent stab at continued quality of life, even it they will not turn out to live to 100 !!!
IMHO, that if you had any of these conditions, you would not hesitate for long before seeking medical help?
And I can tell you for sure that my own husband would not have long to live were it not for the injections he now has every 2 months. And that despite a brilliant diet, supplementation till he rattles, and herbal products, therapies galore and spiritual healing plusu Reiki!!!!
Again IMHO, there has to be a balance, . And are we lucky or what!!! People died ghastly deaths from stomach cancer and most other cancers only 50 years ago, less than my age now, with no hope, and now there is hope.
I'll take the tablets please doc!!!!
Love and Light
Gillyxxxxxxxxxxxx
Answers:
It's interesting that you mentioned Rheumatoid Arthritis. A naturapath I used to visit was told by doctors that she would be in a wheelchair by the time she was in her thirties due to her arthritis. She is now in her fifties and puts her complete mobility down to cider vinegar and honey and other herbal supplements.
For years my mum was dependent upon prescription drugs to suppress the chronic stomach pain she suffered (due to undergoing major surgery as an infant). Now she drinks peppermint and fennel tea.
I know people who have taken blood pressure tablets for years, but it doesn't actually CURE them. In fact they have to take countless other drugs to combat the side effects. Where's the profit for the drug companies if they cure their patients?
I have a friend who has taken drugs for years for psoriasis and now has to undertake painful liver biopsies to see how much damage those drugs have done. Not once did anyone ever give her advice on diet or suggest supplements like milk thistle.
I also know someone that, despite undergoing conventional treatment, has had breast cancer three times.
Perhaps part of the success of whatever it is you take, whether it be natural or synthetic, is due to the faith you have in it working? Maybe in some cases a combination is required.
Call me ambitious, but I prefer to hope for cures rather than relief of symptoms (while at the same time possibly destroying my liver and other organs).
I can't help but get extraordinarily angry that GPs appear to have less knowledge than a layperson like myself about holistic therapies and seem only able to prescribe drugs. In six years of training surely they could fit in a few weeks worth of nutrition when so many people's lives are depending on them?
I'll get off my soapbox now [&:]
Petal x
Answers:
Re: Steve Mcqueen:
Steve McQueen’s story, implies that the world became disillusioned with laetrile after McQueen’s death. A brief trawl through the facts of the matter actually reveals that McQueen’s cancer was reversed by the laetrile therapy he underwent in Mexico. Upon choosing to return to California, he elected to have the BENIGN tumour in his abdomen removed as it was unsightly. He died of complications of that surgery, NOT from cancer.
Dr John Heinerman, author of "Heinerman’s Encyclopedia", was acquainted first hand with William Kelly, who attended McQueen’s treatment in Mexico: "While I never cared much for the man’s [Kelly’s] style myself, I will have to say in his defense that he wasn’t to blame for McQueen’s sudden health reversals. Once his patient started to feel better and x-rays showed a definite reduction in tumor size, McQueen went right back to his old habits of questionable lifestyle choices. One of Kelly’s staff people told me, ‘McQueen said he wasn’t going to sit in a Mexico clinic all day taking it easy. He said he was going to get out and ‘live a little’ and ‘celebrate’ his cure.’"
Veteran health researcher G Edward Griffin, author of "World Without Cancer", has this to say about the McQueen story: "Not a word of [McQueen’s] prior recovery was to be found in the major press. Consequently, millions of Americans who followed the story came away with the conviction that Laetrile was just another hoax. That, too, is merely an extension of the kind of biased media reporting that has become a permanent part of the coverage of Laetrile. It continues today."
http://credence.org/Eclub/April28th2000.htm
Answers:
Hi Gilly,
Not sure what you mean here - you think that drugs are even more successful than people think? Personally I was quite shocked at some of the figures quoted by the senior executive from GlaxoSmithKline. So either you think he has got his figures wrong or you don't disagree with the figures but they don't strike you as a low success rate. Again I agree that drugs are very successful in some cases and we should be very grateful for that. In other words yes there is a place for drugs but I would say that western medicine has gone too far down the drugs road to the neglect of other factors, such as diet, which I think is still not taken seriously. If I became sick I would look at all the options and if drugs were the best option then I would be happy and grateful to take them. It's just about balance, I think we agree :D
Dr L
Answers:
Amazing isn't it in 2003. [sm=soapbox.gif]
Answers:
Hi Guys,
Gilly, the last thing I want to do is be a part of turning this into another protracted discussion about the pros and cons of allopathic vs complementary medicine. We all have our ranges of experience and we all have either personal stories or the testimonials of friends, family and clients attesting to the validity of one or another treatment modality. All are valid, because we ought to live in a world of free choice where we can choose our own roads.
