Like many cancer survivors who have undergone chemotherapy, I have often said, "The treatment was worse than the disease." How come, despite the very dangerous side effects of chemotherapy, it still seems to be the treatment of choice for many oncologists? Do you think it is because the chemotherapy administration is very profitable for the oncologists?
One thing you must know is that cancer doctors are allowed to profit from the sale of chemotherapy drugs? It is completely limited and exclusive to oncologists. Sincerely I don't think i know of any other group of doctors who are allowed to profit from the sale of drugs.
Think about this. There is this significant amount of revenue for oncologists comes from the profit they make from selling the chemotherapy drugs. Do you think that's why chemotherapy is so widely used by oncologists? Is it all about the money?
Do you think oncologists might be tempted to give you the drug that will benefit them the most? I like to have the confidence that my doctor wants the best for me. Unfortunately, the money incentives do something to destroy my faith.
This is what I think is a perfect example of that. Trisha Torrey, was told by her doctor, "You have a very rare cancer - a lymphoma - called subcutaneous panniculitis-like T-cell lymphoma." Her GP referred her to an oncologist. Hearing the major news from the oncologist was very discouraging. She was told she would be dead by Christmas without chemo. Then she needed to asked about the possibility that the lab results were wrong. She was told, "No — no chance. Know two major labs independently confirmed the results." She said the pressure was mounting to start chemotherapy.
Terry asked the opinion of another oncologist. Three weeks later, in late September, she received confirmation that she did not, in fact, have cancer. Is it possible that her first oncologist pressured her to get chemotherapy because of the money he would make? In this case I don't know, but it's a scary thought.
Oncologists are very similar to shopkeepers. Hopefully according to one of the recent NBC News Report, oncologists earn most of their income by buying products (drugs) wholesale and selling them to patients retail.
Like any business owner, private practice oncologists are entitled to and earn a living. My question is; should they make their money treating patients or SELLING the drugs? Meanwhile other types of doctors don't have that option.
And where do you think the oncologists get their information about the drugs they sell? It comes from the pharmaceutical salesman. Do you think that information could be biased?
How did this practice come about?
It started because Medicare and the insurance companies wanted to save money by transferring cancer treatments from the hospital to oncologists in private practice. Again, it's all about the money. Unfortunately, that greed backfired and we, the patients, pay the price. Since those policies were introduced, prices for many cancer drugs have risen to tens of thousands of dollars a year.
All chemotherapy drugs used in the United States are FDA-approved. Does that make them safe? Do you think drug companies influence the FDA to approve dangerous drugs in the same way they influence cancer doctors in private practice? I do.
I think the drug companies and their lobbyists have too much influence on the decision-making and policy of oncologists and the FDA.
The FDA is known to have allowed many drugs, including chemotherapy, to remain on the market despite serious risk factors. How come dangerous drugs were approved by the FDA and oncologists make significant profits from selling them? Meet the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the pharmaceutical industry trading group
PhRMA lobbied for the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992. The drug industry agreed to help fund the approval process — in exchange for an FDA promise to speed up deliberations. Does this make the FDA financially obligated to the industry it should regulate? I think so.
There are many natural non-toxic chemotherapy agents that kill malignancies. Laetrile, which is basically vitamin B17, selectively seeks out and destroys cancer cells and is available in many plant foods. It does that without harming the healthy cells. Perhaps the farmers who grow those plants should give oncologists a commission for the sale of their crops.
Despite the tone of this article, I AM NOT AGAINST going to an oncologist for cancer treatment. I am not against all chemotherapy treatments. I suggest you do what Trisha Torrey did; get a second opinion.
I nearly died from my first two chemotherapy treatments. I also felt that the oncologists were arrogant and selfish. Then that makes me not to feel comfortable with them at all. Then I made up my mind to returned to the cape where I live and started my treatment all over again. My doctor on the cape, Dr. Victor Aviles, did indeed treat me with chemotherapy. Definitely that was not the same medicine as the doctors from Boston. I don't believe he chose this drug for profit. Definitely speaking it has been the drug best suited for my particular cancer. I always felt very comfortable with him.