This item is part 11 of a previously reported article from CancerDecisions.com relating to cancer (including PROSTATE CANCER) drug research validation by fraudulent means…


CANCER DRUG TRIALS: QUITTING WHILE YOU’RE AHEAD - PART II
When clinical trials of new cancer drugs are halted early because of a positive response trend in those receiving the new drug, the early stoppage is generally heralded as an example of progress, a welcome glimmer of hope. But there is also a potential downside to stopping clinical trials early which is often overlooked. Last week we began a two-part discussion of the implications of early trial stoppage. This week we conclude that discussion, with references.

In fairness, when the sponsors and investigators who design a particular research protocol build in a clause (as they often do) that explicitly demands early stoppage if a favorable trend emerges within a given period of time, data monitoring committees have no choice but to halt a trial early. Nevertheless, the immediate result of early stoppage is typically a rush to favorable judgment.

Click to see the full report:
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/042708.html

How interesting it is that the World Cancer Research Fund has denounced bacon and ham, each for its cancer causing potential, including for PROSTATE CANCER. Not before time I say. Natural Health professionals have been warning of the risk for the past twenty years or more. I have avoided both like the plague for many years.

A late announcement is better than no announcement, I guess, eh?

Extract:
Skip the Bacon and Stay Thin to Avoid Cancer, Says World Cancer Research Fund
(NaturalNews) The World Cancer Research Fund has issued detailed recommendations on how to decrease cancer risk through lifestyle changes, including staying thin and avoiding bacon or ham. A panel of nine teams of scientists reviewed more than 7,000 studies on the relationship between lifestyle choices and cancer.

“If people are interested in reducing their cancer risk, then following the recommendations is the way to do it,” Professor Martin Wiseman said. “Cancer is not a fate, it is a matter of risk, and you can adjust those risks by how you behave. It is very important that people feel that they are in control of what they do.”

Click for full article:
http://www.naturalnews.com/023108.html

The following report is current but the proposition that chemotherapy causes brain damage is not. it simply gives further credence to earlier reports on the dangers posed by chemotherapy in relation to various types of cancer, including PROSTATE CANCER. Is it any wonder that in the United States, the majority of oncologists, affirm that they would not personally receive chemotherapy if (or when) stricken with cancer?

Researchers Detail Chemotherapy’s Damage to the Brain
A commonly used chemotherapy drug causes healthy brain cells to die off long after treatment has ended and may be one of the underlying biological causes of the cognitive side effects – or “chemo brain” – that many cancer patients experience. That is the conclusion of a study published today in the Journal of Biology.

A team of researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) and Harvard Medical School have linked the widely used chemotherapy drug 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) to a progressing collapse of populations of stem cells and their progeny in the central nervous system.

Click here for the full article from the University of Rochester Medical Center:

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/pr/news/story.cfm?id=1963

This is further article concerning recent revelations of this mammoth fraud perpetrated on the innocent public by drug companies and their medical fraternity underlings. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, anyone who bothers to investigate the origins and funding of drug research studies will easily surmise, though not necessarily be able to prove, the dubious credibility of it and treat it accordingly.

It is very refreshing to see that substantial evidence of such fraud has now reached the public domain.

Widespread Ghostwriting of Drug Trials Means “Scientific” Credibility of Pharmaceutical Industry is a Sham
by Mike Adams (see all articles by this author)

(NaturalNews) The discovery that drug companies have been ghostwriting scientific studies using in-house writers, then paying (bribing) doctors and high-level academics to pretend they were the author of the article is making shockwaves across conventional medicine. This latest revelation of scientific fraud exposes a massive, widespread system of fraud involving not only the drug companies, but also hundreds of different peer-reviewed, “scientific” medical journals that have published these ghostwritten articles. This scam is the latest embarrassment to conventional medicine; a system built on such a foundation of scientific fraud that the admission of dishonesty no longer surprises anyone. The pharmaceutical industry, it seems, is now supported almost entirely by fraudulent science fabricated by marketing personnel.

Click below for full article from NaturalNews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/z023074.html

Following is another very interesting and worthwhile read from The Moss Report which, although it does not mention PROSTATE CANCER research, it should, nevertheless be considered inclusive. The report does after all, refer to many other forms of cancer: breast, colon, kidney, lung, bowel, gastrointestinal and ovarian.

CANCER DRUG TRIALS: QUITTING WHILE YOU’RE AHEAD - PART I

From time to time you hear about a clinical trial for a new cancer treatment that proves so stunningly effective that evaluators are obliged to end the trial prematurely so that all the participating patients can share in the new breakthrough. Typically this kind of news is portrayed as an example of progress, a welcome glimmer of hope.

However, some cynics have quietly speculated that the real purpose of stopping such trials is not to ensure that the few hundred trial participants who are receiving the current standard treatment are given access to the new drug, but to massively benefit the drug companies sponsoring the trial. When a trial is halted prematurely, researchers are deprived of the opportunity to determine whether the drug in question might eventually prove less valuable if the trial were allowed to proceed to completion. Crudely put, by stopping clinical trials early, the trial directors might be quitting while they are ahead.

Click here for full article: http://www.cancerdecisions.com/042008.html