The pro-drugs camp do not seem to agree with freedom of choice, so we end up having to have heated discussions to defend our corner. Vitamin users do not campaign for the banning of drugs. We campaign for the right to take vitamins. Where's the balance?
Sadly, the drugs companies which you espouse are putting an inordinate degree of pressure on the governments of the world to ban and marginalise alternative treatment modalities. And they are succeeding. How can we justify supporting this type of behaviour? How can we buy products from companies who band together with governments in order to monopolise markets? I know that you are safe because you have chosen the route which has served you well, but what about those whose views and experiences differ?
Those statistics about medicine being the leading cause of death are not media hype. They are fact. "We are winning the war on cancer" is media hype. Pop stars doing AIDS benefits is media hype. "Vitamin C causes cancer" is media hype...... and all promulgated by drugs companies.
Then you mention "I have a friend whose breast cancer is controlled by Tamoxifen, and has been for 10 years now. Without it she would be dead by now.", I must echo Maya's statement: How do you know?
The fact is that nutritional medicine progresses at a far more rapid rate than synthetic drug development. There are a number of reasons for this but to me, the main one is that nutrients are straight from nature. They may be extracted in various ways but unlike synthetic drugs, they need not go through the whole R & D phase of synthesising a patentable analog and then waiting years for FDA approval (and the associated bribary and backhanders that go with getting in bed with the government). Many nutrients have a many-thousand year history of efficacy with few side-effects.
Synthetics are inherantly inferior because our DNA does not posess the necessary information for a clean metabolism of them. This is why drugs hit the cytochrome P450 enzyme system hard.... so many drugs get metabolised through this route that liver damage is often a consequence.
Natural substances can't cure cancer?
Have you looked into Graviola for cancer? Check out www.graviola.org. This is a natural substance which drug companies picked up on and spent nearly a billion dollars trying to develop a synthetic equivalent, with no success. It is 10 000 times stronger than adriamycin, a common cancer drug. The drug company failed and buried the research. It came to light when a senior researcher from the drug company got an attack of morals and leaked the graviola information.
Graviola is so powerful at selectively dissolving tumors, in fact, that it can be unsafe to take on its own because the liver becomes overworked while clearing out the dead cancer cells. Amazon Herb Company developed a formula containing graviola that also builds and strengthens the liver and lymph, giving a more gentle response.
Now I believe that in a free market, companies who truly believe in their products will offer money-back guarantees. Do Glaxo SmithKline offer a money back guarantee with their chemotherapy drugs? If not, why not?
Amazon Herbs do. (Please email me for a free audio tape on Gravizon. Information should be free).
You also state:
I'm sure that there ar
Answers:
Carol,
Thanks for reminding me about Steve McQueen.
Also, we could mention Donald Factor, Max Factor's son. He has cancer and his dad, after sending his son to every conceivable treatment centre...... sent him for laetrile (B17) therapy in Mexico. It worked, and Donald ended up on the cover of TIME magazine.
Hmm, see if I can find a link......
OK. Here's his story: http://cancerresourcecenter.com/arti...aldfactor.html
And here's another one, and I ask, where's the fairness? A drug Cartel boss publicly admits that his drugs are on the whole, inneffective but is allowed to sell them nontheless. Meanwhile:
[FULL TEXT: http://www.townhall.com/news/politic...030718a.shtml]
The charities are all gung-ho about giving loads of money to drugs companies too.....
WHAT CANCER RESEARCH UK SAYS
Spokeswoman Sarah Turner: "We don't sanction the use of alternative therapies such as Metabolic Therapy in the place of conventional treatment. We are concerned patients don't receive false hope. There is not much scientific medical evidence behind Metabolic Therapy to back it up. Though laetrile will kill cancer cells in a lab setting, there is a huge difference between what occurs in the lab and what occurs in human patients."
Daily Mail, 15th April 2003
PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: In my book, Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth, I cover Donald Factor's story and also provide the proof Sarah Turner has trouble finding about the effectiveness of Metabolic Therapy for cancer. CTM applauds Lucy Mayhew for her dogged determination to see this article published. Please email her at lupats@hotmail.com to congratulate her on getting this story through. Isn't it also interesting that Cancer Research UK has always denied Laetrile has any therapeutic effect on cancers, and yet now is saying that it kills cancer 'in a lab setting'. Well, Sarah? Which is it? Does it, or doesn't it?
This charity, by the way, has passed huge amounts of public money to the drug industry to continue developing toxic and deadly treatments for cancer that not only don't work, but can actually cause cancer and torture the patient in the process. These people willingly ignore or defame the studies that have been done with nutrition for cancer for one simple reason: food supplements and a decent diet don't make Porsche payments, and who would pay their insulting salaries?
RESOURCES FOR CANCER:
Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth
B17 Metabolic Therapy - a technical manual
Answers:
Dear Jamie,
NOTHING could have saved my husband apart from the drugs he is being given.
