V Knid esq
2nd April 2006, 18:53
my mate calls the Independent 'The Daily Mail for people who recycle' and it's true... their 'YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE' fear factor 99 front pages are just getting really annoying now.
The front page of today's Sunday Indy has really got my goat - it's the worst sort of panic mongering re access to cancer drugs - you know, 'why are they witholding these miracle drugs from poor victims of cancer' etc etc. The NHS has enough problems without stirring up this bullshit.
Here's the thing: in the case of Herceptin at least, the fact that some health authorities won't prescibe it is less to do with penny-pinching or bureaucratic botches and more to do with the fact that it's extremely debatable whether it's worth prescibing. The figure is often bandied about that the drug reduces recurrence of breast cancer by 50%. Well... that's ONE way of putting it. As New Scientist puts it 'appreciating the drug's true benefit means understanding relative and absolute risk.' Basically, the cancers treatable with herceptin - ones which are detected early - have a very low recurrence rate anyway after lumpectomy, even with no drug treatment at all, so a 50% risk reduction is basically 50% of f*ck all... and in terms of actual death from cancer, trial patients treated with Herceptin had NOUGHT POINT SIX percent fewer deaths. On top of that, the drug causes heart problems in 4% of people who take it. And of course it is hugely expensive - money which could be spent on, ooh I don't know, making sure more cancers are detected early perhaps?
Sorry to rant but bad science reporting REALLY boils my piss. If they were the 'independent thinkers' they so proudly announce themselves as they'd be looking at the drug industry's part in hyping these drugs and cynically playing with the hopes and expectations of vulnerable patients in pursuit of a buck, and not lazily repeating the party line that seems for some reason to be sacred and beyond scrutiny for the entire media.
The front page of today's Sunday Indy has really got my goat - it's the worst sort of panic mongering re access to cancer drugs - you know, 'why are they witholding these miracle drugs from poor victims of cancer' etc etc. The NHS has enough problems without stirring up this bullshit.
Here's the thing: in the case of Herceptin at least, the fact that some health authorities won't prescibe it is less to do with penny-pinching or bureaucratic botches and more to do with the fact that it's extremely debatable whether it's worth prescibing. The figure is often bandied about that the drug reduces recurrence of breast cancer by 50%. Well... that's ONE way of putting it. As New Scientist puts it 'appreciating the drug's true benefit means understanding relative and absolute risk.' Basically, the cancers treatable with herceptin - ones which are detected early - have a very low recurrence rate anyway after lumpectomy, even with no drug treatment at all, so a 50% risk reduction is basically 50% of f*ck all... and in terms of actual death from cancer, trial patients treated with Herceptin had NOUGHT POINT SIX percent fewer deaths. On top of that, the drug causes heart problems in 4% of people who take it. And of course it is hugely expensive - money which could be spent on, ooh I don't know, making sure more cancers are detected early perhaps?
Sorry to rant but bad science reporting REALLY boils my piss. If they were the 'independent thinkers' they so proudly announce themselves as they'd be looking at the drug industry's part in hyping these drugs and cynically playing with the hopes and expectations of vulnerable patients in pursuit of a buck, and not lazily repeating the party line that seems for some reason to be sacred and beyond scrutiny for the entire media.