Guest guest Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Comment below the quote. Sam> By Gallagher Health reporter, BBC News> > A trial of a new cancer drug, which accurately targets tumours, has been > so successful it has been stopped early.> Doctors at London's Royal Marsden Hospital gave prostate cancer patients> a powerful alpha radiation drug and found that they lived longer, and > experienced less pain and side effects.> > The medics then stopped the trial of 922 people, saying it was unethical> not to offer all of them the treatment.> > Lead researcher Dr said it was " a significant step> forward " .> Cancer Research UK said it was a very important and promising discovery.> > Radiation has been used to treat tumours for more than a century. It> damages the genetic code inside cancerous cells.> Alpha particles are the big, bulky, bruisers of the radiation world. It > is a barrage of helium nuclei, which are far bigger than beta radiation,> a stream of electrons, or gamma waves.> > Dr told the BBC: " It's more damaging. It takes one, two, three > hits to kill a cancer cell compared with thousands of hits for beta> particles. " > > Alpha particles also do less damage to surrounding tissue. He added: > " They have such a tiny range, a few millionths of a metre. So we can be > sure that the damage is being done where it should be. " > > In 90% of patients with advanced prostate cancer, the tumour will have> spread to the bone. At this stage there are no treatments which affect > survival.> The study looked at patients with these secondary cancers, as the source> of radiation - radium-223 chloride - acts like calcium and sticks to> bone. > > Half were given the radium-223 chloride drug alongside traditional> chemotherapy, while the other patients received chemotherapy and a dummy> pill.> > The death rate was 30% lower in the group taking radium-223. Those> patients survived for 14 months on average compared to 11 months in the> dummy group.> > The trial was abandoned as " it would have been unethical not to offer > the active treatment to those taking placebo " , said Dr . He> added: " I think it will be a significant step forward for cancer> patients " .> > Researchers also said the treatment was safe. Curiously there were fewer> side-effects in the group taking the treatment than those taking the> dummy medicine.> > The findings are being presented at the European Multidisciplinary > Cancer Congress but they have not yet been peer-reviewed by other> academics.> > Prof Gillies McKenna, Cancer Research UK's radiotherapy expert and> director of the Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology and Biology, said: > " This appears to be an important study using a highly targeted form of> radiation to treat prostate cancer that has spread to the bones. This> research looks very promising and could be an important addition to > approaches available to treat secondary tumours - and should be> investigated further. " > Yes. OK. It could also be a load of old twaddle. We have had Metastron around for a couple of decades, but it has not been developed or applied properly because the time has not been right for it. Now 2011+ people are getting ready to spend more on cancer treatment, and it is evidently a good idea to re-invent and re-sell basically the same product with a different name and a bit of different spin. [ Oh yes, alpha particles do it differently to beta particles, OK .... .. hmmm yawn ... ] If alpha particles are so damn good then I say this: Let's give them a " one-on-one " trial. Compare results of matched patients on either Alpharadin OR Metastron. That would be a morally acceptable and ethical use of medical resources and courageous volunteers. I think the Algeta trialists have cynically exploited both these aspects. Good job Bayer has taken over. Maybe they can compensate for what so far has been a dismal and rather amateur attempt to repackage " Shreddies " . That kind of trial I propose would be much fairer than comparing Alpharadin to ... .. NOTHING --- and then claiming the earth for Alpharadin, as the Algeta triallists and lead scientist have done hitherto. These RCTs can be a big con if you don't watch out. The Alpharadin RCT basically counted body bags from two blinded arms. On one side was the Alpharadin arm. On the other side was the placebo arm. All the RCT did in reality was prove that Alpharadin was " better than nothing " . Well, I could have told you that back in 2008 when the trials started. We knew that then because the Metastron trials a decade and a half previously determined exactly that. So why didn't the Alpharadin RCT move on in kind and quality from the Metastron trial that preceded it ? The reason: Its all a corrupt misuse of medical science and of health care provider medical resources -- and exploitation of sick people's lives. Just to repackage and regurgitate basically the same medical product that we had in the 1980's. By god, just look at the individuals' CV's involved from the Algeta CEO down - most of them cut their teeth at General Electric in Amersham Kent, where guess ... yes ... Metastron was developed back in the day. Let's get real Mr. BBC reporter, and stop babbling inanities. Just as the bankers need their wings clipping with heavy fines on miscreants, so do these irresponsible profit oriented scientists want moderating at a higher ethical level. There is very little real science going on right now in cancer medicine, and with costs for dubious treatments set to skyrocket, we need to put a cap on the perpetrators of this unseemly behaviour