Clinical Testing Times down 40%. And more on CinC.

As Pca discoveries go exponential (in my view), clinical testing
remains a big time barrier. But there are significant advances -of 40%
- making their appearance even on this seemingly immovable front:

"…..Computer-generated virtual models of the heart, other organs and
cell systems are already being developed to simulate the physiological
effects of drugs, with impressive results.
PwC said some companies using virtual technology had reduced clinical
trial times by 40 percent and cut the number of patients required -- a
major cost -- by two thirds…."
Full story By Ben Hirschler PARIS, June 19, 2008 (Reuters):
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/l19...cals-research/

While on the subject, thank you Alan and Rosbif for your comments on
my post "Pinging……Brakes on my Exponential Lightspeed?" (16th June).
Apologies for delay in responding. I've been rather wrapped up with
hospitals, and with my wife in her care home.
Rosbif, first, thanks for link about the remarkable cancer cure, I was
in hospital reading the 'Telegraph' the morning it produced the
headlines - repeated on BBC and elsewhere - now the subject of other
posts.

The crux of my June 6 post about the speed of Pca research was:

"…..I have one question which has been troubling me. All these
hundreds of research units have been advancing steadily on THEIR Pca
front. Is their a Commander in Chief anywhere? Is anybody able to
coordinate all these different, fast-moving, penetrating thrusts?'….
I added: "Is there a computer team in a research clinic somewhere
analysing links between all the discoveries - so that Monty doesn't
waste time charging at the gaps already made by Patton?'

Rosbif was supportive and expanded my analogy powerfully into three
dimensions: He wrote in reply (June 19):

>'I imagine researchers as a system of tunnelers, the holy-grail is
> believed to be in a particular direction and they're all digging towards
>a vague compass point. Some are probably digging in the opposite
> direction, but if the world is round they could get there too.
> Some might intersect, meet, compare their disparate notes, others
>may find themselves digging only inches away from parallel tunnels
>and could pool resources .but…"

Alan, replied to my post (June 19):
Big snip:

>'I work as a computer programmer at NCI ' (the U.S.National Cancer Institute).

This goes some way towards explaining your highly informed and
clearly-reasoned posts which are one of the bulwarks of this ng. Your
knowledge again throws up fascinating highlights.
You describe the NCI as the nearest thing to the 'Commander-in-Chief'
I was wishing into being. Because:

>'It dispenses more money for cancer research than any other institution
> and therefore has a great role in determining what research is funded
> and what is not. There are also some private institutions including the
> American Cancer Society, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, and some
>others, that dispense funds for research and therefore determine what
> research should be done and by whom.'

You believe private companies spend relatively little, for the reasons
you set out. This is really interesting news to me.
You mention the mix of really learned scientists and medics deciding
the best avenues for research for NCI and other public funds. They:
>'read and discuss the latest research and form opinions about what
>is promising and what is not.'

Lots of snips then, you conclude your post:

>…on the whole, I'm not sure how to go about producing a better
process."

I agree it is very good. But Alan, equally it would appear the NCI is
the nearest we have to a headquarters from which expand the major
multilateral thrusts battling towards a Pca cure. So the NCI stands
out as a focal point for any possible solution to the question - if a
development in this direction was thought to be of value. Surely it
must be?

I'm just reading 'The Afghan'* by Frederick Forsyth. And the following
struck a powerful resonance with me. (p.21):

"In the aftermath (of) …..9/11 one thing became clear and no one
seriously denied it. The evidence not simply that something was going
on, but pretty much what was going on, was there all the time. It was
there as intelligence is almost always there: not in one beautiful
gift-wrapped package but in dribs and drabs, scattered all over. Seven
or eight of the USA's nineteen primary intel-gathering or
law-enforcement agencies had the bits. But they never talked to each
other.

Since 9/11 there has been a huge shake-up. There are now the six
principals to whom everything has to be revealed at an early stage."

Forsyth describes them; then adds: "Everyone reports upwards and the
three watchwords are collate, collate, collate".

