Posts Tagged ‘Cancer’
I am becoming sick of reporting the Crimes of Doctors and the ‘Specialty Hospitals’
What can one say except.’Hang them”
That brings the total number of patients affected at the hospital to 691 — 651 adults and 40 children.
It says they can’t be 100 per cent certain of the number of deaths, since they’re not always notified when a patient has died after treatment.
The additional 26 patients were identified after conducting a second, more thorough assessment of its files.
The hospital says it has already contacted all the patients.
He met his Target but the patient died.
There is another case where a Doctor forced three operations on a patient, patient died.
Corporates mean profit, Profit means Sales ‘Targets”
This evil can be eradicated only by patients going to Doctors who thorough checks you up physically,does not prescribe a battery of Tests , who listens to your problem , most importantly does not work in a Corporate run Hospital, and who does not have a Fancy Title or Degree.
Ray Law, 60, died of complications two days after his prostate cancer operation at Lincoln County Hospital in February 2010.
On the day he died, a senior doctor raised serious concerns about the incident in an internal memo, saying the targets were putting patients at risk and putting “enormous and unsustainable pressure” on surgeons.
Cost of Cancer Drugs are sky rocketing.
Drug Companies arbitrarily fix rates and when an indigenous manufacturer is ready to supply at a fraction of the cost, these Drug companies hide behind patents.
India‘s patent appeals office has rejected Bayer AG‘s plea to stop the production of a cheaper generic version of a patented cancer drug in a ruling that health groups say is an important precedent for getting inexpensive lifesaving medicines to the poor.
Last year, India’s patent office allowed local drug manufacturer Natco Pharma Ltd. to produce a generic version of Bayer’s kidney and liver cancer drug Nexavar on the grounds it would make the drug available to the public at a reasonably affordable price. It was the first use of compulsory licensing under Indian patent laws passed in 2005.
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board rejected the German drug maker’s appeal of the 2012 ruling on Monday. It also ruled that under the license Natco must pay 7 per cent in royalties on net sales to Bayer.
Bayer sells a one month supply of the drug for about $5,600. Natco’s version would cost Indian patients $175 a month, less than 1/30th as much.
Western pharmaceutical companies have been pushing for stronger patent protections in India to regulate the country’s $26 billion US generics industry, which they say frequently flouts intellectual property rights. However, health activists and aid groups counter that Indian generics are a lifesaver for patients in poor countries who cannot afford Western prices to treat diseases such as cancer, malaria and HIV.
Bayer said Tuesday it “strongly” disagreed with the appeal panel’s decision and would pursue the case in the high court in India’s commercial capital Mumbai
A: Medicines produced by generic companies in India are among the cheapest in the world. That is because, until 2005, India did not grant patents on medicines. India is one of the few developing countries with production capacity to manufacture quality-assured generic medicines.
By producing cheaper generic versions of medicines that were patented in other countries, India became a key source of affordable medicines, such as antiretroviral medicines (ARVs) to treat HIV and AIDS. Eighty percent of the medicines MSF uses to treat 170,000 people living with HIV in its projects today are sourced from Indian generic drug companies, and over 80 percent of all HIV and AIDS medicines bought by donors also come from India. In the case of treatment for pediatric AIDS, Indian generic producers supply over 90 percent of medicines used in developing countries. This is why India is known as the “pharmacy of the developing world.”
Q: What is the relationship between patents and affordable medicines?
A: When a pharmaceutical company has a patent in a country, it means it has a monopoly in that country for a certain amount of time. This means it can prevent other companies from producing, selling, or importing the medicine in that country for the duration of the patent term, which, according to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, is a minimum of 20 years. This in turn allows companies to charge high prices because there are no competitors in the market.
In the absence of patents, multiple generic producers produce medicines, further driving the price down. Competition among different producers is the tried and tested way to bring prices down. Competition among generic manufacturers is what helped bring the cost of HIV and AIDS treatment down from over US$10,000 per patient per year in 2000 to $150 today. The absence of patents in India has also helped in the development of three-in-one HIV/AIDS medicines called fixed-dose combination pills, and formulations for children.
Q: Aren’t patents needed to stimulate innovation for new drugs by pharmaceutical companies?
A: An increasing number of studies have shown that while patent protection has increased over the last 20 years, the innovation rate has been falling, with an increase in the number of “me-too” drugs of little or no therapeutic gain. This undermines the case that is often made by the pharmaceutical industry that more patent protection would result in more investment in medical innovations.
A study published in 2005 concluded that 68 percent of the 3,096 new products approved in France between 1981 and 2004 brought “nothing new” over previously available preparations. Similarly, the British Medical Journal published a study rating barely 5 percent of all newly patented drugs in Canada as “breakthrough.” And a breakdown of over 1,000 new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between 1989 and 2000 revealed that over three quarters have no therapeutic benefit over existing products.
In addition, the 2006 report of the World Health Organization’s Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Public Health also found that there was no evidence that the implementation of WTO rules on patents in developing countries significantly boosts research and development in pharmaceuticals for diseases affecting developing countries.
Q: Does India not grant patents on medicines at all?
A: As a WTO member, India has to comply with trade rules set by the WTO. One of these is the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS, which obliges WTO member countries to grant patents on pharmaceuticals. To comply with this international obligation, India amended its patent law in 2005 and started to grant patents on medicines. As a result, when patents are granted in the country, Indian generic manufacturers are not able to produce cheaper generic versions of these medicines.”
I have a friend in Bangalore whose close relative is a distributor for Cancer drugs.