masquerading as moral meaningful medical science. Sam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 >> Original article prefixed like this with >> > Sam's comments with > Alan's with no prefix > Comment below the quote. Sam >> By Gallagher Health reporter, BBC News .... >> Alpha particles are the big, bulky, bruisers of the radiation >> world. It is a barrage of helium nuclei, which are far bigger >> than beta radiation, a stream of electrons, or gamma waves. >> >> Dr told the BBC: " It's more damaging. It takes one, >> two, three hits to kill a cancer cell compared with thousands >> of hits for beta particles. " >> >> Alpha particles also do less damage to surrounding tissue. He >> added: " They have such a tiny range, a few millionths of a >> metre. So we can be sure that the damage is being done where >> it should be. " [sam and Alan's comments below] > Yes. OK. It could also be a load of old twaddle. We have had > Metastron around for a couple of decades, but it has not been > developed or applied properly because the time has not been > right for it. Now 2011+ people are getting ready to spend more > on cancer treatment, and it is evidently a good idea to > re-invent and re-sell basically the same product with a > different name and a bit of different spin. [ Oh yes, alpha > particles do it differently to beta particles, OK .... .. hmmm > yawn ... ] > If alpha particles are so damn good then I say this: Let's give > them a " one-on-one " trial. Compare results of matched patients > on either Alpharadin OR Metastron. That would be a morally > acceptable and ethical use of medical resources and courageous > volunteers. I think the Algeta trialists have cynically > exploited both these aspects. Good job Bayer has taken over. > Maybe they can compensate for what so far has been a dismal and > rather amateur attempt to repackage " Shreddies " . I'm all in favor of a one-on-one trial. This is a problem for all drug testing in the U.S. U.S. law only requires comparison to placebo. According to Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and author of _The Truth About the Drug Companies_, one of the best things that could be done to get more novel drugs and fewer " me too " drugs is to require comparison to competitive treatments. Having said that, I'm not so inclined to dismiss the alpha vs. beta/gamma distinction made by the drug promoters and reported in the article. According to the FDA label, Metastron has some serious radiation side effects, e.g., destruction of bone marrow, that might not (or might) be present with Alpharadin due to its much shorter range energy delivery. I also don't know if the technique used for targeting the tumor cells is the same in the two drugs. > That kind of trial I propose would be much fairer than > comparing Alpharadin to ... .. NOTHING --- I totally agree. > and then claiming the earth for Alpharadin, as the Algeta > triallists and lead scientist have done hitherto. I don't think anyone has claimed the earth for Alpharadin. They've claimed reduction of pain and modest survival benefit. > These RCTs can be a big con if you don't watch out. The > Alpharadin RCT basically counted body bags from two blinded > arms. On one side was the Alpharadin arm. On the other side was > the placebo arm. All the RCT did in reality was prove that > Alpharadin was " better than nothing " . Well, I could have told > you that back in 2008 when the trials started. We knew that > then because the Metastron trials a decade and a half > previously determined exactly that. So why didn't the > Alpharadin RCT move on in kind and quality from the Metastron > trial that preceded it ? The reason: Its all a corrupt misuse > of medical science and of health care provider medical > resources -- and exploitation of sick people's lives. Just to > repackage and regurgitate basically the same medical product > that we had in the 1980's. By god, just look at the > individuals' CV's involved from the Algeta CEO down - most of > them cut their teeth at General Electric in Amersham Kent, > where guess ... yes ... Metastron was developed back in the > day. As we all know Sam, the goal of companies making drugs, like the goal of companies making cars, video games, refrigerators, and movies, is to make money. To expect the drug companies to put patient advocates or dedicated scientists at their helms is a lot like expecting the car companies to put Ralph Nader at their helm. It ain't gonna happen and complaining about it won't change anything. Short of abandoning capitalist based medical research (something else that ain't gonna happen in the U.S. and might introduce a different set of problems if it did) I think the solution to the problem is something you said above and I agree with. We need strong regulation of the drug companies that will better align their interests with the interests of patients. There are a number of techniques for doing that, but one that you mentioned, and that I strongly agree with, is to require that clinical trials compare new drugs against the existing standard treatments instead of just against placebo. Another regulation we need is to require full disclosure of all trial results, even if the trial is closed early, and making all data available to other researchers (while still providing some patent protection to original trial sponsor.) > Let's get real Mr. BBC reporter, and stop babbling inanities. > Just as the bankers need their wings clipping with heavy fines > on miscreants, so do these irresponsible profit oriented > scientists want moderating at a higher ethical level. The politics