I don't want to drive the analogy too close. But three watchwords ring
out- collate, collate, collate.

How about: A team incorporating top computer modellers and top
scientists and docs across the spectrum of research - as now sit on
the NCI boards - aimed at collating and integrating all research.
Wouldn't that logically round off the NCI's funding structure? And
maybe give it powerful impetus?

Obviously you don't speak for the NCI Alan. But I value your views.
Would you see no merit in at least developing the thought? Or a better
alternative? It seems Rosbif at least shares my curiousity! How about
modellers like Ed chipping in?

My very best wishes to all:
MikeHi
"Exponential lightspeed". Def: The discovery of the cure for Pca at a
speed which defies Einstein.


Frederick Forsyth, "The Afghan" published by Bantam Press. *Copyright
Frederick Forsyth 2006

MikeHi@anon.com wrote:
> As Pca discoveries go exponential (in my view), clinical testing
> remains a big time barrier. But there are significant advances -of 40%
> - making their appearance even on this seemingly immovable front:
>
> "…..Computer-generated virtual models of the heart, other organs and
> cell systems are already being developed to simulate the physiological
> effects of drugs, with impressive results.
> PwC said some companies using virtual technology had reduced clinical
> trial times by 40 percent and cut the number of patients required -- a
> major cost -- by two thirds…."
> Full story By Ben Hirschler PARIS, June 19, 2008 (Reuters):
> http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/l19...cals-research/

That's an interesting idea and I think we're getting closer to
it, though I think we still have a long, long way to go even to
simulate the behavior of a single cell.

The Stanford "Folding@home" project attempts to simulate the
folding of polypeptides (strings of amino acids) into proteins.
It takes thousands of hours of computer time to just figure out
the most likely scenario for how one protein folds from a linear
sequence of amino acids into "secondary" and "tertiary"
structures that actually do work in the cell. Since a typical
cell may have tens of thousands of proteins, not to mention other
molecules, and since they assemble into a huge variety of
structures about which we still have only limited knowledge, I
suspect we're still decades away from full simulations.

But, like everything in science, progress measured from month to
month and even from year to year, appears slow. But when we look
back over a few decades or more, the total progress is truly
astonishing.

It's incredible to think that our grandfathers were born in the
horse and buggy era. Their parents lit their homes with candles
and oil lamps. Radio was a revolution in our parents generation
and many of us can still remember when television came into our
homes for the first time. My own children can remember when the
first computers came into our home.

DNA, in many ways the foundation of life, was not understood
until the 1950's, and now we know that it is mutations in DNA
that are the cause of cancer.

....
> Alan, replied to my post (June 19):
> Big snip:
>
>> 'I work as a computer programmer at NCI ' (the U.S.National
>> Cancer Institute).

The work I do is all information dissemination rather than
scientific programming. I work on the system that prepares the
data that goes onto http://www.cancer.gov.

However, I've gotten interested in the science behind it all and
try to read books on biology and chemistry. I'm slowly becoming
more knowledgeable.

....

> You believe private companies spend relatively little, for the reasons
> you set out. This is really interesting news to me.

The drug companies spend much more on advertising, marketing, and
lobbying than they do on research. A good part of that money is
dedicated to convincing people, voters and government officials,
that they are spending more money on research than on
advertising.

Nowadays, the drug companies spend even less money on research
than they did, say, ten years ago. The new model of drug company
drug discovery is:

Get in bed with universities, medical schools, and biotech
startup companies.

Let those organizations fund their own research by getting
government research grants and some venture capital.

If, and only if, truly promising research comes out, wave big
bucks at the professors and buy out the biotechs to get the
marketing rights.

The idea is, don't ever spend money on basic research. Let the
government do that. Buy the fruits of the research when you
already know it's likely to pan out.

So the taxpayer funds the research. If it fails, the taxpayer is
out the money. If it succeeds, the drug company buys the rights,
the government gets nothing, and the taxpayer is not only out the
money but must also pay for the huge profits that the companies
make in order to get the drugs that their taxes paid to develop.

