New Drugs?

[Guest guest]

RFW SECOND OPINION

 

October 31, 2002

 

SECOND OPINION

 

STOP, SHUT YOUR MOUTH, YOU'RE A DISGRACE!

 

One Medical Blowhard After Another Hypes A New Drug Before Human

Tests Even Begin - And The Press Is All Too Keen To Run The " Ad "

 

By Nicholas Regush

 

The pattern should now be apparent: One medical blowhard after

another faces reporters and delivers hype for a new drug. Once upon a

time, this was done more discreetly; most often after human clinical

trials were run and the product was approved by the FDA or some other

regulatory agency. Back in those days, it was even considered

ethically questionable if the principal investigator - the big cheese

who directed the research - also ended up promoting the product.

 

But now, everything goes. Consider the latest shilling being done for

a new breast cancer drug called Phortress, which supposedly

selectively targets breast cancer cells. The product has never been

approved. The product has never undergone human testing. And by the

way, anytime I see the phrase, " selectively targets, " my brain cells

go jingle jangle and I have to count to ten. Can they at least wait

until proper human tests are run to determine whether this drug

actually does what they think it does? The garbage pile of drugs that

initially were thought to be " selective " in the way they targeted

cells can provide someone with good fodder who might want to write a

book about medical hubris (aren't I being nice? ).

 

So according to the BBC News today, here we have Malcolm Stevens,

director of the Cancer Research UK group at Nottingham University

telling doctors at a conference that the drug may be effective in " up

to one in four cases " of breast cancer. How does he know that? A

guess? A hunch? A thought? Based on what? And then Stevens is quoted

as saying, " I'm excited by the progress of the drug so far, although

it's important to stress that it will take several more years for

clinical trials to be completed. " Gee, he's " excited. " About what? No

tests yet for humans and he's " excited. "

 

Of course, the BBC got very excited about all this. The headline for

their story was: " High Hopes For Breast Cancer Drug " On what basis?

And why are we even being told about this when there are no human

data? Why is this " excitement " not delivered to the business

community in the business section of the BBC News? Why put it in the

health section?

 

Day after day, the health news is polluted with dreg like this. These

days, marketing begins even before the first human is given the test

drug. And the media laps it up. Rather than do some exploring of

complex health issues, today's medical reporter is all too often an

embarrassing drone in the service of Big Pharma.

 

To the medical researcher, I say: stop predicting what effects a drug

will have in humans, or maybe better still, shut your mouth.

 

And since this is a family website, to the reporter, I simply say:

read my lips.

 

 

 

*Nicholas Regush, RFW's editor, writes the popular Health News

Analyzer.