prostate drug trials

prostate drug trials

Painful, Slow & Stinging Urination?
Watch This Video Before You Buy Anything

Drugs and your doctor: Taking Charge

The doctors talk among themselves about the unrealistic expectations of patients about the effectiveness of drugs. Very often, this conversation is done with shakes his head and sometimes the sarcasm in his voice. However, it is time we ask the question: Who is being unrealistic? Why the patient (or the country where socialized medicine pay or subsidize the cost) to pay for a drug that has a very low level of efficiency?

When you go to the doctor and the doctor prescribes a drug, how much performance do you expect to take this medicine? Do you expect to be 100% effective? Or 98% or 90% or 80%? Or take the drug if the doctor said it might reduce your chances of a bad result in a 4%? Or what about 1% or less?

It is a question that I ask for the last two months. I ask all those I meet – people in the queue of buses, vendors, colleagues in the staffroom at work and even medical students. The answer consistent was that most people expect the drug to a 90% efficiency, with some falling as low as 80%. Same one medical student, he said, very honestly, "Well, I am a trained pharmacist, so I know how effective they are, but when my doctor gives me hope that the 90% effective.

I am a health researcher and one of the things I do is go to the research literature Medical knowledge for what works to improve health. I dive deep into the literature. When I was at the bottom of the search of the literature on the use of anti-cholesterol statins, which will be amazed at how the effect was small.

When I looked at the actual test results medication I have found that the results are often not what was conveyed by the title of the journal article, and certainly not in the advertising of pharmaceutical companies. For example, women did not improve overall survival when taking statins. For men without a history of heart problems only saved the lives of 250 men at the time of drug intake for five years. This is 0.4% effective. For those who had a heart attack earlier figures were 1 in 25. This represents 25 men had to take the drug for 5 years to save a life – which is a return of 4% – far, far away from 90'100% efficiency that most people seek.

Some time later I found an article reviewing the effectiveness of chemotherapy in cancer. However, no I know you, but I always been assumed that treatment side effects horrible could expect a 90% increase of survival time, or at least 50%. It is then I expect that it would cut my risk of dying, at least half, and I could go live on a total length of life.

An article published in 2004 in the journal Cancer Clinical Oncology paints a completely different. Morgan and his colleagues found the contribution to survival of chemotherapy in five adults was only 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA. In five years, the survival rate for cancer is now 60% can see the chemotherapy has little impact on overall results. For the rate of breast cancer is 1.4% and for cancer of the prostate is the rate of 0% which is void.

How can this be? This can be true? I could not believe it so I started asking the doctors with whom I work. All agreed on the efficiency was much lower than almost everyone expected, but did not realize that these Rates are as low as mentioned in the article. An oncologist has simply not responded, but did not say that the document was incorrect. He continued: "It should ask patients what they want. "

But how can patients make an informed decision if doctors are not honest about the effectiveness of drugs? Now, there will from time to time a person you want to use all available drugs in the hope to earn a few days or weeks to be with his family. But I think it would be many people that would not give up months of agony effects secondary they realized how the results were bad. If instead of being told you are in grave danger of death that I was said that the average survival time was 20 years (as in women with breast cancer) and chemotherapy could add an average of 5 months time survival, then you take it?

I would say that many people would be interested in research showing that many types of cancer in humans who carry at least three hours per week have cancer much better results than those who do not. It seems that patients with breast cancer have better survival 7-10% which is six times better than chemotherapy, but I've never heard of a doctor prescribing exercise for cancer. Other improvements potential could be maintained through eating lots of bright green, yellow, orange vegetables, red and purple several times a day and reduce the intake sugar.

The big problem is that doctors have been indoctrinated to accept treatment have shown from tests Randomized controlled. You can never prove that exercise or vegetables can improve life expectancy at the level of proof, because we can use the methods of the research itself. We can not stop people from exercising or eating fresh vegetables to make research and it would be unethical if we know how good they are. As we can not test the performance and vegetables are better than chemotherapy using exactly the same methods of research, drug companies win, and patients suffer side effects. It is time to be a little more demanding and began to learn to better questions about the assumptions underlying the research methods used. Or go natural – do what your body: eat close to nature as possible, travel regularly throughout the day and have a pleasant family and social life.

About the Author

Dr Harriet Denz-Penhey is an internationally recognized health researcher who has done groundbreaking research into patient self care in serious illness. Want to learn more about unexpected recovery from terminal illness? Claim Harriet’s popular free e-course, available at http://www.beatthemedicalodds.com

Who will survive and who will die?

10 people marked for death, but you can choose 4 of life. That be? # 1. At 12 years old. with the former Down Syndrome # 2. At 12 years old. age who is bipolar # 3. An elderly woman who is deaf and blind # 4 An old man with prostate cancer advanced, pronounced 2 years. # 5 A Female African American is complicit in killing 5 men # 6 man white, which is considered as a rapist, he has two children # 7 an Asian woman on trial for have been abandoned in their five children # 8 An Indian man who was caught with plans to steal a bank # 9 A Korean woman who attempted suicide twice as rich # 10 A poor Iraqi man convicted of drug trafficking is a matter of psychology. Not to be taken seriously.

1. At 12 years old. former with Down syndrome live # 2. At 12 years old. age who are bipolar live # 3. An elderly woman who is deaf, blind and die # 4 An elderly man with cancer of prostate, delivered over 2 years. Live # 5 An African American woman who is an accomplice to kill 5 men die # 6 A Caucasian man who is being tested as a rapist, Two children die # 7 an Asian woman on trial for having been abandoned in their five children live # 8 An Indian man who was caught with plans for rob a bank live # 9 A rich Korean woman who attempted suicide twice live # 10 A poor Iraqi man convicted of drug trafficking in all die If I think the death of children is much better than going to heaven, no matter what, but for adults: (: (I do not know

Urology Team BPH Trial

Filed under: Prostate

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!