A NYT article on aspirin research points to promising studies suggesting that aspirin
reduces cancer risk. It certainly sounds like good news to thousands of
researchers worldwide dedicating their work to curing, or at least preventing,
cancer. Or does it?
The most striking line in this
NYT article can be found at the end: “Some cancer doctors commended the new
research, saying that despite the limitations of the analyses, no other
long-term clinical trials of aspirin and cancer are likely to be done because
of the enormous expense involved and the fact that aspirin is a cheap generic
drug.” This also seems to sum up what truly drives medical research: if it is
not a significant investment opportunity, the new treatment will simply not be
investigated.
There are various conspiracy
theories about actually effective cancer treatments not being introduced to the
market because the pharmaceutical industry would forgo staggering profits
(since monthly cost of chemotherapy can reach as much as $20,000, for drugs
with negligible production cost). Much as one should take such claims with a grain
of salt, the conclusions of the Oxford study on aspirin are yet another example
of how medical research is driven solely by the commercialization potential of
its results – simply put, by money. This is especially striking in both of the
quoted US studies, where similar research on unreasonably cheap aspirin was set
up in such a way as to preclude any positive relationship between this drug and
its effectiveness for cancer treatment – the researchers simply manipulated the
dosage in such a way as to render the “treatment” predictably ineffective
(although the recommended dosage is one baby aspirin a day for cardiac
patients, here the researchers arbitrarily decided to give to their subjects
one baby aspirin only every other day). One can only imagine the utter tragedy
for pharmaceutical industry profits if half of their future cancer patients
suddenly did not need extortionately expensive treatments due to daily
consumption of one very cheap generic pill without any known significant
side-effects. Understandably, such revolutionary prevention would be fought
tooth and nail, and with any number of ‘studies,’ to prevent it from becoming
part of the official recommendation of various government agencies. That is,
after all, the raison d’être of lobbying and industry funding of the regulatory
process.
Another question is why
exactly the U.S. standard dosage for so-called baby aspirin used in prevention
of cardiac disease is 81 mg, almost exactly 20% lower than that in the EU (100
mg). Is it another preventive measure of the FDA to make sure that aspirin does
not become too effective in the U.S. market, or are manufacturers simply aiming
to increase profits by selling a drug with reduced potency?
No comments:
Post a Comment