of regulation in the United States have become extraordinarily controversial. I would love to dig into that issue but this is a cancer support forum not a political argument forum and I will refrain from going off topic. > There is very little real science going on right now in cancer > medicine, I just don't agree with that Sam. I think there's more real and productive scientific cancer research now than ever before. Has it cured cancer? No, but we've made more progress in the last 30 years than in all of past history combined. Think about that! Scientific research is hard. Cancer research is particularly hard. Great scientists have come up with remarkable ideas on how to fight cancer - from anti-angiogenesis to monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, proton beam treatment, cancer vaccines, and more. And in spite of these brilliant ideas, cancer has proven to be an extraordinarily intractable disease. I'm not so down on the scientists. I think that many of them are doing heroic work. Alan > and with costs for dubious treatments set to > skyrocket, we need to put a cap on the perpetrators of this > unseemly behaviour masquerading as moral meaningful medical > science. > > Sam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Alan I have to say that my knowledge of is that he is viewed in the UK as having a high quality of research. He did a lot of work on improving active surveilance. Not really a money maker for the drug companies. Still like the scientists who think they have found a beam faster than light, a high degree of scepticism is fine until it is fully proven. Trouble is with PCa it takes 10 to 25 years before full data can be obtained B Re: More Alpharadin Hype >> Original article prefixed like this with >>> Sam's comments with >Alan's with no prefix> Comment below the quote. Sam>> By Gallagher Health reporter, BBC News...>> Alpha particles are the big, bulky, bruisers of the radiation>> world. It is a barrage of helium nuclei, which are far bigger>> than beta radiation, a stream of electrons, or gamma waves.>> >> Dr told the BBC: "It's more damaging. It takes one,>> two, three hits to kill a cancer cell compared with thousands>> of hits for beta particles.">> >> Alpha particles also do less damage to surrounding tissue. He>> added: "They have such a tiny range, a few millionths of a>> metre. So we can be sure that the damage is being done where>> it should be."[sam and Alan's comments below]> Yes. OK. It could also be a load of old twaddle. We have had> Metastron around for a couple of decades, but it has not been> developed or applied properly because the time has not been> right for it. Now 2011+ people are getting ready to spend more> on cancer treatment, and it is evidently a good idea to> re-invent and re-sell basically the same product with a> different name and a bit of different spin. [ Oh yes, alpha> particles do it differently to beta particles, OK .... .. hmmm> yawn ... ] > If alpha particles are so damn good then I say this: Let's give> them a "one-on-one" trial. Compare results of matched patients> on either Alpharadin OR Metastron. That would be a morally> acceptable and ethical use of medical resources and courageous> volunteers. I think the Algeta trialists have cynically> exploited both these aspects. Good job Bayer has taken over.> Maybe they can compensate for what so far has been a dismal and> rather amateur attempt to repackage "Shreddies".I'm all in favor of a one-on-one trial. This is a problem forall drug testing in the U.S. U.S. law only requires comparisonto placebo. According to Marcia Angell, former editor of the NewEngland Journal of Medicine and author of _The Truth About theDrug Companies_, one of the best things that could be done to getmore novel drugs and fewer "me too" drugs is to requirecomparison to competitive treatments.Having said that, I'm not so inclined to dismiss the alpha vs.beta/gamma distinction made by the drug promoters and reported inthe article. According to the FDA label, Metastron has someserious radiation side effects, e.g., destruction of bone marrow,that might not (or might) be present with Alpharadin due to itsmuch shorter range energy delivery.I also don't know if the technique used for targeting the tumorcells is the same in the two drugs.> That kind of trial I propose would be much fairer than> comparing Alpharadin to ... .. NOTHING --- I totally agree.> and then claiming the earth for Alpharadin, as the Algeta> triallists and lead scientist have done hitherto. I don't think anyone has claimed the earth for Alpharadin.They've claimed reduction of pain and modest survival benefit.> These RCTs can be a big con if you don't watch out. The> Alpharadin RCT basically counted body bags from two blinded> arms. On one side was the Alpharadin arm. On the other side was> the placebo arm. All the RCT did in reality was prove that> Alpharadin was "better than nothing". Well, I could have told> you that back in 2008 when the trials started. We knew that> then because the Metastron trials a decade and a half> previously determined exactly that. So why didn't the> Alpharadin RCT move on in kind and quality from the Metastron> trial that preceded it ? The reason: Its all a corrupt misuse> of medical science and of health care provider medical> resources -- and exploitation of sick people's lives. Just to> repackage and regurgitate basically the same medical product> that we had in the 1980's. By god, just look at the> individuals' CV's involved from the Algeta CEO down - most of> them cut their teeth at General Electric in Amersham