NOTHING could save Lynn apart from a radical masectomy and Tamoxifen,and I thought I had pointed out she was a trained Nutritionist (4 years Degree course) and into supplementation? And had researched just about everything going. She is my primary source of help if I need to advise any of my clients in fact.
Cetyl Myristoleate plus Type II collagen and supporting nutrients claims a 90%+ response rate. PLUS, you can stop taking the nutrient after a couple of months and the benefits can last up to five years.
My own mother was a rheumatoid artritis sufferer and tried this and every supplment and herb on the market and just got steadily worse, until she took the drugs offered her. And she died at nearly 87, which is not bad for stuff that is supposed to give you liver failure. Actually, she caught MRSA from a hospital visit.
I believe some, (and I say 'some' advisedly), anti drugs books are simply money making machines. There is an Media hype element of 'keep the people scared to death and they will pay their taxes' about all of this.
A course of, say Gravizon (with it's money-back guarantee) and a few support nutrients will cost a mere fraction of that.
Jamie, if this could cure cancer, there would be no cancer!!!
I do know where you are coming from though. It is true that the vast majority of natural nutrients offer at best, relief.
EXACTLY, that is so correct.
Education is very much needed, from the cradle to the grave, in diet, and nutrition and exercise. If the Government spent time and money on this there would be signficantly less cancers diagnosed, however, we must take into account DNA and Genetic inheritance, and also pollution, vast arrays of chemicals in foodstuffs, GM foods and fast foods. Also radiation, (from the computer I am sitting in front of)! TV's, game machines, mobiles, telephones, everything around us all the time. This then, is where Balance comes in and supplementation of vital vitamins and minerals when necessary.
Steve MacQueen was just one of many people who have tried radical alternative cures of cancer and died. There are many 'alternative' practitioners who make a lot of dosh from people's fears. This is evil. Drug companies do not operate in the same way. They make vast amounts of money, they experiment on animals, they experiment on people, but by and large, they reduce suffering and extend life.
I nearly died in 2000 by being given drugs for a condition for which I was wrongly diagnosed. That is not the fault of the drug companies, but of the GP who made the incorrect diagnosis at the time. When the correct diagnosis was made, I took the drugs and became well again. In the same way when I suddenly suffered an attack of Utacaria, which was so severe my lips and tongue swelled up, I took the steroids my GP gave me and I did not die of axphyixiation. (spell)!!!
A cleint of mine tried to commit suicide beaue his Parkinson's disease was so disabling, but since he took certain medication, he plays his beloved piano again and eats in company, does not hide away because of dribbling and puts himself through an exercise regime which would make most of our eyes water. He is 75. I also have another client who suffers from Parkinsons and has a similar story to tell.
I believe IMHO it is very dangerous to say 'what is the cost of a brain tumour', this made my toes curl as my father died of one. Had they known it was there, he and my disabled other and my sister and I would have all opted for surgery, with all its dangers, in order to see him alive now. As it was diagnosed too late after years of showing signals, it was not possible too save him, but I know what he would have preferred.
I agree with freedom of choice, of course I do, and anyone who wishes not to take drugs will never hear from me any dissent. I am only stating facts as I see them, and I also cannot
Answers:
Dear Gilly.
Gilly, you know that's not true. All kinds of wonderful things exist in the world (such as engines that work by splitting water molecules) which are a threat to various established corporate bottom-lines and so become supressed. Graviola will have its day, because it works.
I'd be interested to find out if your friend Lynn tried Gravizon (or even Graviola) and so has first-hand experience. It is quite new in the West.
That's not what I said. I said:
May I suggest that you invest in an LCD screen. They don't have high-voltage electron guns in them and so are far, far safer. LCD screens are also coming down in price.
Carol mentioned:
Then,
I suppose so..... alive until pension time! But only alive enough to drag themselves to work in the morning, not to be questioning everything or getting into all this oddball new-age ascension stuff. A little bit of aspartame here, some MSG there, the odd xenoestrogen in the meat. Some enforced medication,Fluoride. Hitler messed around with fluoride as a proposed means of population control. Keep 'em active but docile.
Why are so many simple vitamins about to be banned?
Why are apricot kernals ILLEGAL in the US? Surely if they don't work then there's no need to ban them? The FDA states one case decades ago about a couple who allegedely ate a whole bucket of apple seeds and died. Subsequent independent investigations revealed that the couple was fictitious. They never existed.
And if apricot seeds are so dangerous, why do the Himalayan Hunza tribe, who routinely live way past 100, live so healthily? Their sacred food is the apricot kernal. Apricots contain Laetrile and recently, a drug company announced that a cancer cure may soon be on the way because they have discovered that the Cassava plant contains an anti-cancer substance which may be 'synthesizable'. The substance? Laetrile (B17).
Perhaps because they pay so much tax to fund the "free" NHS treatments.