He sells a medicine at Rs 8000 to Patients ans he makes a profit of 22% if he sells it Rs.1800!
next time your Doctor recommends you a Cancr Drug, as him show the combination, check the information at the Link below and confront him to prescribe an an equivalent Indian Drug or ask him to give you details of other drugs available in the market.
Please remember these Drugs will not arrest Cancer immediately and you have some time to buy them.
This list includes more than 100 cancer drug information summaries from NCI. The summaries provide consumer-friendly information about cancer drugs and drug combinations.
Summaries for individual cancer drugs cover the uses of these drugs, research results, possible side effects, approval information, and ongoing clinical trials. The list includes brand and generic names for the drugs.
Summaries for cancer drug combinations are listed by abbreviation or common name and are shown in capital letters. Each summary gives a list of the drugs that make up the combination and explains what the combination is used for. It also has links to summaries for individual drugs in the combination.
Chemotherapy is used extensively to treat Cancer.
Evidence has to come light.that, instead of arresting Tumor, it increases the risk and actually help growing Tumors!
“Long considered the most effective cancer-fighting treatment, chemotherapy may actually make cancer worse, according to a shocking new study.
The extremely aggressive therapy, which kills both cancerous and healthy cells indiscriminately, can cause healthy cells to secrete a protein that sustains tumor growth and resistance to further treatment.
Researchers in the United States made the “completely unexpected” finding while seeking to explain why cancer cells are so resilient inside the human body when they are easy to kill in the lab.
They tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found “evidence of DNA damage” in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.
Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumors.
The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.
The protein was taken up by tumor cells neighboring the damaged cells.
“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumor cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy,” said Nelson.
In cancer treatment, tumors often respond well initially, followed by rapid re-growth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.
Rates of tumor cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.
“Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumor growth kinetics,” wrote the team.
The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumors.
There have been suggestions that drinking in moderation is not harmful but in fact good for health.
This information, A Study says is based on ‘plucked out information out of air’
The revised position is..
The best suggestion is ’do not drink,in case you drink,quit’
OFFICIAL alcohol guidelines that were “plucked out of the air” wrongly suggest we can drink almost daily with no ill effects, doctors have said.
They have been set too high and fail to take into account evidence that shows drinking only modest amounts raises the risk of cancer and other diseases, they say.
The current guidelines recommend that men should limit themselves to “three to four units” a day, which the National Health Service likens to “not much more than a pint of strong lager, beer or cider”.
Women should not regularly drink more than “two to three units” a day, equivalent to “no more than a standard 175ml glass of wine”.
Research published last year suggests consumption should be much lower – perhaps only a quarter of a pint of beer daily.
Dr Michael Mosley‘s research for the documentary found the guidelines were based on limited data on the harmful effects of low to moderate level drinking. They were formulated in 1987 by a Royal College of Physicians working party.
“Those limits were really plucked out of the air,” he said. “They were not based on any firm evidence at all.”
Dr Mosley said the British government had “presented these guidelines as if they are about health, but they are not”.
“They are more about behaviour, trying to stop you going out and crashing the car or fighting,” he said.
A Harvard University study, published in the ‘Journal of the American Medical Association‘ in 2011, found that women who drank only four small glasses of wine a week – about five units – increased their risk of developing breast cancer by 15pc compared with non-drinkers.
Another 2011 study estimated that alcohol caused 13,000 cancers a year, including 6,000 of the mouth and throat, 3,000 bowel cancer cases and 2,500 cases of breast cancer.
People who were engaged in rescue operations following the attack on World Trade center on 9/11/,2001 were found to be suffering from increased risks of asthma, stress-related mental health problems, in a study conducted earlier.
A new Study
“from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene are analyzing data from the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Registry to determine possible effects, if any, of the Twin Towers’ collapse on cancer risk.
“Dust, debris, and fumes from the WTC contained known and suspected carcinogens, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, asbestos, benzene, and dioxins,” the researchers write in their article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
“At issue is whether dosages to exposed individuals were sufficient to cause excess malignancies and, if so, whether such excesses are […] detectable at present,” they write.
The researchers focused on nearly 55,700 people, 22,000 of whom were recovery and rescue workers (fire fighters, other first responders, construction workers, transportation workers, sanitation crews, security, and more) and the remainder of whom live in lower Manhattan, near the Towers. So far, the team only analyzed data on health outcomes, including the incidence of 23 different types of cancer, of these people through the end of 2008. While that is a relatively short time period for cancers to emerge, five to seven years after 9/11 the data already suggest that rescue and recovery workers harbor a 43% higher risk of prostate cancer compared to other residents of New York State during that the time, even after the scientists adjusted for age, sex, race, and smoking status. The risks of thyroid cancer and of myeloma (a disease of the blood plasma cells) were more than double that of ordinary New Yorkers. The heightened cancer risk, however, was not found among residents or others who were briefly exposed to the debris in the hours after the terrorist attacks.
…In the mean time, it’s not entirely clear why prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, and myeloma would be most strongly associated with WTC exposure. Myeloma, which is relatively rare, has been correlated previously with some workplace exposure to hazardous materials. But thyroid cancer has been linked more often to ionizing radiation, a risk factor not thought to be present at the WTC site, Stellman says. And as for prostate cancer, the environmental risk factors remain “elusive,” he says. “There’s no consensus among researchers.” He also acknowledges that the number of cancer cases in the registry is small, and that the data do not include data on other sources of potential exposure other than the Towers that might account for the elevated risk.”
The other unthinkable source could have been Nuclear Debri from the attack site, which might indicate that the planes had limited Nuclear device.