The Approval of Chemotherapy Drugs


Img c/o Pexels.

Img c/o Pexels.

Part 5

In continuing the study of The War Between Orthodox Medicine and Alternative Medicine, we will discuss Part 5, The Approval of Chemotherapy Drugs.

You would believe that a study proving increased life expectancy would be required for a chemotherapy drug to be approved by the FDA.  Not so!

When the chemotherapy drugs “shrink tumors” or reduce some benchmarks, that is the indication that the cancer is being defeated is the criteria for approval that the FDA follows.  This is actually posted on FDA’s own web site.  They state that Iressa is approved on the basis of early clinical study evidence suggesting the drug is reasonably likely to have a valuable effect on survival or symptoms.  The manufacturer must continue testing to demonstrate the drug provides therapeutic benefit or FDA can withdraw the product from the market.

A study where FDA based its approval, 216 patients were included.  Of these patients 139 had failed treatment with two other chemotherapy treatments.  Approximately 10% of patients responded to Iressa with a decrease in tumor size.  So otherwise, out of these large studies this drug demonstrated absolutely NO increase in survival of cancer patient, but the drug was approved just because of a decrease in tumor size.

Is Iressa Really Approved By The FDA?

Had this drug increased the survival time, it means that it increased the survival time of patients relative to some other chemotherapy drug or other combination of chemotherapy drugs!!  Never has a drug company proven their drug to extend the life of a patient relative to the avoidance of all chemotherapy drugs.  Never is chemotherapy compared to alternative treatments or no treatments at all.  They are being compared only to other drugs!

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) stated it wanted to run a study to show the difference between patients treated with orthodox therapy and those treated with nutritional therapy.  NCI would take a group of cancer patients and treat them in the orthodox method.  Those using nutritional therapy would take a similar group and treat them by nutritional methods.  Then the two would be compared.  Again, NCI was only using tumor size as a criteria for success or failure.  What if a tumor greatly reduces in size and then 3 months later the patient dies?  NCI classifies that as a success.  How in the world is that a “success?”  So how do they explain if a patient treated with an alternative method where the tumor doesn’t decrease, is still alive and well? They still maintain this would be considered a FAILURE!!  That just doesn’t make logical sense to me at all.

They lie to the public by suppressing the valid “cure rates” of alternative treatments of cancer.  Only their own statistics will be released to the public.  They suppress any useful statistics that include alternative medicine.  The government, in essence, sells their services to the highest bidder.  Approving their orthodox medicine gives the public the impression that there’s is best and they support claims that this type of medicine is superior.  Orthodox medicine refuses to compare their products with alternative medicine, or using no treatments at all, using valid measurements of life expectancy and quality of life.  Only their criteria is valued and used.

Can you just imagine if patients all started using the alternative, or no methods?  Just think of the billions of dollars these companies would lose, not even considering the amount of money the patient would save.  But, the most important of all, they just might have a longer life span with less sickness, pain and misery.

Now, let me be clear, I am not advocating that no one gets treatment. I am just making a statement. Think about it!!  Isn’t this what you would wish for yourself or your loved ones?

-Dr. Fredda Branyon

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *