Problems in drug testing.

Problems in testing drugs

I will critic the methods of testing both drugs (in this post) and prayer (in the next post) because I believe that both are seriously faulty. Many experiments regarding prayer, I strongly believe, have been tampered with. In the case of the drugs there are problems with the experiments that are not due to the science but which in many cases render the science near useless.

The medical industry has been very successful in treating infectious diseases using drugs (antibiotics and vaccines) however they are facing a lot of problems when it comes to cancer. I would say that a part of the problem is that the cancer cells are not aliens in the body but only a different variety of cells. So while one can find features that are unique to various cancer cells one still has to use chemicals to try and kill them that will also harm other cells or cause problems in the body. The problem is one of how to make the treatment unique to one type of cell in the body? This is why there is a lot of research done in trying to find the differences between cancer cells and other cells on the genetic level and why personalized medicine is seen as a possible treatment. However even with personalized medicine there is still a basic problem, which is in determining the efficacy and safety of a drug. Drugs that enter the marketplace are financially successful because they are aggressively marketed, but they fail some of the patients that take them. On the other hand there may be drugs that never reach the market place and which could have helped some people. There are problems at the testing stage of drugs that may account for these problems.

Drugs are tested using randomized, double-blinded, controlled drug trial. The trials aim to compare the drugs to a blank, all other things remaining the same. This is the way of science and works well in many cases but there are three big problems that stand in the way when it comes to testing drugs used to treat disease and especially cancer.

One problem is that to test the drugs the researchers need patients. Patients and cancer patients in particular are people who are desperate. Most people believe that a cancer diagnosis is essentially a death sentence and reasonably so because the vast number do not live for more than another decade after their diagnosis. A terminally ill person will try anything, clutch at any straw, whether it is proven or unproven, real or imaginary to get well. They will take drugs that they may know are harmful to them because they see a chance at life, even if that chance is slim and even if that chance only gives them a few more years.

In a drug trial all patients know they are in an experiment testing drugs. And they know that they will be given either a drug or a blank / dummy drug that doctors call a placebo. Actually in calling the blank a placebo they create a bias because there is an idea conveyed to a patient that they might get well on what they are give and that is not what the patient should be lead to believe. However even calling it by it’s real name.. “a blank” the researchers still have a major problem. Patients who enter a trial may believe that the drug being tested is a “promising new drugs” and that it will make them well. Thus they may choose to believe that they have been given a drug, regardless of what they are given. As they are double blinded they don’t know which group they are in but they know that half will get the drug and half will not; so they have a fifty-fifty chance, a good chance in their eyes that they have been given a drug! So why not believe that they are one of the lucky ones! This means patients in both the intervention arm and the placebo arm may believe that they have been given a drug.

So the first problem is that a large number of patients, from both the “intervention arm”, i.e., those who have been given the drug, AND in the “control arm”, those who have been given the blank, may exhibit “a placebo effect”.

For good judgments to be made and disagreements properly assessed the process of science, especially in the use of statistics, needs to be objective. Experiments need to be set up so that the effects of the drugs can be assessed. However the blinded drug trial prohibits objectivity precisely because they are dealing with desperate people AND because people can choose to believe something that they deem will save their lives. It causes research scientists to end up doing many experiments, looking for the one or two experiments that show a significant difference between those that take the blank/ placebo and those that take the drug. Often that difference may only be a small percentage but enough to show a statistical significance or is it? Is this significant difference due to the drug or is it all just a placebo effect? All you need is a few more people in the intervention arm that are much more desperate than the average of the ones in the control arm to get this difference. Thus they may talk about the patients in the intervention arm doing “significantly better than the average” but in fact they cannot judge whether it was due to the drug or a placebo effect. So the researchers are left with uncertainty as to who “responded to the drug” and who exhibited a placebo effect. This means the efficacy of the drug cannot be determined.