Still, things may soon be different when the EU digs their claws in a little deeper. I suspect that drugs won't be "free" for ever.
Blessed Be,
Jamie
Answers:
Dear Gilly,
Despite our differences of opinion, may I just say that I am happy that your husband has had a positive result. Ultimately, no-one deserves cancer.
Blessed Be,
Jamie
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=471139
Glaxo chief: Our drugs do not work on most patients
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
08 December 2003
A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.
Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.
It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by £2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £7.2bn. GSK announced last week that it had 20 or more new drugs under development that could each earn the company up to $1bn (£600m) a year.
Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients.
Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said.
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody."
Some industry analysts said Dr Roses's comments were reminiscent of the 1991 gaffe by Gerald Ratner, the jewellery boss, who famously said that his high street shops are successful because they sold "total crap". But others believe Dr Roses deserves credit for being honest about a little-publicised fact known to the drugs industry for many years...
This goes against a marketing culture within the industry that has relied on selling as many drugs as possible to the widest number of patients - a culture that has made GSK one of the most profitable pharmaceuticals companies, but which has also meant that most of its drugs are at best useless, and even possibly dangerous, for many patients.
Answers:
Well, the drugs they gave to my husband in March who is fighting aggressive Prostate Cancer certainly work :D
We had a trip to the hospital today to meet with the Consultant again,and his PSA count is done from 55 to 3.3 Yipeee!!!
He was on Casodex, now on Zoladex injections, and for the first time in nearly a year we can breathe again:)
I have a friend whose breast cancer is controlled by Tamoxifen, and has been for 10 years now. Without it she wold be dead by now.
I have clients who are on ACE inhibitors and leading a normal life without the threat of heart failure.
I know of three people who would be crippled if they were not using drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis.
One boy I know of has got his life back again after 20 years of terrible migraines which prevented him from getting a job, and another lady is happily taking HRT, and that's me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hear success stories all the time along with the fact that most drugs, however much they are tested still do not show up significant abberatiions for 10 years or more, and when they do, an adaption is required.
On a purely personal basis, I would choose quality of life every time and if drugs give you that, then that's fine by me.
Oh, and countless lives have been saved from the dreadful Meningitis by using certain anti biotics. To be honest, I would rather not be back in the dark ages without modern science, even with the side effects on most drugs. I know I would not be here now if it were not for using prescription drugs in the past.
Love
Gillyxxxxxxx
Answers:
Hi Gilly
On a purely personal basis, I would choose quality of life every time and if drugs give you that, then that's fine by me. ....And me Gilly.(sometimes the quote button works for me sometimes it doesn't??)
I worked in Boots The Chemist for 15 years. I have seen the difference mediciene has made to my customerslives, a better quality of life difference.
Great news about your husband Gilly.
What with your daughter last week, now hubby your having a nice run of it. they say things come in three's...maybe one more to come;)
Much love
Sharon
Answers:
Hi Gilly,
Your reply would make a lot of sense if someone had posted that no drugs ever work. The title of the thread was only meant to be that, a title, the subject matter of this thread is... and is also an allusion to a song :D Ok maybe it wasn't a good choice of title but if you read what I said at the beginning, and what the senior executive from GlaxoSmithKline says in the article, no-one is saying that no drugs ever work. But when he says things like drugs 'for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients' I think that's pretty amazing and the editor of the Independent newspaper probably thought so too and I guess that's why it was their top story. Of course even if the drugs only work for a quarter of people, that's still a lot of people. It goes without saying that we all know people who have been successfully treated with drugs, but I think the point of the story is that in the bigger picture drugs are nowhere near as successful as the public might think.
Dr L
Answers:
Hi Dr Lightbody,
I understand entirely what you are sayng but simply beg to differ with your last statement,
[i]the point of the story is that in the bigger picture drugs are nowhere near as successful as the public might think. [/i
as I really do belive the opposite is the case.
From an entirely spiritual point of view, I also believe we are meant to use the scientific/medical progress we have in front of us, as a gift from Spirit, and to be thankful for it and to continue our research and development of how we can overcome the diseases and conditions that plague us.
How er are now is how we are meant to be and how we will become is yet to be revealed, but could bewondrous.
Love and Light
Gillyxxx
Answers:
With all due respect to the few who have had positive results from pharmaceutical drugs, one does need to look at the bigger picture.
Sacrificing the lives of many to save the lives of a few is an age-old human tradition. However, I don't think that human sacrifice is the way forward in this enlightened age:
(FROM: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp...r y_in_us.htm)
Friends, that's one point six million million dollars of taxpayer's hard-earned cash siphoned into supporting the leading cause of death. Surely any sane person looking at these figures would be questioning what kind of a world we are supporting and upholding???
I don't mean to offend anybody, but reality is reality.
