Might as well go a little further OT. Article on medical trials from Oct 2 New York Times.
nytimes.com
****************************
My summary:
Women with advanced breast cancer are given to believe that without a bone marrow transplant their chances are slim. It's very painful and costs $150,000. More or less true, but unfortunately their chances with the transplant aren't necessarily any better (than conventional chemotherapy.)
It's been impossible to test the procedure, which started in the 80s, because most women will opt for the transplant rather than enter a trial where their chance of getting the transplant are 50-50. Huge industry has grown up doing the (untested) bone marrow transplants, and exerts big-time political pressure to stay in business:
'Under pressure from doctors and patient groups, Congress even mandated in 1994 that insurers for Federal employees pay for bone marrow transplants for women with breast or ovarian cancer. Soon, lobbied by doctors, hospitals and patient groups, about a dozen states adopted their own mandates that the experimental procedure be covered.
Lost in the rush to offer the treatment to more cancer patients with solid tumors was the fact that the procedure still had not been shown to work even for breast cancer, where it got its start.
"It evolved into a standard of care," said Dr. John Glick, director of the Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania. "It isn't." '
Finally got some studies done, several overseas, and the result was: bone marrow transplants do not work better than the chemo. Nevertheless the industry rolls on.
----
My response: The government medical overseers could more profitably spend their time taking on abuses like this, than insuring that people submitting new drug applications dot every i, and jump thru lots of hoops. But they won't, and its all about power. They are (naturally) afraid to take on the political power of a lobby like this, its much easier to bat around small companies.
Pontifically Yours,
Doc
|