I won't say that the drug companies never invest money in
research. They do invest some. But the amounts have been
declining in the last decade.

Do I sound bitter about that?

In my view the drug companies, by sucking the money out of the
health system, are one of the major obstacles to progress.

There are others, of course, who disagree. And even I do believe
that the typical scientist and technician working at a drug
company is sincere in his or her attempt to advance science and
health. But the organization is, after all, not dedicated either
to science or health. It's dedicated to making profits for the
stockholders. The two interests do not coincide, and where they
conflict, there's no question about which interest wins.

....

> I don't want to drive the analogy too close. But three watchwords ring
> out- collate, collate, collate.
>
> How about: A team incorporating top computer modellers and top
> scientists and docs across the spectrum of research - as now sit on
> the NCI boards - aimed at collating and integrating all research.
> Wouldn't that logically round off the NCI's funding structure? And
> maybe give it powerful impetus?

In a way, NCI does attempt to do that.

They have a team of people who read every single article
published in the top 200 or so medical and cancer journals, in
every issue.

If someone reading an article thinks it may be significant, they
xerox it and send it out to one of the board members for his
review. He reads it and, if he (or she) thinks it's good he says
so and it will be sent out to two more board members for their
review. One of the people will volunteer or be appointed to make
a presentation to the board as a whole.

The board meets about 5 or 6 times per year, the people coming in
to Rockville, Maryland, or appearing by video conference. At the
meeting they thrash out all of the research that they think is
significant since their last meeting.

As a result of their discussions, they might do any of the
following:

Edit the state-of-the-art summary that NCI publishes for each
type of cancer, revising NCI's recommendations to cancer
practitioners. Over 500 such summaries are maintained on a
regular basis.

Add articles to the recommended bibliography that they urge
oncologists to read.

Make recommendations to NCI regarding the funding of types of
research - either to increase funding in a specific area, or
to reduce it. Reducing is just as important as increasing
because the research budgets are fixed every year and NCI can
only increase funding in one area by cutting it in another.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure that upwards
of 100 people are involved in this process.

So there really is a lot of collation going on.

Alan

All in all, I wonder how many people die waiting for so many results of
research and clinical testing; all so that a few don't die from the new
drug?



