|
My newsletter of a few weeks ago on the recent changes in Medicare (wherein they now pay for the off-label use of chemotherapy) struck a nerve with some readers. A number of innovative doctors supported these changes, since it gave them more latitude in prescribing drugs. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD, of Houston, Texas, wrote me as follows:
"I think that the expansion of the Medicare rules covering the use of off-label drugs is a good move. However, success will depend on the doctors who will prescribe these drugs.
"It is very well known that new gene-targeted drugs work only for a small population of patients, and indiscriminate use of them based simply on the pathologic diagnosis is contributing to billions of dollars in losses, and lack of treatment success. On the other hand, if there is a proper selection of drugs based on gene expression analysis then the use of a combination of these drugs may produce great benefits.
"Through identification of the right patient population there is a much better chance for successful treatment and less loss of time and money. With proper use of combination gene-targeted drugs their synergistic effects could be explored and the dosages drastically reduced. This, however, will require profound knowledge of cancer genetics and epigenetics which, unfortunately, are possessed by only a small number of oncologists. Improper use of off-label drugs and poor combinations could contribute to treatment failure and adverse reactions."
On the other hand, here is a different kind of comment:
"I am very suspicious of any article that wants to be considered a serious scientific content article that has the New York Times as four of its six references sources. Since when did the New York Times become a referenced journal of scientific knowledge? Sorry but this article has an odor of bias about it! The New York Times has an odor of bias about it. Get serious scientific content if you want people to take your writings seriously."
I think this reader misunderstood the nature of my article and indeed the purpose of this newsletter. As a generality, I deal with new scientific findings on cancer. When we cite research we always give primary sources in the scientific literature, cited in the standard style of the American Medical Association. But I sometimes also comment on the socioeconomic aspects of the cancer problem — that, after all, was the main subject of my first book, The Cancer Industry (1980) . In such cases, there is generally no scientific source of the information. The starting point is usually a broadcast, Web site or a newspaper or magazine article.
Why does the New York Times have an "odor of bias" about it that is any worse than other sources?
On the economics of cancer care, the Times (after refusing for decades to even acknowledge the existence of a problem) changed its tune about a decade ago. Times reporters have done some of the best investigative writing on this topic. In particular, between 2003 and 2006, Reed Abelson and Shannon Brownlee wrote three important articles on the "chemotherapy concession" and the volume discounts to oncologists for prescribing particular drugs.
Whenever I talk about these issues I naturally cite these source and will continue to do so. I wish more media outlet were "biased" in exactly this way!
--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
References: Abelson, Reed. Drug Sales Bring Huge Profits, And Scrutiny, to Cancer Doctors. New York Times, January 26, 2003.
Abelson, Reed. Pay Method Said to Sway Drug Choices of Oncologists. New York Times, March 8, 2006..
PHONE CONSULTATIONS
Ralph Moss does phone consultations for clients who have previously ordered one of our comprehensive Moss Reports on their cancer. Here is the comment of one of our recent phone consultees:
"I learned so much from Dr. Moss in one short hour! I have done much research on my own, but his advice is leading me in a new direction, which I know will benefit me. Thank you!" - P.W., Jan. 29, 2009.
If you would like to set up a phone consultation (or have already done one and want to arrange a follow-up), please contact Ralph's assistant, Jacquie Johnson. Her phone number is 814-466-6514. You can usually reach her during normal EST business hours. If you get an answering machine, leave a message and she will call you back promptly. Or you can reach her at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
WHERE TO GO? - CAM RESOURCES IN SELECTED METROPOLITAN REGIONS
The Where To Go? series continues to attract favorable reviews from readers. Already available are Where to Go? - Germany, Where To Go? - Houston, Where To Go? - Philadelphia, Where To Go? - Chicago and Where To Go? - Boston. These are the first reports in a series on regional availability of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
For more information, or to purchase any of these reports, please click here.
CANCER DECISIONS© AND CURRENT TOPICS© REPORTS
Reports in our Cancer Decisions© series are designed to provide readers with the detailed information they need in order to make difficult treatment decisions. Currently available are:
These reports can be purchased and downloaded from our Web site, by clicking here.
OR...Please visit our Web site at www.cancerdecisions.com and click on the blue Radiation Reports button.
For a list of our Current Topics reports on issues of interest in the field of cancer research and treatment please click here.
OR...Please visit our Web site at www.cancerdecisions.com and click on the blue Current Topics button. |
