Il fallimento della medicina ufficiale e delle sue politiche
Tre articoli (di seguito, dal Times e Indipendent), dove il vicepresidente della Glaxo ammette che" la maggior parte delle medicina non funzionano sulla maggior parte delle persone che le assumono". Tutti lo sanno, questa e' forse la prima volta che viene ammesso da un alto dirigente di una multinazionale. La nostra medicina e' fallimentare, proprio perche', per stessa ammissione di Allen Roses, siamo tutti diversi. Non puo' esistere una "medicina di massa", che vada bene per tutti e soprattutto la nostra medicina non funzionera' mai finche' si continueranno a cercare di trattare i SINTOMI della malattie e non le cause. Tutto il paradigma medico si perde qui. Forse sarebbe meglio ripartire dagli studi e dalle proposte di Linus Pauling (doppio premio nobel, pace e chimica) e studiare le teorie del Dr. Rath, il Dr. Hamer e tanti altri ancora. I dirigenti delle multinazionali quando ammetteranno anche di tenere sotto scacco il progresso e la ricerca scientifica? e di essere tra i colpevoli del Business Farmaceutico della Malattia?
December 08, 2003
Drugs don’t work, says Glaxo chief
By Ronan McGreevy
A SENIOR executive with Britain’s biggest pharmaceutical company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on half the patients who take them.
Allen Roses, the worldwide president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), is reported in The Independent today as telling a recent scientific conference in London: “The vast majority of drugs — more than 90 per cent — only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people.
“I wouldn’t say that most drugs don’t work. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don’t work in everybody.”
Dr Roses is a pioneer in the branch of medicine that is studying the relationship between our genes and our response to individual drugs. He quoted research published three years ago by Brian Spear, an expert in medical diagnostics, which found that different drugs had vastly different success rates in treating patients.
Common painkillers worked for up to 80 per cent of patients, but chemotherapy treatments for cancer had an efficacy rate as low as 25 per cent. Most drugs had an efficacy rate of 50 per cent or lower.
Dr Roses predicted that in a few years scientists would be able to give patients a simple genetics test that would predict which medicines would work for them. Drugs companies could use the information to tailor new drugs aimed at the 50 per cent of people not helped by existing medicine.
“If you can determine who is going to have a response to a drug and who is not going to have a response, you can take your next molecule and aim it specifically at the people who haven’t had a response with the first one.”
Before joining Glaxo Wellcome in 1998, Dr Roses was a senior research scientist at Duke University, North Carolina. His laboratory was one of the pioneers in identifying the areas of the chromosome that control specific diseases.
GlaxoSmithKline is one of the largest pharmaceutical and healthcare firms in the world, with a turnover last year of Â£31.8 billion.
Glaxo chief: Our drugs do not work on most patients
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
08 December 2003
A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.
Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.
It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by Â£2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of Â£7.2bn. GSK announced last week that it had 20 or more new drugs under development that could each earn the company up to $1bn (Â£600m) a year.
Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients.
Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said.
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody."
Some industry analysts said Dr Roses's comments were reminiscent of the 1991 gaffe by Gerald Ratner, the jewellery boss, who famously said that his high street shops are successful because they sold "total crap". But others believe Dr Roses deserves credit for being honest about a little-publicised fact known to the drugs industry for many years.
"Roses is a smart guy and what he is saying will surprise the public but not his colleagues," said one industry scientist. "He is a pioneer of a new culture within the drugs business based on using genes to test for who can benefit from a particular drug."
Dr Roses has a formidable reputation in the field of "pharmacogenomics" - the application of human genetics to drug development - and his comments can be seen as an attempt to make the industry realise that its future rests on being able to target drugs to a smaller number of patients with specific genes.
The idea is to identify "responders" - people who benefit from the drug - with a simple and cheap genetic test that can be used to eliminate those non-responders who might benefit from another drug.
This goes against a marketing culture within the industry that has relied on selling as many drugs as possible to the widest number of patients - a culture that has made GSK one of the most profitable pharmaceuticals companies, but which has also meant that most of its drugs are at best useless, and even possibly dangerous, for many patients.
Dr Roses said doctors treating patients routinely applied the trial-and-error approach which says that if one drug does not work there is always another one. "I think everybody has it in their experience that multiple drugs have been used for their headache or multiple drugs have been used for their backache or whatever.