"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g3i60o$k47$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> MikeHi@anon.com wrote:
> > As Pca discoveries go exponential (in my view), clinical testing
> > remains a big time barrier. But there are significant advances -of 40%
> > - making their appearance even on this seemingly immovable front:
> >
> > "…..Computer-generated virtual models of the heart, other organs and
> > cell systems are already being developed to simulate the physiological
> > effects of drugs, with impressive results.
> > PwC said some companies using virtual technology had reduced clinical
> > trial times by 40 percent and cut the number of patients required -- a
> > major cost -- by two thirds…."
> > Full story By Ben Hirschler PARIS, June 19, 2008 (Reuters):
> > http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/l19...cals-research/
>
> That's an interesting idea and I think we're getting closer to
> it, though I think we still have a long, long way to go even to
> simulate the behavior of a single cell.
>
> The Stanford "Folding@home" project attempts to simulate the
> folding of polypeptides (strings of amino acids) into proteins.
> It takes thousands of hours of computer time to just figure out
> the most likely scenario for how one protein folds from a linear
> sequence of amino acids into "secondary" and "tertiary"
> structures that actually do work in the cell. Since a typical
> cell may have tens of thousands of proteins, not to mention other
> molecules, and since they assemble into a huge variety of
> structures about which we still have only limited knowledge, I
> suspect we're still decades away from full simulations.
>
> But, like everything in science, progress measured from month to
> month and even from year to year, appears slow. But when we look
> back over a few decades or more, the total progress is truly
> astonishing.
>
> It's incredible to think that our grandfathers were born in the
> horse and buggy era. Their parents lit their homes with candles
> and oil lamps. Radio was a revolution in our parents generation
> and many of us can still remember when television came into our
> homes for the first time. My own children can remember when the
> first computers came into our home.
>
> DNA, in many ways the foundation of life, was not understood
> until the 1950's, and now we know that it is mutations in DNA
> that are the cause of cancer.
>
> ...
> > Alan, replied to my post (June 19):
> > Big snip:
> >
> >> 'I work as a computer programmer at NCI ' (the U.S.National
> >> Cancer Institute).
>
> The work I do is all information dissemination rather than
> scientific programming. I work on the system that prepares the
> data that goes onto http://www.cancer.gov.
>
> However, I've gotten interested in the science behind it all and
> try to read books on biology and chemistry. I'm slowly becoming
> more knowledgeable.
>
> ...
>
> > You believe private companies spend relatively little, for the reasons
> > you set out. This is really interesting news to me.
>
> The drug companies spend much more on advertising, marketing, and
> lobbying than they do on research. A good part of that money is
> dedicated to convincing people, voters and government officials,
> that they are spending more money on research than on
> advertising.
>
> Nowadays, the drug companies spend even less money on research
> than they did, say, ten years ago. The new model of drug company
> drug discovery is:
>
> Get in bed with universities, medical schools, and biotech
> startup companies.
>
> Let those organizations fund their own research by getting
> government research grants and some venture capital.
>
> If, and only if, truly promising research comes out, wave big
> bucks at the professors and buy out the biotechs to get the
> marketing rights.
>
> The idea is, don't ever spend money on basic research. Let the
> government do that. Buy the fruits of the research when you
> already know it's likely to pan out.
>
> So the taxpayer funds the research. If it fails, the taxpayer is
> out the money. If it succeeds, the drug company buys the rights,
> the government gets nothing, and the taxpayer is not only out the
> money but must also pay for the huge profits that the companies
> make in order to get the drugs that their taxes paid to develop.
>
> I won't say that the drug companies never invest money in
> research. They do invest some. But the amounts have been
> declining in the last decade.
>
> Do I sound bitter about that?
>
> In my view the drug companies, by sucking the money out of the
> health system, are one of the major obstacles to progress.
>
> There are others, of course, who disagree. And even I do believe
> that the typical scientist and technician working at a drug
> company is sincere in his or her attempt to advance science and
> health. But the organization is, after all, not dedicated either
> to science or health. It's dedicated to making profits for the
> stockholders. The two interests do not coincide, and where they
> conflict, there's no question about which interest wins.
>
> ...
>
> > I don't want to drive the analogy too close. But three watchwords ring
> > out- collate, collate, collate.
> >
> > How about: A team incorporating top computer modellers and top
> > scientists and docs across the spectrum of research - as now sit on
> > the NCI boards - aimed at collating and integrating all research.
> > Wouldn't that logically round off the NCI's funding structure? And
> > maybe give it powerful impetus?
>
> In a way, NCI does attempt to do that.
>
> They have a team of people who read every single article
> published in the top 200 or so medical and cancer journals, in
> every issue.
>
> If someone reading an article thinks it may be significant, they
> xerox it and send it out to one of the board members for his
> review. He reads it and, if he (or she) thinks it's good he says
> so and it will be sent out to two more board members for their
> review. One of the people will volunteer or be appointed to make
> a presentation to the board as a whole.
>
> The board meets about 5 or 6 times per year, the people coming in
> to Rockville, Maryland, or appearing by video conference. At the
> meeting they thrash out all of the research that they think is
> significant since their last meeting.
>
> As a result of their discussions, they might do any of the
> following:
>
> Edit the state-of-the-art summary that NCI publishes for each
> type of cancer, revising NCI's recommendations to cancer
> practitioners. Over 500 such summaries are maintained on a
> regular basis.
>
> Add articles to the recommended bibliography that they urge
> oncologists to read.
>
> Make recommendations to NCI regarding the funding of types of
> research - either to increase funding in a specific area, or
> to reduce it. Reducing is just as important as increasing
> because the research budgets are fixed every year and NCI can
> only increase funding in one area by cutting it in another.
>
> I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure that upwards
> of 100 people are involved in this process.
>
> So there really is a lot of collation going on.
>
> Alan




--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04, <0.1 2/12/08
Illegitimati non carborundum

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:11:05 -0400, Alan Meyer <ameyer2@yahoo.com>
replied to my post. Thank you Steve too who also replied commenting
on the number of people dying of cancer while waiting for research and
trials to be concluded. From Alan's post it would appear that the idea
of 'virtual' humans shortening the time period is unlikely to go very
far, fast. But in the UK trials and no doubt in USA, trials are being
shortened by being tried out on volunteer patients in the last stages
who have little to lose.