Kent,> where guess ... yes ... Metastron was developed back in the> day.As we all know Sam, the goal of companies making drugs, like thegoal of companies making cars, video games, refrigerators, andmovies, is to make money. To expect the drug companies to putpatient advocates or dedicated scientists at their helms is a lotlike expecting the car companies to put Ralph Nader at theirhelm. It ain't gonna happen and complaining about it won'tchange anything.Short of abandoning capitalist based medical research (somethingelse that ain't gonna happen in the U.S. and might introducea different set of problems if it did) I think the solution tothe problem is something you said above and I agree with.We need strong regulation of the drug companies that will betteralign their interests with the interests of patients. There area number of techniques for doing that, but one that youmentioned, and that I strongly agree with, is to require thatclinical trials compare new drugs against the existing standardtreatments instead of just against placebo. Another regulationwe need is to require full disclosure of all trial results, evenif the trial is closed early, and making all data available toother researchers (while still providing some patent protectionto original trial sponsor.)> Let's get real Mr. BBC reporter, and stop babbling inanities.> Just as the bankers need their wings clipping with heavy fines> on miscreants, so do these irresponsible profit oriented> scientists want moderating at a higher ethical level.The politics of regulation in the United States have becomeextraordinarily controversial. I would love to dig into thatissue but this is a cancer support forum not a political argumentforum and I will refrain from going off topic.> There is very little real science going on right now in cancer> medicine,I just don't agree with that Sam. I think there's more real andproductive scientific cancer research now than ever before. Hasit cured cancer? No, but we've made more progress in the last 30years than in all of past history combined. Think about that!Scientific research is hard. Cancer research is particularlyhard. Great scientists have come up with remarkable ideas on howto fight cancer - from anti-angiogenesis to monoclonalantibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, proton beam treatment,cancer vaccines, and more. And in spite of these brilliantideas, cancer has proven to be an extraordinarily intractabledisease.I'm not so down on the scientists. I think that many of them aredoing heroic work.Alan> and with costs for dubious treatments set to> skyrocket, we need to put a cap on the perpetrators of this> unseemly behaviour masquerading as moral meaningful medical> science.> > Sam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 & All, is an active scientist, clinician and researcher. He works for the NHS and sits on a number of panels (quango's, charities and so on) in the UK advising on prostate cancer treatment. His name is on at least one recent government publication with " No Conflicting Interest " declared loud and clear. On the other hand .. . Not so long ago went to the USA to promote Alpharadin on the strength of RCT** results, on behalf of the Norwegian company Algeta that owned the patent for Alpharadin at the time. His appearance in the USA promoting Alpharadin was big news and recorded in the trade and investment journals that are easily found on the Internet. DEFINE: " No Conflicting Interest " . You can research this further and draw your own conclusions.*Sam~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My comments are below for anyone who wishes to pursue this thread.Notes and ConsiderationsTRADE JOURNALS: There was no hiding the fact that Algeta was making a bid to break into the US market based on RCT results that had been coordinated from the UK using infrastructure resources from many socialized health service providers in Europe and elsewhere. MOTIVATION : There are certainly individuals who have profited financially from this. You only have to look at the share price of the Alpharadin owners to see this. [ Algeta .. Bayer .. and so on ]. PROFESSIONALISM : Personally, I do not think has intended to " profit " from wearing different hats to different audiences. I think he was trying to do a job as a scientist. However, I do think has got himself in a bit deep and has been used as a pawn in all this. This is because of the present complexity of the situation regarding the nature of RCT's, private companies and business interests vis-a-vis the rights and needs of patients. This is an ethical problem that crosses various borders, including political and economic as well a national. ETHICS : At this point I know that Moderators tend to throw their hands in the air and say " Off Topic -- Subject Closed " . Unfortunately, sticking our collective head in the sand and moving on to the next subject is not going to solve the problem for the patients of tomorrow. The motivation of any inquiry is important as it will at least partially determine outcome. A scientific enquiry, scientific research is no different. We therefore need our scientists to be free from any motive other than the need to eradicate disease and improve our lot as mortal humans. When money enters the picture from any angle the field tilts and the goal posts shift. ** The original Algeta protocol was designed with the stringent criteria for a small company wishing to overcome the obstacles the FDA creates. There was a good description of this in a private email to me. I hope the correspondent decides to re-send the email to PCS so everyone can benefit from a broader view of the problems we face with RCT's under the present set-up, and how this complexity can entangle scientists. Alan I have to say that my knowledge of is that he is viewed in the UK as having a high quality of research. He did a lot of work on improving active surveilance. Not really a money maker for the drug companies. Still like the scientists who think they have found a beam faster than light, a high degree of scepticism is fine until it is fully proven. Trouble is with PCa it takes 10 to 25 years before full data can be obtained B Re: More Alpharadin Hype >> Original article prefixed like this with >>> Sam's comments with >Alan's with no prefix> Comment below the quote. Sam>> By Gallagher Health reporter, BBC News...