"It's in their experience, but they don't quite understand why. The reason why is because they have different susceptibilities to the effect of that drug and that's genetic," he said.
"Neither those who pay for medical care nor patients want drugs to be prescribed that do not benefit the recipient. Pharmacogenetics has the promise of removing much of the uncertainty."
Therapeutic area: drug efficacy rate in per cent
* Alzheimer's: 30
* Analgesics (Cox-2): 80
* Asthma: 60
* Cardiac Arrythmias: 60
* Depression (SSRI): 62
* Diabetes: 57
* Hepatits C (HCV): 47
* Incontinence: 40
* Migraine (acute): 52
* Migraine (prophylaxis)50
* Oncology: 25
* Rheumatoid arthritis50
* Schizophrenia: 60
Demolished: the myth that allows drugs giants to sell more
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
08 December 2003
For years, the drugs industry has grown fat on a myth - the false belief that all drugs will work on just about everybody.
That has essentially been the rationale for a culture that has encouraged doctors to prescribe first and ask questions later - at a cost to the NHS of Â£7.2bn a year in medicines.
Yet it has been an open secret within the drugs industry that most drugs do not work for most patients, a secret that has now been publicly aired for the first time by Allen Roses, the head of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline, Britain's biggest drugs company.
Dr Roses, an academic with a distinguished record in medical genetics, is used to speaking his mind, especially on the benefits of a revolutionary new approach to drug development called pharmacogenomics.
That is the science of applying the results of the human genome project to drug development. In essence, it means testing the DNA of patients in order to identify those for whom a particular drug will work - the "responders".
That would enable doctors to eliminate the "non responders" who, as a result, will at least not be given a drug that at best could be useless and at worst dangerous in terms of harmful side-effects.
In the past, drug companies have developed drugs aimed at the widest possible population. That was the most profitable strategy but one that ignored a basic fact in biology - people are different.
To emphasise the point, Dr Roses likes to quote Sir William Osler, a Canadian physician who in 1892 remarked: "If it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science and not an art."
Bringing a new drug to market is an expensive business costing tens of millions of pounds. It takes place in a culture of maximum possible sales for maximum possible profit - a culture that does not like to broadcast the fact that most drugs don't work for most people.
Drug testing in patients involves three phases of increasingly complex clinical trials that must be successfully completed before the drug is approved by regulatory authorities such as the mighty US Food and Drug Administration.
But even when a drug has been approved in terms of safety and "efficacy" - whether it does what the label says it should do - few people realise just how poorly they perform in real life.
Dr Roses cited a study published three years ago by Brian Spear, a senior scientist at Abbott Laboratories, a medical diagnostics company in Chicago, on the efficacy rates of a range of different drugs.
It found that drugs vary enormously in terms of how well they work, with efficacy rates varying from as low as 25 per cent for cancer drugs to 80 per cent for painkillers.
For many drugs, however, the efficacy rates hover around 50 per cent or lower, meaning that, for most people, these drugs just don't work. As Dr Roses puts it: "The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people."
Dr Roses is one of the pioneers in a field of genetics that promises to help to identify those people who could benefit from a drug. It is called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and it is a way of distinguishing the smallest possible genetic differences between individuals.
The use of SNPs has already led to the discovery, for instance, of a test to detect the 5 per cent of the population who inherit a predisposition to a potentially fatal side effect of an anti-HIV drug called abacavir.
Now it is possible to test HIV patients before the drug is given to them in order to weed out those patients who will suffer a severe adverse reaction - a violent rash on the body.
Scientists believe that SNPs can be used to test people not just for their vulnerability to a drug's side-effects, but also to whether it will work or not.
John Bell, the regius professor medicine at Oxford University, said that for pharmacogenomics to catch on, doctors will have to learn new ways of dealing with patients.
"One of the biggest obstacles is culture. We've all been taught to take the dose for a drug straight out of the British National Formulae and then if that doesn't work to add another drug to the prescription, and so on," Professor Bell said.
"So we can end up with lots of patients on four or more drugs where only one would do. This is a big cultural issue to overcome," he said.
Apart from the ethics of prescribing useless drugs to people who could be poisoned by them, there is also the question of costs to the NHS, which has seen a record 50 per cent increase in its drugs bill over the past three years.
As Bill Clarke, the executive vice president of research at Amersham, a British diagnostics company, said: "It's just not right to spend that amount of money on drugs that don't work." For the sake of a relatively cheap genetics test that can be carried out on the wider population of patients, it would be possible to target drugs more effectively and more safely, Dr Clarke said.