However all this rather faded for me for me when I read on with Alan's
post. He has established is reputation for calm,highly- informed
comment in this ng; and he occupies a rare position for gathering
insight in working with the NCI.

In your post Alan you have provided a powerful, compelling and
disturbing picture of cancer research, and the drug companies' part in
it. I for one had never understood this situation was anything like
this. You have gone into convincing detail. And you conclude:

> So the taxpayer funds the research. If it fails, the taxpayer is
>out the money. If it succeeds, the drug company buys the rights,
>the government gets nothing, and the taxpayer is not only out the
>money but must also pay for the huge profits that the companies
>make in order to get the drugs that their taxes paid to develop.

Snip

>In my view the drug companies, by sucking the money out of the
>health system, are one of the major obstacles to progress.

Snips

>Do I sound bitter about that?

Yes Alan you do….but..'Major obstacle to progress'? Then bitterness
was never more justified - and I join with you. Action is called for
too. Drug companies are attacked in the media from time to time. But
is anyone aware of media analysis anywhere, exposing the draining
exploitation of cancer research by private companies, as Alan has
described it? And the consequences for cancer victims?

If you give permission Alan I would like to offer your critique to
major UK media likely to be interested in following it up with chapter
and verse. To put pressure on governments, to do something about it.
My guess is somebody will pick it up and run with it. USA isn't short
of investigative jornalists. Have they ever covered this scene?

It would be an Anglo-America alliance in the wider interests of
cancer sufferers everywhere; but not least for the many brave guys we
know of right here gritting their teeth, coping, hanging on through it
all for that silver bullet - whose progress it would now appear is
being seriously impeded.

My kind regards

Best wishes to all

MikeHi

MikeHi@anon.com wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:11:05 -0400, Alan Meyer <ameyer2@yahoo.com>
> replied to my post. Thank you Steve too who also replied commenting
> on the number of people dying of cancer while waiting for research and
> trials to be concluded. From Alan's post it would appear that the idea
> of 'virtual' humans shortening the time period is unlikely to go very
> far, fast. But in the UK trials and no doubt in USA, trials are being
> shortened by being tried out on volunteer patients in the last stages
> who have little to lose.
>
> However all this rather faded for me for me when I read on with Alan's
> post. He has established is reputation for calm,highly- informed
> comment in this ng; and he occupies a rare position for gathering
> insight in working with the NCI.
>
> In your post Alan you have provided a powerful, compelling and
> disturbing picture of cancer research, and the drug companies' part in
> it. I for one had never understood this situation was anything like
> this. You have gone into convincing detail. And you conclude:
>
>> So the taxpayer funds the research. If it fails, the taxpayer is
>> out the money. If it succeeds, the drug company buys the rights,
>> the government gets nothing, and the taxpayer is not only out the
>> money but must also pay for the huge profits that the companies
>> make in order to get the drugs that their taxes paid to develop.
>
> Snip
>
>> In my view the drug companies, by sucking the money out of the
>> health system, are one of the major obstacles to progress.
>
> Snips
>
>> Do I sound bitter about that?
>
> Yes Alan you do….but..'Major obstacle to progress'? Then bitterness
> was never more justified - and I join with you. Action is called for
> too. Drug companies are attacked in the media from time to time. But
> is anyone aware of media analysis anywhere, exposing the draining
> exploitation of cancer research by private companies, as Alan has
> described it? And the consequences for cancer victims?
>
> If you give permission Alan I would like to offer your critique to
> major UK media likely to be interested in following it up with chapter
> and verse. To put pressure on governments, to do something about it.
> My guess is somebody will pick it up and run with it. USA isn't short
> of investigative journalists. Have they ever covered this scene?
>
> It would be an Anglo-America alliance in the wider interests of
> cancer sufferers everywhere; but not least for the many brave guys we
> know of right here gritting their teeth, coping, hanging on through it
> all for that silver bullet - whose progress it would now appear is
> being seriously impeded.
>
> My kind regards
>
> Best wishes to all
>
> MikeHi