>> Alpha particles are the big, bulky, bruisers of the radiation>> world. It is a barrage of helium nuclei, which are far bigger>> than beta radiation, a stream of electrons, or gamma waves.>> >> Dr told the BBC: " It's more damaging. It takes one,>> two, three hits to kill a cancer cell compared with thousands>> of hits for beta particles. " >> >> Alpha particles also do less damage to surrounding tissue. He>> added: " They have such a tiny range, a few millionths of a>> metre. So we can be sure that the damage is being done where>> it should be. " [sam and Alan's comments below]> Yes. OK. It could also be a load of old twaddle. We have had> Metastron around for a couple of decades, but it has not been> developed or applied properly because the time has not been> right for it. Now 2011+ people are getting ready to spend more> on cancer treatment, and it is evidently a good idea to> re-invent and re-sell basically the same product with a> different name and a bit of different spin. [ Oh yes, alpha> particles do it differently to beta particles, OK .... .. hmmm> yawn ... ] > If alpha particles are so damn good then I say this: Let's give> them a " one-on-one " trial. Compare results of matched patients> on either Alpharadin OR Metastron. That would be a morally> acceptable and ethical use of medical resources and courageous> volunteers. I think the Algeta trialists have cynically> exploited both these aspects. Good job Bayer has taken over.> Maybe they can compensate for what so far has been a dismal and> rather amateur attempt to repackage " Shreddies " .I'm all in favor of a one-on-one trial. This is a problem forall drug testing in the U.S. U.S. law only requires comparisonto placebo. According to Marcia Angell, former editor of the NewEngland Journal of Medicine and author of _The Truth About theDrug Companies_, one of the best things that could be done to getmore novel drugs and fewer " me too " drugs is to requirecomparison to competitive treatments.Having said that, I'm not so inclined to dismiss the alpha vs.beta/gamma distinction made by the drug promoters and reported inthe article. According to the FDA label, Metastron has someserious radiation side effects, e.g., destruction of bone marrow,that might not (or might) be present with Alpharadin due to itsmuch shorter range energy delivery.I also don't know if the technique used for targeting the tumorcells is the same in the two drugs.> That kind of trial I propose would be much fairer than> comparing Alpharadin to ... .. NOTHING --- I totally agree.> and then claiming the earth for Alpharadin, as the Algeta> triallists and lead scientist have done hitherto. I don't think anyone has claimed the earth for Alpharadin.They've claimed reduction of pain and modest survival benefit.> These RCTs can be a big con if you don't watch out. The> Alpharadin RCT basically counted body bags from two blinded> arms. On one side was the Alpharadin arm. On the other side was> the placebo arm. All the RCT did in reality was prove that> Alpharadin was " better than nothing " . Well, I could have told> you that back in 2008 when the trials started. We knew that> then because the Metastron trials a decade and a half> previously determined exactly that. So why didn't the> Alpharadin RCT move on in kind and quality from the Metastron> trial that preceded it ? The reason: Its all a corrupt misuse> of medical science and of health care provider medical> resources -- and exploitation of sick people's lives. Just to> repackage and regurgitate basically the same medical product> that we had in the 1980's. By god, just look at the> individuals' CV's involved from the Algeta CEO down - most of> them cut their teeth at General Electric in Amersham Kent,> where guess ... yes ... Metastron was developed back in the> day.As we all know Sam, the goal of companies making drugs, like thegoal of companies making cars, video games, refrigerators, andmovies, is to make money. To expect the drug companies to putpatient advocates or dedicated scientists at their helms is a lotlike expecting the car companies to put Ralph Nader at theirhelm. It ain't gonna happen and complaining about it won'tchange anything.Short of abandoning capitalist based medical research (somethingelse that ain't gonna happen in the U.S. and might introducea different set of problems if it did) I think the solution tothe problem is something you said above and I agree with.We need strong regulation of the drug companies that will betteralign their interests with the interests of patients. There area number of techniques for doing that, but one that youmentioned, and that I strongly agree with, is to require thatclinical trials compare new drugs against the existing standardtreatments instead of just against placebo. Another regulationwe need is to require full disclosure of all trial results, evenif the trial is closed early, and making all data available toother researchers (while still providing some patent protectionto original trial sponsor.)