Neo
Answers:
I dont take offense Jamie, on a personal level, but I do not like hysteria or Media hype.
We KNOW there are awful side effects to drugs and we are all aware that we are guinea pigs to some extent, but the fact is that without them we would be stumbling about with no cures for many diseases that are easy to cure with drugs.
And don't forget, in case we are making a big fist about 'chemicals' here, most drugs are taken from natural sources. Some are indeed chemically manufactured, but scientifically aligned to the human body.
I could list you the conditions and diseases that drugs either conquer outright or make a considerable difference in this world. Parkinsons Disese for example. I know a man who is on drugs which allow him to lead a normal life, he swims, goes out to dinner, drinks wine, makes love and he knows he will die before his time as the drugs cause liver failure, long term, but, long term to him is 88, he is now 75 and never expected to live till 88 anyway!!! It comes down to QUALITY of life.
My friend with breast cancer would tell you that her life on Tamoxifen with its side effects is infinately better than the alternative!! As would my husband on Zoladex. He would be dead in 12 months if not on this drug. Now his life expands until at least 80 years of age, another 11 years.
I know people on anti rheumatoid arthritis drugs who lead normal lives.
Jamie, in a perfect world we would have no pollution, no chemicals, no disease etc., and time and again it has been proven that supplementation and herbal products alone cannot bring about a cure nor effect any magic on those striken with MS and many other horrific states of illness. We can take them (if we can afford them)!!! on a regular basis and they can go a long way to helping boost our immune systems and help us to keep healthy, but in the end, nothing from any company other than a drug company is going to give a Parkinson's sufferer back his life!!!
My suggestion ont his is, wait until you have something that can only be dealt with my the drug cartels. You will take the drugs, believe me. My husband did and he lives,( also thanks to the power of prayer and a good diet) , you can help yourself, but in the end, reply on the Almighty, because it was Her who gave us the wherewithal and the knowledge to make these little mother's helpers inthe first place.
Physician heal thyself. [X(] Research Research Research, and when you are satisfied, then go down the road you feel most comfortable with.
Love to you Jamie
Gillyxxxxxxx
Answers:
What an interesting thread!
What always makes me curious though is how people generally put all their eggs in one basket with regards to allopathic (i.e. western) medicine.
I'll explain: if you were going to buy a car, you would shop around wouldn't you? - find the best vehicle for your needs etc, or a house or whatever... but when it comes to health people in general tend to only go to a GP!!
What about the other alternatives that could get you well by releasing the condition from your body, instead of being reliant in suppressant or otherwise drugs for the rest of your life? (not to mention the side-effects)... so when I hear things like:
"I have a friend whose breast cancer is controlled by Tamoxifen, and has been for 10 years now. Without it she would be dead by now."
It makes me want to ask "how do you know?" How do you know that there isn't another natural alternative that could have got her better?
At the end of the day, it comes down to personal choice, but with such an important topic as health, it amazes me people don't look around for more holistic avenues.
Blessings,
Answers:
Hi Maya,
Yes it is an interesting thread. In answer to your question about the friend I have with breast cancer, in remission, is that Lynn herself is a practising holistic therapist, with a Degree in Nutrition, and is always researching herbal medicines, and a wide variety of dietary aid to conquering cancer and other conditions, as well as preventing them in the first place. Her cancer was aggressive, and she was well aware that no amount of herbal concotions would save her. However, she attributes her present state of health to the Tamoxifen COMBINED with a veggie diet and herbal supplementation. (One of which was St. John's Wort for depression which worked very well).
I also have many people who ring me up in my clinic asking if my therapies will help them rather than allopathic medicine, but I know they will not do so. There is a balance in nature as in all things, and what I can do will help provide that balance, but, never a cure in itself. I think recovery can be aided, most definately by therapies and by herbs or supplements, but in my quite vast experience, none of these can cure by themselves.
You ony have to look at certain well known people, for example Steve MacQueen, who tried to cure his cancer via alternative means and failed, sadly, to know that anything 'alternative' can be very dangerous.
Life styles do have to change both for prevention of disease and when a cure has been effected, for without that the cancer will return. This is where supplementation comes into its own.
And gain, in my experience I have found not everyone is willing to put all their eggs in one basket as far as medical science is concerned, indeed, people seem very well informed these days and often seek out alternatives. Iti s merely a question of whether those alternatives will work.
There is no cure for Parkinsons, MS, Motor Nuerone Disease, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and may many more, but, there ae drugs that give people a decent stab at continued quality of life, even it they will not turn out to live to 100 !!!
IMHO, that if you had any of these conditions, you would not hesitate for long before seeking medical help?
And I can tell you for sure that my own husband would not have long to live were it not for the injections he now has every 2 months. And that despite a brilliant diet, supplementation till he rattles, and herbal products, therapies galore and spiritual healing plusu Reiki!!!!