Hi Mike,

Unfortunately, I'm not any kind of authority. I'm afraid that
quoting me would be fruitless since no reputable reporter would
or should write a story, and no reputable member of parliament
would or should draft legislation, based on my inexpert opinion.
However I did derive my opinion from what I think is an
authoritative source.

Most of what I've said is my interpretation of what I read in a
book by Dr. Marcia Angell called _The Truth About the Drug
Companies_. Dr. Angell was editor of the New England Journal of
Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the
world. She published her book in 2004.

As you would expect, her book is controversial. The drug
companies and their supporters regard it as anti-business
propaganda which, if its recommendations were implemented, would
harm drug development, harm patients, and slow progress in
medicine. Her supporters believe that her recommendations would
reduce the cost of drugs and could accelerate drug development.

Dr. Angell was writing about the situation in the United States.
The situation in Europe, Canada, and the rest of the world is
often quite different. So what you read in her book doesn't
necessarily apply to what's going on in Britain. But the U.S.
is, to a significant extent, the center of drug research and the
most profitable market. Even the giant English and Swiss
companies do much of their business and make a lot of their
profits here.

I've written about this book before on this newsgroup, but made
the mistake of cross posting to three groups, incurring the ire
of a number of good folks who pointed out to me the evils of
posting a message to more than one group at a time. However you
might want to have a look at that thread at:

http://tinyurl.com/689xun

And I do recommend that you read the book. It's available from
Amazon and may be in your local public library. It has gotten a
lot of reaction from the public, but I don't know how much effect
it's had on changing the way business is done. Certainly the
current American administration is hostile to its approach. The
next administration may be less so (or may not, the drug industry
spends more on lobbying than any other industry and actually has
more lobbyists in Washington than there are congressmen and
senators.)

And thank you for your kind words :-)

Alan

Steve Kramer wrote:
> All in all, I wonder how many people die waiting for so many
> results of research and clinical testing; all so that a few
> don't die from the new drug?
....

There's a good article about this in the October, 2007 issue of
Scientific American.

The issue is more complex than it seems on the surface. However,
as you surmise, there certainly are people who lose their lives
who would have survived longer, or even been cured, if they had
access to investigational drugs for which no openings existed in
clinical trials.

On the other hand, we don't want desperate patients to be
victimized by unscrupulous quacks who steal their money and feed
them trash, and we don't want everyone opting out of clinical
trials because they can get the drug for sure and don't want to
try what could turn out to be a placebo - leaving the controlled
trials empty of patients.

And then there's the question of where they'd get the drugs.
Current laws actually allow investigational drugs to be given to
dying patients under certain circumstances and if the drug
company agrees to do it. But it often happens that the companies
won't do it. They make small batches by hand for use in the
trials. They haven't invested money in creating a serious
manufacturing process for the drug, and won't until they see it
pass trials and win FDA approval. If they ramp up
production to sell to everyone, they'll be out a lot of money if
the drug fails to win approval - and most drugs do fail. If they
charge the full cost of hand production (assuming it's expensive,
I don't think it always is) they'll only be able to sell to rich
patients and will be accused of gouging. So they regularly
refuse to sell such drugs to patients outside the trials.

I once thought this was a no-brainer. When someone is dying,
give him any drug he wants. I still think that _might_ be right,
but I'm no longer certain. I now think there still need to be
controls, but I'm not sure how far the slider on those controls
should be moved to one side or the other.

