Researchers say novel combined therapy shows promise in controlling breast cancer

[TexasTowelie]

An alternative to chemotherapy is currently being developed for late-stage breast cancer patients. Researchers from the National University Cancer Institute, Singapore and the Cancer Science Institute of Singapore are testing a novel drug combination. They said that the results are promising so far.

[Phoenix61]

1. I'm headed home from there. I'm not surprised they are

working on this. Their government has done a great job balancing capitalism and caring for its people. One of the goals for the country is to become a medical hub for the region. I walked all over downtown at all hours by myself and never felt a twinge of unease.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

2. Shows promise.

So many drugs or therapies "show promise" and then turn out to be worthless. I wish these kinds of things wouldn't get reported until they were actually shown to work.

[TexasTowelie]

3. I have mixed feelings about these announcements too.

I can see why they make these announcements since it may help recruit patients to conduct medical studies. What I really fear though is that an effective treatment could be developed and big pharma gets involved to nefariously keep that treatment off the market.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. I'm sorry, but there is ZERO evidence

that effective treatments or medications are suppressed or kept off the market. Zero.

Tell me about a single time that has happened.

[TexasTowelie]

5. I didn't say that had happened.

What I said is that it could happen. That's a big difference.

Besides, I doubt that we would hear anything if big pharma behaved accordingly unless a whistleblower came forward and it received media coverage. I also doubt that any company that manipulates the situation to keep a drug from reaching market is going to put out a press release confessing what they did.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

6. You are buying into serious

conspiracy theory. Don't do that. "It could happen" is right up there with any other imaginary scenarios. Don't go there. Stick with reality.

Again, tell me about a single time it has happened. Otherwise, spend a bit of time thinking about this, and realize "it could happen" is right up there with "once upon a time". Meaning fiction. Not real. Hasn't happened.

[TexasTowelie]

7. In this day when greed outweighs medical outcomes I'm not willing to ignore the possibility.

Just because I can't provide a link to validate my concern doesn't mean that the pharma industry is above board. A lot can be hidden in the merger and acquisition process.

In addition, the major pharmaceutical companies rarely do their own R&D and new drugs are being created at small companies that don't typically receive much press coverage, particularly when it results in those companies going bankrupt.

Only about 20% of pharmaceuticals generate more than $1 billion in sales. Some of the drugs may be inferior or have little benefit over less expensive options. Other drugs never become profitable because of marketing and incentives for providers to prescribe other medications. Scientists frequently discover that some medications provide treatment for conditions that weren't originally envisioned and those potential treatments may not be discovered if they don't reach an adequate number of patients.

As long as both humans and money are involved in any industry, the possibility of malfeasance exist. If recognizing human nature is considered to be a conspiracy, then I'm guilty as charged.

[TexasTowelie]

8. Actually, I did find an article about an effective treatment that is being suppressed, although it

is already on the market.

You might want to read up on Enbrel, and how it might help Alzheimer's patients. The drug was originally developed by Wyeth and used for rheumatory arthritis. Pfizer acquired Wyeth, but let clinical studies for the treatment of Alzheimer's languish because Enbrel was reaching the end of its patent life and because Pfizer already had another arthritis medication with several more years of patent protection available.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pfizer-had-clues-its-blockbuster-drug-could-prevent-alzheimers-why-didnt-it-tell-the-world/2019/06/04/9092e08a-7a61-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html

So Enbrel was not kept off the market; however, it was definitely being suppressed by the manufacturer for further clinical studies due primarily for financial considerations.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

9. A follow up of that drug

indicates it's not particularly effective for Alzheimer's. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/missed-alzheimer-s-opportunity-not-so-much

Once again, preliminary results that are "promising" but do not live up to the promise. Not at all the same as suppressing an effective treatment.

Think about it. An effective drug for anything is going to get sold over and over.

The far, far larger problem is the unconscionable rise in the cost of drugs, like insulin.

[TexasTowelie]

10. I've been insulin dependent for nearly twenty years

so I'm well-acquainted with the skyrocketing cost of insulin and other related medications for diabetes.

I cannot knock any drug company though for making these preliminary announcements. Most drugs that are developed only remain in the testing phase since they are ineffective. However, that isn't going to be known without clinical studies and by recruiting volunteers or paid participants in those trials. I think that the pharmaceutical companies will find more people willing to participate in clinical trials if they are informed that this a candidate with high potential than they will by not disclosing information about the trial drugs.

I still have my concerns that financial considerations can keep promising candidates for treatment off the market; however, those considerations may not be transparent to an outside party, particularly if they aren't aware of the entire set of drugs being manufactured by a company or the profit margins on each product.