It could also lead to a revolution in the way drugs are tested, he said. If "responders" to a new drug can be identified easily, it will be possible to simplify the expensive phase 3 clinical trials which can involve thousand of people being followed over many years.
Dr Roses agreed: "You can pick out people who respond a lot to the drug, can you pick out people who do not respond at all to the drug and can you pick out people who are sort of in the middle.
"By eliminating the people that we predict will be non-responders we'll be able to do smaller, faster and cheaper drug trials."
That could be the incentive that will lead to a change in the "one-drug-fits-all" culture of the drug industry, he said.
"I can't speak for other companies but I can tell you absolutely for sure that there is a change in the culture of GSK," Dr Roses said. And the advent of pharmacogenomics will not necessarily mean a fall in sales.
"If you can determine who is going to have a response [to a drug] and who is not going to have a response, you can take your next molecule and aim it specifically at the people who haven't had a response with the first one so that you can create a set of drugs that cover the population, and then you are back to selling to everybody," he said.
PHASE I: These first studies evaluate how a new drug or therapy should be given (by mouth, injection into the blood or injection into the muscle), how often, and what dose is safe. A phase I trial usually enrols a small number of patients, sometimes as few as a dozen.
PHASE II: A phase II trial usually focuses on one type of illness, continuing to test the safety of treatment and beginning to evaluate how well it works. This is the essential intermediate step that will determine whether the drug will go into bigger and more costly phase III trials.
PHASE III: These studies test a new drug, a new combination of drugs or a new therapy in comparison to the current standard treatment. A participant will usually be assigned to the standard group or the new group at random (called randomisation). Often it involves "double blind" trials, where neither the patient nor doctor knows who is being given the new drug. Phase III trials often enrol large numbers of people and may be conducted at many doctors' offices, clinics and cancer centres nationwide.
mandato da Ivan Ingrilli il Martedì Dicembre 9 2003
aggiornato il Sabato Settembre 24 2005
URL of this article:
La guerra degli OGM
Oggi, in Piemonte, eliminati altri 18 ettari di mais transgenico. Il pm Guariniello: "Biotech, danoso il via libera europeo" Ogm, è guerra dei ricorsi contro la distruzione dei campi Ma il ministro Alemanno avverte che dall'anno prossimo saranno aperte delle coltivazioni legali anche in Italia Un articolo di Paolo Griseri... [continua a leggere]
Luglio 14, 2003 - Ivan Ingrilli
Le bugie di Bush e Blair
Tempesta su Bush e Blair «Uranio dal Niger per Saddam», ma il dossier era falso: i democratici Usa chiedono un'inchiesta, a Londra il premier costretto a difendersi. Intanto in Iraq uccisi altri tre marines Infuriano le polemiche negli Stati uniti e in Gran Bretagna sulle motivazioni della guerra contro l'Iraq. Dopo le ammissioni della Casa bianca sul falso rapporto relativo all'uranio di Saddam Hussein, i democratici chiedono la convocazione... [continua a leggere]
Luglio 11, 2003 - Ivan Ingrilli
L'amministrazione Bush e le indagini della commissione.
La commissione bipartisan, incaricata di verificare se a seguito dell'attentato delle 2 torri, l'amministrazione Bush avesse compiuto abusi, ha tenuto ieri una conferenza stampa. Il portavoce repubblicano denuncia la difficoltà di indagare sugli abusi anche manifesti, seguiti all'attentato. In particolare sottolinea come la commissione reperisca con enormi difficoltà la documentazione richiesta e come la pretesa dell'amministrazione Bush di effettuare gli interrogatori dei funzionari solo se affiancati da membri dell'amministrazione stessa,... [continua a leggere]
Luglio 11, 2003 - Ivan Ingrilli
Il Corpo E' L'Arco, La Mente E' La Freccia, TU Sei Il Bersaglio
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Questo sito contiene idee, fatti e ricerche scientifiche controverse che potrebbero essere offensive per alcune persone ben educate. E' suggerita la supervisione dei genitori.
Gli scritti hanno solamente un intento informativo ed educativo. Consultare il proprio medico prima di utilizzare qualsiasi informazione trovata su questo sito. Qualsiasi materiale sotto copyright viene utilizzato senza nessun fine commerciale. Prosit. Amen.