Again IMHO, there has to be a balance, . And are we lucky or what!!! People died ghastly deaths from stomach cancer and most other cancers only 50 years ago, less than my age now, with no hope, and now there is hope.
I'll take the tablets please doc!!!!
Love and Light
Gillyxxxxxxxxxxxx
Answers:
It's interesting that you mentioned Rheumatoid Arthritis. A naturapath I used to visit was told by doctors that she would be in a wheelchair by the time she was in her thirties due to her arthritis. She is now in her fifties and puts her complete mobility down to cider vinegar and honey and other herbal supplements.
For years my mum was dependent upon prescription drugs to suppress the chronic stomach pain she suffered (due to undergoing major surgery as an infant). Now she drinks peppermint and fennel tea.
I know people who have taken blood pressure tablets for years, but it doesn't actually CURE them. In fact they have to take countless other drugs to combat the side effects. Where's the profit for the drug companies if they cure their patients?
I have a friend who has taken drugs for years for psoriasis and now has to undertake painful liver biopsies to see how much damage those drugs have done. Not once did anyone ever give her advice on diet or suggest supplements like milk thistle.
I also know someone that, despite undergoing conventional treatment, has had breast cancer three times.
Perhaps part of the success of whatever it is you take, whether it be natural or synthetic, is due to the faith you have in it working? Maybe in some cases a combination is required.
Call me ambitious, but I prefer to hope for cures rather than relief of symptoms (while at the same time possibly destroying my liver and other organs).
I can't help but get extraordinarily angry that GPs appear to have less knowledge than a layperson like myself about holistic therapies and seem only able to prescribe drugs. In six years of training surely they could fit in a few weeks worth of nutrition when so many people's lives are depending on them?
I'll get off my soapbox now [&:]
Petal x
Answers:
Re: Steve Mcqueen:
Steve McQueen’s story, implies that the world became disillusioned with laetrile after McQueen’s death. A brief trawl through the facts of the matter actually reveals that McQueen’s cancer was reversed by the laetrile therapy he underwent in Mexico. Upon choosing to return to California, he elected to have the BENIGN tumour in his abdomen removed as it was unsightly. He died of complications of that surgery, NOT from cancer.
Dr John Heinerman, author of "Heinerman’s Encyclopedia", was acquainted first hand with William Kelly, who attended McQueen’s treatment in Mexico: "While I never cared much for the man’s [Kelly’s] style myself, I will have to say in his defense that he wasn’t to blame for McQueen’s sudden health reversals. Once his patient started to feel better and x-rays showed a definite reduction in tumor size, McQueen went right back to his old habits of questionable lifestyle choices. One of Kelly’s staff people told me, ‘McQueen said he wasn’t going to sit in a Mexico clinic all day taking it easy. He said he was going to get out and ‘live a little’ and ‘celebrate’ his cure.’"
Veteran health researcher G Edward Griffin, author of "World Without Cancer", has this to say about the McQueen story: "Not a word of [McQueen’s] prior recovery was to be found in the major press. Consequently, millions of Americans who followed the story came away with the conviction that Laetrile was just another hoax. That, too, is merely an extension of the kind of biased media reporting that has become a permanent part of the coverage of Laetrile. It continues today."
http://credence.org/Eclub/April28th2000.htm
Answers:
Hi Gilly,
Not sure what you mean here - you think that drugs are even more successful than people think? Personally I was quite shocked at some of the figures quoted by the senior executive from GlaxoSmithKline. So either you think he has got his figures wrong or you don't disagree with the figures but they don't strike you as a low success rate. Again I agree that drugs are very successful in some cases and we should be very grateful for that. In other words yes there is a place for drugs but I would say that western medicine has gone too far down the drugs road to the neglect of other factors, such as diet, which I think is still not taken seriously. If I became sick I would look at all the options and if drugs were the best option then I would be happy and grateful to take them. It's just about balance, I think we agree :D
Dr L
Answers:
Amazing isn't it in 2003. [sm=soapbox.gif]
Answers:
Hi Guys,
Gilly, the last thing I want to do is be a part of turning this into another protracted discussion about the pros and cons of allopathic vs complementary medicine. We all have our ranges of experience and we all have either personal stories or the testimonials of friends, family and clients attesting to the validity of one or another treatment modality. All are valid, because we ought to live in a world of free choice where we can choose our own roads.
The pro-drugs camp do not seem to agree with freedom of choice, so we end up having to have heated discussions to defend our corner. Vitamin users do not campaign for the banning of drugs. We campaign for the right to take vitamins. Where's the balance?
Sadly, the drugs companies which you espouse are putting an inordinate degree of pressure on the governments of the world to ban and marginalise alternative treatment modalities. And they are succeeding. How can we justify supporting this type of behaviour? How can we buy products from companies who band together with governments in order to monopolise markets? I know that you are safe because you have chosen the route which has served you well, but what about those whose views and experiences differ?