> Let's get real Mr. BBC reporter, and stop babbling inanities.> Just as the bankers need their wings clipping with heavy fines> on miscreants, so do these irresponsible profit oriented> scientists want moderating at a higher ethical level.The politics of regulation in the United States have becomeextraordinarily controversial. I would love to dig into thatissue but this is a cancer support forum not a political argumentforum and I will refrain from going off topic.> There is very little real science going on right now in cancer> medicine,I just don't agree with that Sam. I think there's more real andproductive scientific cancer research now than ever before. Hasit cured cancer? No, but we've made more progress in the last 30years than in all of past history combined. Think about that!Scientific research is hard. Cancer research is particularlyhard. Great scientists have come up with remarkable ideas on howto fight cancer - from anti-angiogenesis to monoclonalantibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, proton beam treatment,cancer vaccines, and more. And in spite of these brilliantideas, cancer has proven to be an extraordinarily intractabledisease.I'm not so down on the scientists. I think that many of them aredoing heroic work.Alan> and with costs for dubious treatments set to> skyrocket, we need to put a cap on the perpetrators of this> unseemly behaviour masquerading as moral meaningful medical> science.> > Sam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 > ... The motivation of any inquiry is important as it will at > least partially determine outcome. A scientific enquiry, > scientific research is no different. We therefore need our > scientists to be free from any motive other than the need to > eradicate disease and improve our lot as mortal humans. When > money enters the picture from any angle the field tilts and the > goal posts shift. > ... Sam, I admire your strict notion of ethics here and your desire to have impartial science pursued for the benefit of all humankind. But I'd also like you to consider the workaday world of the scientist. Like the rest of us, scientists are working people who accept assignments from employers or clients and do what they are paid to do. In this regard, they are not different from other working people from advertising writers to school teachers. If a scientist is offered work by a drug company, and the pay is right, he takes it and does what he is paid to do. If no one did that, there would be no drug companies and no drugs. I think we can and should ask our scientists to do two things: 1. Refuse to do unethical or illegal work. Examples include things like testing drugs on patients outside of registered clinical trials, lying about the results of their experiments, or lying to patients about their conditions. If a scientist is paid by a drug company to say that a drug like Alpharadin does something that he, the scientist, knows it doesn't do, then he should refuse. 2. Disclose conflicts of interest. If a scientist is paid by a drug company to consult to the company or to speak to audiences, even if the main purpose of his employment is to help market a drug, that seems to me fair and reasonable IF he only tells the truth to his audiences (point 1 above) and he discloses that he is receiving payment from that company so that anyone who hears his presentation can judge for himself whether the scientist might be unduly influenced by his employer. If produced favorable reviews of Alpharadin and IN THAT CONTEXT failed to disclose that he received payments from the drug's manufacturer, then I think he violated point 2 above. Very well known and well regarded doctors and scientists have been fired from the US National Institutes of Health for that and been prosecuted for violating their employment contracts. If he failed to disclose his connection in some other context, for example, if he did not mention his connection to Algeta when speaking to an audience about hormone therapy or surgery, then I don't think he violated an ethical rule. I know that you, Sam, feel very strongly about this. If you think that Dr. violated an ethical rule, I suggest that you write to him and/or his employer and see what he or they has/have to say about it. I will be curious to hear your report. You said in your posting: > At this point I know that Moderators tend to throw their hands > in the air and say " Off Topic -- Subject Closed " . > Unfortunately, sticking our collective head in the sand and > moving on to the next subject is not going to solve the problem > for the patients of tomorrow. As one of the moderators I wish to say that I do indeed think that we are getting off topic. Although I sympathize with many of your concerns, I really don't see how the Yahoo Prostate Cancer Support group is a useful forum for changing society in the ways that you would like it to change. I also think that starting a sharp political debate here will surely offend some of the cancer patients in this group. I don't think it will solve any problems for the patients of tomorrow and may drive away some of the patients of today who need help. I would therefore like to ask you to moderate your own postings in light of that and stick to providing more direct information and support to cancer patients - something which I know you are well qualified to do. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.