SHARE

Some friends were arguing with me that any article/research other than US health dept, UK health dept and Mayo clinic are humbug and conspiracy.

This article is for them: 53 papers were deemed ‘landmark’ studies in CANCER research. Majority of them are from so called reputed institutes. So called trustable sources. Nevertheless, scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. So? Billions of dollars’ worth of fraudulent information is surfacing as scientific facts by so called mainstream institutes to cash in pharma-profit.

Do not live with Ostrich view. Trust your common sense first. Learn to decipher Mother Nature’s signals. So called Science is losing its way at high cost of humanity. Wake up or participate in more chaotic future.

For health and living, best you can do, turn towards Ayurveda, your grand-mother’s remedies.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html#t1

Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research

483531a-i1-0

Efforts over the past decade to characterize the genetic alterations in human cancers have led to a better understanding of molecular drivers of this complex set of diseases. Although we in the cancer field hoped that this would lead to more effective drugs, historically, our ability to translate cancer research to clinical success has been remarkably low1. Sadly, clinical trials in oncology have the highest failure rate compared with other therapeutic areas. Given the high unmet need in oncology, it is understandable that barriers to clinical development may be lower than for other disease areas, and a larger number of drugs with suboptimal preclinical validation will enter oncology trials. However, this low success rate is not sustainable or acceptable, and investigators must reassess their approach to translating discovery research into greater clinical success and impact.

Many factors are responsible for the high failure rate, notwithstanding the inherently difficult nature of this disease. Certainly, the limitations of preclinical tools such as inadequate cancer-cell-line and mouse models2 make it difficult for even the best scientists working in optimal conditions to make a discovery that will ultimately have an impact in the clinic. Issues related to clinical-trial design — such as uncontrolled phase II studies, a reliance on standard criteria for evaluating tumour response and the challenges of selecting patients prospectively — also play a significant part in the dismal success rate3.

 

LEAVE A REPLY