Those statistics about medicine being the leading cause of death are not media hype. They are fact. "We are winning the war on cancer" is media hype. Pop stars doing AIDS benefits is media hype. "Vitamin C causes cancer" is media hype...... and all promulgated by drugs companies.
Then you mention "I have a friend whose breast cancer is controlled by Tamoxifen, and has been for 10 years now. Without it she would be dead by now.", I must echo Maya's statement: How do you know?
The fact is that nutritional medicine progresses at a far more rapid rate than synthetic drug development. There are a number of reasons for this but to me, the main one is that nutrients are straight from nature. They may be extracted in various ways but unlike synthetic drugs, they need not go through the whole R & D phase of synthesising a patentable analog and then waiting years for FDA approval (and the associated bribary and backhanders that go with getting in bed with the government). Many nutrients have a many-thousand year history of efficacy with few side-effects.
Synthetics are inherantly inferior because our DNA does not posess the necessary information for a clean metabolism of them. This is why drugs hit the cytochrome P450 enzyme system hard.... so many drugs get metabolised through this route that liver damage is often a consequence.
Natural substances can't cure cancer?
Have you looked into Graviola for cancer? Check out www.graviola.org. This is a natural substance which drug companies picked up on and spent nearly a billion dollars trying to develop a synthetic equivalent, with no success. It is 10 000 times stronger than adriamycin, a common cancer drug. The drug company failed and buried the research. It came to light when a senior researcher from the drug company got an attack of morals and leaked the graviola information.
Graviola is so powerful at selectively dissolving tumors, in fact, that it can be unsafe to take on its own because the liver becomes overworked while clearing out the dead cancer cells. Amazon Herb Company developed a formula containing graviola that also builds and strengthens the liver and lymph, giving a more gentle response.
Now I believe that in a free market, companies who truly believe in their products will offer money-back guarantees. Do Glaxo SmithKline offer a money back guarantee with their chemotherapy drugs? If not, why not?
Amazon Herbs do. (Please email me for a free audio tape on Gravizon. Information should be free).
You also state:
I'm sure that there ar
Answers:
Carol,
Thanks for reminding me about Steve McQueen.
Also, we could mention Donald Factor, Max Factor's son. He has cancer and his dad, after sending his son to every conceivable treatment centre...... sent him for laetrile (B17) therapy in Mexico. It worked, and Donald ended up on the cover of TIME magazine.
Hmm, see if I can find a link......
OK. Here's his story: http://cancerresourcecenter.com/arti...aldfactor.html
And here's another one, and I ask, where's the fairness? A drug Cartel boss publicly admits that his drugs are on the whole, inneffective but is allowed to sell them nontheless. Meanwhile:
[FULL TEXT: http://www.townhall.com/news/politic...030718a.shtml]
The charities are all gung-ho about giving loads of money to drugs companies too.....
WHAT CANCER RESEARCH UK SAYS
Spokeswoman Sarah Turner: "We don't sanction the use of alternative therapies such as Metabolic Therapy in the place of conventional treatment. We are concerned patients don't receive false hope. There is not much scientific medical evidence behind Metabolic Therapy to back it up. Though laetrile will kill cancer cells in a lab setting, there is a huge difference between what occurs in the lab and what occurs in human patients."
Daily Mail, 15th April 2003
PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: In my book, Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth, I cover Donald Factor's story and also provide the proof Sarah Turner has trouble finding about the effectiveness of Metabolic Therapy for cancer. CTM applauds Lucy Mayhew for her dogged determination to see this article published. Please email her at lupats@hotmail.com to congratulate her on getting this story through. Isn't it also interesting that Cancer Research UK has always denied Laetrile has any therapeutic effect on cancers, and yet now is saying that it kills cancer 'in a lab setting'. Well, Sarah? Which is it? Does it, or doesn't it?
This charity, by the way, has passed huge amounts of public money to the drug industry to continue developing toxic and deadly treatments for cancer that not only don't work, but can actually cause cancer and torture the patient in the process. These people willingly ignore or defame the studies that have been done with nutrition for cancer for one simple reason: food supplements and a decent diet don't make Porsche payments, and who would pay their insulting salaries?
RESOURCES FOR CANCER:
Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth
B17 Metabolic Therapy - a technical manual
Answers:
Dear Jamie,
NOTHING could have saved my husband apart from the drugs he is being given.
NOTHING could save Lynn apart from a radical masectomy and Tamoxifen,and I thought I had pointed out she was a trained Nutritionist (4 years Degree course) and into supplementation? And had researched just about everything going. She is my primary source of help if I need to advise any of my clients in fact.
Cetyl Myristoleate plus Type II collagen and supporting nutrients claims a 90%+ response rate. PLUS, you can stop taking the nutrient after a couple of months and the benefits can last up to five years.
