In order for a drug to pass the "effectiveness" test, the FDA
requires substantial evidence not that it saves lives but only that it is
effective for its intended uses. "Substantial evidence" is defined as "adequate
and well-controlled investigations . . . on the basis of which it could fairly
and responsibly be concluded . . . that the drug will have the effect it
purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed,
recommended, or suggested in the labeling or
proposed labeling thereof."[1]
Cancer drugs are
considered "effective" if they merely shrink tumors. But medical research
indicates that
radiation and chemotherapy, while shrinking tumors, do
NOT necessarily increase survival. In 1990, German biostatistician Dr.
Ulrich Abel reached that conclusion. He found that reduction of tumor mass does
not prolong expected survival and can cause the cancer to return more
aggressively, since killing off most of the cancer mass allows drug-resistant
cell lines to grow.[2] An article in the British Medical Journal concurred. It
observed that while tumor shrinkage is the usual way to measure the efficacy of
chemotherapy, "radiological shrinkage of solid tumors . . .
often has
little or no survival benefit . . . Unfortunately, few studies have
compared chemotherapy with supportive care alone."[3]
One of the few
studies that had made this comparison was conducted by Dr. Hardin Jones,
professor of medical physics and physiology at the
University of California, Berkeley. He told an ACS (American Cancer Society)
panel, "My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims
actually live up to four times longer than treated individuals. For a typical
type of cancer, people who refused treatment lived for an average of 12-1/2
years. Those who accepted surgery and other kinds of treatment lived an average
of only three years . . .
I attribute this to the traumatic effect of
surgery on the body's natural defense mechanism. The body has a natural defense
against every type of cancer."[4]
