Two studies published in October 2005 in the New England Journal of Medicine have sparked a triumphant reaction from both the media and the medical profession. The studies indicated that the addition of the drug Herceptin (trastuzumab) to standard therapy reduced the recurrence rate in some kinds of breast cancer.

The mainstream media gushed superlatives. These were "pivotal" results, we were told, offering "fresh" and "new" hope. Herceptin was an "amazingly" or "astonishingly effective…wonder drug." On the ABC Evening News (Oct. 19, 2005), correspondent (now co-anchor) Elizabeth Vargas went moist-eyed as she described the Herceptin studies as a "major breakthrough."

The orthodox medical profession, traditionally averse to outbursts of hyperbole, lost all sense of proportion. Adjectives such as "revolutionary," "stunning," and "jaw-dropping" were used by some doctors to describe the latest findings. Even the word "cure" - long taboo in oncology circles - suddenly re-emerged.

I have now written a special report on the use of Herceptin in breast cancer therapy. This report, 'Herceptin – Or Deceptin?' analyses the latest studies and sheds light on the question of the drug's risks and benefits in the treatment of breast cancer. I also discuss the latest findings from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (December 2005). My overall conclusion is that while the latest findings do represent an advance in the treatment of a minority of women with early-stage breast cancer, it is a modest and qualified advance, and one which falls far short of the promotional hype that has been unleashed by the publication of these studies.

Some of the topics covered in this 19-page, fully documented report include:

•   The crucial difference between 'relative risk' and 'absolute risk' and how that difference has been used to exaggerate the importance of the Herceptin findings.
  
•   The difference between disease-free survival and overall survival and why a focus on 'disease-free survival' can obscure the weak performance of a treatment.
  
•   What did these studies really show about overall survival, and in particular what is surprisingly revealed in one of the charts on survival?
  
•   What life-threatening complication is seen so often that it reduces the actual benefit of Herceptin to almost nothing?
  
•   Which other standard drugs—already received by a majority of breast cancer patients—increase the potentially fatal adverse effects of Herceptin?
  
•   Why patients over 50 years of age are harmed more and benefited less by Herceptin? Why patients in community clinics are unlikely to benefit as much as those in clinical trials?
  
•   Why did doctors stop this clinical trial early, before the full effects of Herceptin and other treatments had a chance to fully play themselves out?
  
•   What are some of the other drawbacks of Herceptin? Why does this 'targeted' drug, touted as a nontoxic miracle, routinely cause serious adverse effects in over 40 percent of patients?
  
•   Which of the researchers currently promoting Herceptin as a cure for breast cancer are financially entangled with the manufacturers of this drug?
  
•   Which famous medical journal has also criticized the hyping of Herceptin?

Here is what Michael Janson, MD, past president of both the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) and the American Preventive Medical Association (APMA) has to say about this special report:

"Dr. Moss has once again cut through the hype of medical research and media reports with a keen, objective analysis that presents the true picture of scientific results regarding the latest 'miracle' in cancer therapy. He reveals the hollow core of the recent medical reports on Herceptin, showing that it is not what has been claimed, and that the statistics were manipulated to make it seem far better than it is, while underplaying the potential risks. The conflict of interest among the authors that he notes is a danger to honest researchers and to the public who might mistakenly take this drug (and many others) in inappropriate situations. Let's hope that his analysis gets wide attention."

To order this special report on Herceptin please click here.

ERRATUM: On page 5 of "Herceptin -- Or Deceptin," Dr. Peter R. Mansfield's Web site is given as www.friendlyskepticism.org. It should actually be www.healthyskepticism.org. We are in the process of correcting this error in the text itself.