My own mother was a rheumatoid artritis sufferer and tried this and every supplment and herb on the market and just got steadily worse, until she took the drugs offered her. And she died at nearly 87, which is not bad for stuff that is supposed to give you liver failure. Actually, she caught MRSA from a hospital visit.
I believe some, (and I say 'some' advisedly), anti drugs books are simply money making machines. There is an Media hype element of 'keep the people scared to death and they will pay their taxes' about all of this.
A course of, say Gravizon (with it's money-back guarantee) and a few support nutrients will cost a mere fraction of that.
Jamie, if this could cure cancer, there would be no cancer!!!
I do know where you are coming from though. It is true that the vast majority of natural nutrients offer at best, relief.
EXACTLY, that is so correct.
Education is very much needed, from the cradle to the grave, in diet, and nutrition and exercise. If the Government spent time and money on this there would be signficantly less cancers diagnosed, however, we must take into account DNA and Genetic inheritance, and also pollution, vast arrays of chemicals in foodstuffs, GM foods and fast foods. Also radiation, (from the computer I am sitting in front of)! TV's, game machines, mobiles, telephones, everything around us all the time. This then, is where Balance comes in and supplementation of vital vitamins and minerals when necessary.
Steve MacQueen was just one of many people who have tried radical alternative cures of cancer and died. There are many 'alternative' practitioners who make a lot of dosh from people's fears. This is evil. Drug companies do not operate in the same way. They make vast amounts of money, they experiment on animals, they experiment on people, but by and large, they reduce suffering and extend life.
I nearly died in 2000 by being given drugs for a condition for which I was wrongly diagnosed. That is not the fault of the drug companies, but of the GP who made the incorrect diagnosis at the time. When the correct diagnosis was made, I took the drugs and became well again. In the same way when I suddenly suffered an attack of Utacaria, which was so severe my lips and tongue swelled up, I took the steroids my GP gave me and I did not die of axphyixiation. (spell)!!!
A cleint of mine tried to commit suicide beaue his Parkinson's disease was so disabling, but since he took certain medication, he plays his beloved piano again and eats in company, does not hide away because of dribbling and puts himself through an exercise regime which would make most of our eyes water. He is 75. I also have another client who suffers from Parkinsons and has a similar story to tell.
I believe IMHO it is very dangerous to say 'what is the cost of a brain tumour', this made my toes curl as my father died of one. Had they known it was there, he and my disabled other and my sister and I would have all opted for surgery, with all its dangers, in order to see him alive now. As it was diagnosed too late after years of showing signals, it was not possible too save him, but I know what he would have preferred.
I agree with freedom of choice, of course I do, and anyone who wishes not to take drugs will never hear from me any dissent. I am only stating facts as I see them, and I also cannot
Answers:
Dear Gilly.
Gilly, you know that's not true. All kinds of wonderful things exist in the world (such as engines that work by splitting water molecules) which are a threat to various established corporate bottom-lines and so become supressed. Graviola will have its day, because it works.
I'd be interested to find out if your friend Lynn tried Gravizon (or even Graviola) and so has first-hand experience. It is quite new in the West.
That's not what I said. I said:
May I suggest that you invest in an LCD screen. They don't have high-voltage electron guns in them and so are far, far safer. LCD screens are also coming down in price.
Carol mentioned:
Then,
I suppose so..... alive until pension time! But only alive enough to drag themselves to work in the morning, not to be questioning everything or getting into all this oddball new-age ascension stuff. A little bit of aspartame here, some MSG there, the odd xenoestrogen in the meat. Some enforced medication,Fluoride. Hitler messed around with fluoride as a proposed means of population control. Keep 'em active but docile.
Why are so many simple vitamins about to be banned?
Why are apricot kernals ILLEGAL in the US? Surely if they don't work then there's no need to ban them? The FDA states one case decades ago about a couple who allegedely ate a whole bucket of apple seeds and died. Subsequent independent investigations revealed that the couple was fictitious. They never existed.
And if apricot seeds are so dangerous, why do the Himalayan Hunza tribe, who routinely live way past 100, live so healthily? Their sacred food is the apricot kernal. Apricots contain Laetrile and recently, a drug company announced that a cancer cure may soon be on the way because they have discovered that the Cassava plant contains an anti-cancer substance which may be 'synthesizable'. The substance? Laetrile (B17).
Perhaps because they pay so much tax to fund the "free" NHS treatments.
Still, things may soon be different when the EU digs their claws in a little deeper. I suspect that drugs won't be "free" for ever.
Blessed Be,
Jamie
Answers:
Dear Gilly,
Despite our differences of opinion, may I just say that I am happy that your husband has had a positive result. Ultimately, no-one deserves cancer.
Blessed Be,
Jamie