Alan

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 replying to my post, same date, Alan had written:

Lots of Snips of main passages:

concluding:

> >> In my view the drug companies, by sucking the money out of the
> >> health system, are one of the major obstacles to progress.
>.............
> >> Do I sound bitter about that?

Sat June 21, I replied:

> > Yes Alan you do….but..'Major obstacle to progress'? Then bitterness
> > was never more justified -........
> >...... is anyone aware of media analysis anywhere, exposing the draining
> > exploitation of cancer research by private companies, as Alan has
> > described it? And the consequences for cancer victims?

I was suggesting we should make the media aware.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 Alan Meyer <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Unfortunately, I'm not any kind of authority.

Depends what you mean by authority. You have a front line view
from inside the leading edge of research. And you are informed in
detail about almost anything any poster writes to this ng. (And always
up front supporting.)

>quoting me would be fruitless since no reputable reporter would
>or should write a story, and no reputable member of parliament
>would or should draft legislation, based on my inexpert opinion.

That isn't how the (responsible) media works.( I used to work in it
many many years ago). They're always looking for a good story.
They'll pick up an idea which looks promising - but check it out for
themselves to see if it stands up.

>However I did derive my opinion from what I think is an
>authoritative source.
>
>Most of what I've said is my interpretation of what I read in a
>book by Dr. Marcia Angell called _The Truth About the Drug
>Companies_. Dr. Angell was editor of the New England Journal of
>Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the
>world. She published her book in 2004.

This is 2008. When times change so do stories. In the UK at least,
cancer is now news - cancer research developments sometimes big news -
witness Daily Telegraph headlines a few days ago, widely copied. A few
years ago it wasn't decent to mention it. Also, I haven't read Marcia
Angel's book (but will be Amazoning it today) but the title suggests
the story is about the drug companies right across the board. We're
focusing. There is a serious block on the system of cancer research.
>
>As you would expect, her book is controversial. The drug
>companies and their supporters regard it as anti-business
>propaganda which, if its recommendations were implemented, would
>harm drug development, harm patients, and slow progress in
>medicine.

That's what I mean by 'across the board'. I'm 'pro-business' in
general, and might have felt that way myself - from the title. But
'blocking cancer research' is a cause for outrage which can be
understood by millions. I for one found your post a shattering
eye-opener.

>.........what you read in her book doesn't
>necessarily apply to what's going on in Britain. But the U.S.
>is, to a significant extent, the center of drug research............

So it will obviously affect our chances too. The world's.
>
>I've written about this book before on this newsgroup,.........
>you might want to have a look at that thread at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/689xun

I will, thank you.

One negative factor with Marcia's book. If a 'story' has already seen
light of day in any form previously, journalists won't touch it. (Yet
if it becomes a big story then they have to run with it.) But I
believe the passage of time, the current interest in the subject, and
the focus of the story, might make a difference. As for results, there
is increasing pressure today even on major corporates to be seen to be
doing 'the right thing'.
..........

Thanks for your reporting Alan.

Kind regards

Best wishes to all

MikeHi

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:58:16 +0100, MikeHi@anon.com wrote:

>Rosbif was supportive and expanded my analogy powerfully into three
>dimensions

Lol! What I wanted to convey in my kiddies-comic analogy (which told
you absolutely nothing you didn't already know - apologies for that!)
was that I believe research can be inspirational too, leading to
quantum leaps of progress - definitely Einstein-defying. In the long
view science is sometimes a slog but it can also move in fits and
starts with flurries of lightning activity following watershed
theories. In that radio clip about the melanoma 'cure' Sikora seems
excited by something new when he talks about a 'cloud of activity' -
it sounded to my completely lay ear like the sort of thing that might
act as a planetary sling-shot for yet another research branch. Surely
a great deal of vital but uncharted (inspirational, subconscious?)
work goes on outside the remit of a research-funding bureaucracy.
Clever minds at play don't need pay.

I've just read Alan's linked account of Angell's book and the
pharmaceuticals gravy-train. Fascinating, alarming and infuriating.