In a single blinded trial all of the placebo effect is seen only in the intervention arm. The control patients, who were given the blank, do not show a placebo effects. The reason that is given is that the doctors might inadvertently give the patients physical cues that tell the patients whether they have a drug or not. However I doubt this would be the case unless all of the researchers either acted unethically and/or gave unconscious cues to the patients. I don’t think this is the case. The reason is that the patients become aware of what the research doctors know through relationship and ESP and this is something that the researchers deny. Even with no blinding at all there would still be a placebo effect in the drug group because it doesn’t matter what drug a doctor gives a patient, there will be at least some placebo effect. The efficacy of the drug is thus difficult, if not impossible, to determine. How to make the process of science objective? A new method needs to be found but the second problem stands in the way and it is an even bigger obstacle.

The second problem has to do with the cause of cancer. If it was due to the physical causes that the doctors consider then this problem disappears but the causes are not physical. Ideas and how a person reacts somatically to those ideas are the problem. When ideas are upheld in mind as beliefs they become the critical factor that causes the person to react and that reaction is physical. This means toxic people and foul play are involved. Ideas by themselves are lame. Psychiatrists try to make a case

that the ideas and the issues, especially of the past are responsible for troubling a person. This is rubbish. It is equivalent to blaming the words of a person’s language for that person’s distress and not admitting to the bully that said them.

If the cancer patient enters a drug trial or begins therapy then the chief offender gains an opportunity to further deceive the person they are abusing. There is no better way for a toxic chief offender, whose aim is to gain heavy handed power and influence over the person they stress, to convince their victim that they were really sick, than to have them believe the drugs had made them well. All they need to do is back off once the patient enters a drug trial. And of course the offender may play the role of the supportive friend, relative or spouse etc., who is standing by them during their illness. It just adds a guilt and / or obligation factor into the game. Many women with cancer marry the boyfriend that stood by them after cancer treatment or even during cancer treatment and often because they feel obligated. They don’t realize that the boyfriend may be the very reason they got cancer. And she won’t realize because the public is conditioned to believe in physical causes and genetic mistakes. How could he possibly be responsible for her having cancer? It seems inconceivable but to make sure she doesn’t start putting two and two together she would be surrounded by people that he has chosen to reinforce the medical view.

If the foul play stops then the cancer stops growing and the body begins the clean up process. So during their participation in the drug trial, whether taking the drug or not, they will have what is know as “a spontaneous remission” but of course neither the patient nor the doctors know this. If they are part of the intervention arm then the researchers will consider the drug worked. If they are in the placebo/ control arm then it will be considered that they had exhibited a placebo effect. How many would fall into that category? Maybe the majority of those who get well, if not all! For the doctors this will be frustrating because time after time the patients in the two arms of the drug trials will show little difference. Ah, you might say but some may get worse. True and is this a nocebo effect? Herein lies the third problem.

The third problem has to do with the safety of the drugs. Toxic people can use the fact that a person has started taking a drug or a new drug to play more foul games. They may create further problems for the person or they may convey ideas that the drug is harmful. Either way complications could develop in the patient or the patient may exhibit some adverse effect and it is reasonable for the research doctors to attribute this to the drug, if the patient is in the intervention arm. After all, the patient develops the problem at the same time as they started taking the drug. If they are in the control group then the problem of course will be considered as something coincidental and not be related to the drug. The drug’s safety may be brought into question and may be blamed for conditions that have nothing to do with the drug. Or somatic condition that arise, which are further complicated in the presence of the drug. So the drug may be prohibited citing safety issues, when in reality the drug is safe. And all of this can also be done by a drug company’s competitor if there are people in that company that are toxic and it can be easily done owing to the networking of toxic people.

In the next post I discuss the testing of Prayer, which is also problematic.


About kyrani99

I am a human rights activist and I live each day with the warrior spirit. I enjoy painting and writing and exercising together with my two wonderful dogs. I am a theist but of no particular religion.You are welcomed to my blog at
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s