Yes! Isn't THAT the truth!
Posted on 03/06/2005 6:05:32 AM PST by SheLion
The failure of a last-chance cancer drug to significantly improve survival rates in a clinical trial was a surprise and the manufacturer says it is trying to figure out why the product didn't do better.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
But approval, based on preliminary studies, came with a requirement that the drug be further tested.
In a follow-up trial, it failed to produce an improvement that was statistically significant, prompting the manufacturer, AstraZeneca to stop promoting it and to advise doctors that it had failed to live up to expectations for unknown reasons.
AstraZeneca told an FDA advisory committee, meeting this week to review several cancer drugs, that it is conducting a detailed analysis of the trial.
"The failure to reach statistical significance for survival in the overall population was completely unexpected," the company said in its report to the committee.
It went on to say that Iressa does produce responses in tumors and that some groups of patients did see benefits, notably people of Asian descent and nonsmokers.
So, NON smokers also get lung cancer? Aren't we constantly told that we will get lung cancer because we smoke? Sorry non-smokers. This one is for you.
Yeah, they do. My never smoked friend died last month of lung cancer. And I have friends that are long time smokers that are as healthy as a person can get.
Surely you see the illogic in your statement. No one has ever claimed that smoking is the only cause of lung cancer or that non-smokers are magically immune from the disease.
The fact that some non-smokers get lung cancer in no way diminishes the fact that smoking greatly increases the risks of lung cancer.
Do you really believe that smokers are no more likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers?
By the way, I had a look at your web site. Just wanted to let you know that while I believe smoking is bad for your health, when it comes to being opposed to government regulation of smoking, I'm strongly on your side.
I am totally opposed to government making it illegal to smoke in places of business. Let the free market sort things out: if people don't want to shop or work in a smoking environment, let them go elsewhere, and if there are enough of them, there will be plenty of businesses springing up to accomodate the demand.
By the way, I had a look at your personal page. Just wanted to let you know that while I believe smoking is bad for your health, when it comes to being opposed to government regulation of smoking, I'm strongly on your side.
I am totally opposed to government making it illegal to smoke in places of business. Let the free market sort things out: if people don't want to shop or work in a smoking environment, let them go elsewhere, and if there are enough of them, there will be plenty of businesses springing up to accomodate the demand.
Exactly. My one grandmother died at age 42 full of cancer. I never knew her. She never smoked a day in her life.
I don't mean to be cruel, but the anti's claim that only smokers will get lung cancer. They are so smug about it. And this just isn't true. If the researchers can't figure out how to cure lung cancer, then who is to say what really causes it.
Yeah, they do. My never smoked friend died last month of lung cancer.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I lost someone from lung cancer (small cell carcinoma) in 1992. He was 28, and a non-smoker.
Smoking increases your chances of getting it, sure. But it doesn't discriminate between smokers and non, as you are aware.
The fact that some non-smokers get lung cancer in no way diminishes the fact that smoking greatly increases the risks of lung cancer.
Do you really believe that smokers are no more likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers?
I've been posting smoking threads on Free Republic since 2001. And I get just a little tired of the anti's that come in here and tell us that we are going to die horrible deaths, get lung cancer and die! I just wanted them to see it in writing that just because a person does not smoke is not a sure sign that they will never develop lung cancer. (Gawd, I hate that word).
If you followed the smoking threads you would see what I mean.
Why thank you!! We have too much government wanting to control legal activities today. If the government wants to control something, why don't they just ban it? Oh I forgot! They still want our money.
I posted a thread the other day that Maine wants to start taxing gun owners. We have a lot of hunters in Maine and I can hear screams. The government says no tax increases, but they are still trying to back door us.
The strange thing is that my father, who smoked but stopped around 50, died of throat cancer at the age of 62.
My mother, who has smoked a pack a day for her entire adult life, is 83 and going pretty strong.
Smoking increases your chances of getting it, sure. But it doesn't discriminate between smokers and non, as you are aware.
I'm so sorry for your loss. 28, that's sickening. :(
I think it takes a factor of several things to put us in bad health. If a person is obese and smokes, he is 10 times more likely to cut his life shorter. It's a combination of things that do us in. I can't believe that just one factor will do it. Smoking isn't good for us, sure, but if a person is in good physical condition, then the changes of him getting sick from smoking is cut in half. It depends on how well we take care of ourselves in other areas.
It's mind boggling. My one grandmother never smoked..........dead at 42 full of cancer. My other grandmother smoked 3 packs of unfiltered Camels a day and lived to be 86! Go figure.
Hey, I couldn't agree with you more!
After all, what's the difference between the Gov. being able to control smoking and the Gov. being able to control eating meat?
With all the PETA PC correctness, that is already brewing.
And speaking of brewing, why not alcohol as well?
Sure that didn't work before, but since when did that ever stop a liberal??
BTW, I used to smoke intermittently, but completely stopped at age 24.
BUMPING the hypocracy of the gub'mint!
Well, it's good that you quit. I just really enjoy it too much to even attempt it. I can't drink so I may as well enjoy something that 'isn't good for me.' :)
But this government intervention business is coming on just a bit too strong lately. Always a group out there that wants to control the rest of us.
Yes! Isn't THAT the truth!
Side effects after 7 days on this stuff 12/28/04 landed my mother in the hospital.She is still in a nursing home attemptng to regain her strength.
30 day supply $1,980.00 thanks for the old ATT health insurance,but it wont pay for the home at 90G's a year.
I certainly agree that:
1. not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer; and
2. some people who don't smoke will get lung cancer.
That said, I hope you'll agree that smoking does increase the likelihood of a person getting lung cancer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.