Share this comment
The reality is that the outcomes are not really that great for the "gold standard" treatments offered by the Cancer industry. See: Analyses of repeated failures in cancer therapy for solid tumors: poor tumor-selective drug delivery, low therapeutic efficacy and unsustainable costs: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov…
From the abstract: "For over six…
© 2025 Jeff Childers
Substack is the home for great culture
The reality is that the outcomes are not really that great for the "gold standard" treatments offered by the Cancer industry. See: Analyses of repeated failures in cancer therapy for solid tumors: poor tumor-selective drug delivery, low therapeutic efficacy and unsustainable costs: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29541939/
From the abstract: "For over six decades reductionist approaches to cancer chemotherapies including recent immunotherapy for solid tumors produced outcome failure-rates of 90% (±5) according to governmental agencies and industry. Despite tremendous public and private funding and initial enthusiasm about missile-therapy for site-specific cancers, molecular targeting drugs for specific enzymes such as kinases or inhibitors of growth factor receptors, the outcomes are very bleak and disappointing." Hence, why not try alternative measures that are having success?
The pathetic droids don't even know the tumor is the (temporary) solution. Except for skin and uterine cancer, cancer is systemic. Morons even call a dead patient who had a 90 % reduction in tumor size a success.
Exactly that question is why so many people mistrust the whole of meds industry. Same as happened with hiv/ aids. Just recently we finally were able to see the awful news of blood contamination from transfusions being improperly (nefariously) managed. Seriously if I and many others count our personal human losses from the aids crisis and cov crap, we’d run out of ink. It’s the biggest travesty of our time, without a doubt.
Thank FauxQi.
I had read somewhere that the oncologist is the one who actually purchases the chemicals for the chemo treatment, and they get to put that money in their pocket. Does anyone know if this is true?
Yes. Typed in "do oncologists get kickbacks from drug companies". Brave's AI response: "Yes, oncologists can receive financial incentives from drug companies that may influence their prescribing practices. These incentives can come in various forms, such as payments for speaking engagements, consulting fees, and research grants. According to a study published in BMJ Open, pharmaceutical companies sponsored over 116,000 events for healthcare professionals between 2011 and 2015, many of which included oncologists. These events often involve meals and other forms of compensation that can subtly influence prescribing habits.
Additionally, the practice of “buy and bill” allows oncologists to purchase chemotherapy drugs at wholesale prices and then resell them to patients at a markup, which can be significantly higher. This practice has been criticized for potentially leading to the overprescription of expensive treatments, as it directly increases the oncologist’s income. For instance, a Forbes article noted that oncologists have shifted towards using more expensive chemotherapy drugs, partly due to the financial incentives associated with these treatments.
There have also been instances where payments to doctors were found to be illegal kickbacks. For example, federal prosecutors have stated that payments made by drug companies like Insys Therapeutics were used as bribes to increase prescriptions of certain drugs. Despite regulations and transparency tools like Dollars for Docs, which aim to disclose these payments, the issue persists.
In summary, while not all financial interactions between oncologists and drug companies are illegal, the potential for bias and conflict of interest is significant, and efforts to regulate these relationships continue to be a topic of concern."