Prostate Cancer Vaccine May Be Very Beneficial

A new vaccine by Dendreon Corporation has shown increased living time for men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. This would be the first vaccine to specifically help treat the disease that over 186,000 men get each year.

Unlike most vaccines (like MMR or rabies), the prostate cancer vaccine does not prevent disease; it actually trains the immune system to recognize tumor cells and attack them, which is a very useful strategy. To test the vaccine, Dendreon Corp. performed a study using 127 men.

In this study, men with advanced prostate cancer who took the vaccine lived a median of 26 months, or 4.5 months longer than men without it. Even better, 34% of men who got the vaccine were alive 3 years afterward, compared to only 11% of men who didn't get the vaccine. The study was not large enough for FDA approval, but Dendreon Corp. recently ran a study with 512 men involved. The results seen in this study were found to be very similar and should get more attention from the FDA.

This vaccine appears to be a great step forward, but I don't believe the effects are worth the cost for most people. It is a very expensive vaccine because each vaccine is customized for the patients own cells. USA Today predicts that the cost for the vaccine will be around $10,000 per month. Most families will not be able to afford this option, especially with the current recession.

This vaccine is a giant leap forward in the medical field, but until prices become substantially lower, it will be out of reach for most patients. Currently, the best and cheapest way to prevent prostate cancer is to get routine screenings so surgery/chemo can be performed before the disease gets out of hand. This way, advanced prostate cancer medications like the vaccine will not be necessary.

Ford Lowers Debt by Almost 10 Billion

Unlike its fellow counterparts GM and Chrysler, Ford Motor Company stated on Monday that they have been able to lower automotive debt by $9.9 billion, down to $15.9 billion from almost $26 billion at the end of last year. With this announcement today, Ford stock rose to 3.77 (up 16%). This announcement has greatly improved my confidence in Ford Motor Company.

Ford was able to achieve this milestone because of several different reasons. Ford made an agreement with the United Automobile Workers Union that would cut payments on health care for retired workers, a main factor in their present debt. In addition, Ford has bought out many of their higher-paid hourly workers and halted payments to executives.

Ford's platform should be a model for GM and Chrysler, who have yet to make an agreement with the United Automobile Workers Union. Ford's effort to reduce automotive debt during poor economic times is a step in the right direction for the American automobile manufacturer. It is unfortunate that cuts in retiree benefits were initiated, but steps like this must be taken to survive poor car sales during the current recession.

Hats off for Obama

For those of you that have read some of my past articles, you know that I have had many disagreements with president Obama. This current GM situation that has arisen, could have given Obama one more reason for me to disagree with him. He could have, once again, decided to bailout the automakers with a few hundred billion dollars, but in all honesty, I must say that I agree with him.

Obama did two things right: 1) He said that a  “pre-packaged” bankruptcy is the best conclusion for GM. The details of “pre-packaged” are not yet clear. 2) Wagoner was forced out. This situation, and quite frankly, my opinion, might offend many Americans. Many people may lose their jobs, and many more people may lose money in stocks, but we need to remember our values as Americans. Companies take risks, when a company like GM fails, all of America feels it, but we cannot let private companies become “risk-free”. A “risk-free” company is a nationalized company. We will understand more once “pre-packaged” bankruptcy is defined.

Wagoner needed to step down. Obama asked him to come up with a plan-of-attack and Wagoner could not do so. Any CEO that can no longer lead the company should step down. Thanks for your honesty Wagoner.

As of right now, Obama’s intentions are not yet clear. We do know that respect for capitalism is probably not the reason he chose not to bailout GM, but we do know he made a correct decision. I respect Obama for his decision today and hopefully it is for the right intentions tomorrow. 

#1 Killer of Economies: Emotion

The AIG fiasco has angered everyone. Dems and Repubs have come together, reaching across the aisle, to legislate something in honor of the AIG executives. Yes, like everyone else, I was pissed. How could these execs steal from the American tax-payer in this time of trouble? Was it immoral? Yes.

Before we address the rest of the AIG situation, let’s looks at a different perspective. When Obama and his team were doling out the $840 billion, did they not think someone somewhere would skim off the top? Of course they knew it would happen. About $167m was assigned to the AIG execs, that comes to about .0019% of the total bailout. Could the government possibly be blowing this whole situation out of proportion to keep the spotlight off themselves? I am not saying the AIG executives were being ethical, but is this really something we need to jump straight into legislation? As I said we were all mad, but we cannot legislate due to our emotions.

The contracts for the exec bonuses were made one year ago. Bernanke knew of the contracts as well. This issue should have been dealt with one year ago, but procrastination seems to be the American way. This emotional decision making needs to stop. Ask any successful company president, CEO, etc if they use emotion to direct their companies. America needs to be run as if it were a company. A profit seeking company not a bureaucracy. 

Free Antibiotics - A Stupid Decision

According to the New York Times, several smaller retail pharmacies around the country such as Wegman's Food Market, Publix, and ShopRite are offering free antibiotics this winter to compete with larger chains such as Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and CVS Pharmacy. This tactic has lured more patients to the smaller pharmacies, but the long term consequences of offering free antibiotics could harm the public much more than it helps.

Because of this, many patients have demanded that doctors give them a prescription for an antibiotic when it is not necessary. Antibiotics only work against bacterial infections, and patients that have a virus, such as influenza, might actually be hurting themselves by using them when it is not needed. Overusage of antibiotics increases drug resistance in humans. This decreases the effectiveness of the antibiotic in the future, when it may actually be needed.

Another major problem with increasing antibiotic resistance is the fact that most drug companies do not spend very much research and development in antibiotics. Being in a capitalist society, drug companies try to make as much money as possible. Why would a company create a new antibiotic that is used for 10 days when they could be developing a cholesterol lowering drug that patients would buy 30 days a month, 12 months a year?

Either doctors need to be much more strict in prescribing medications, or drug companies should focus more on the development of antibiotics. The only problem is that doctors want to keep patients happy so they will return, and drug companies want to choose the more lucrative option. This problem will probably not be solved soon, but doctor's must take responsibility and not hand out antibiotics like Jehovah's Witnesses leaflets.

Harvard Medical School Fails to Control Drug Industry Money

Arguably the top medical school in the country, Harvard Medical School received an "F" by the American Medical Student Association in monitoring drug industry money contributed to the university. This is a major problem because drug companies could be slipping money under the table to professors who promote their medication. This unethical behavior should not be tolerated by a prestigious school like Harvard.

The New York Times reported that earlier today Senator Grassley wrote a letter to Harvard asking for details about payments made to over 100 faculty members at Harvard Medical School. In the article, Grassley talks about how three Harvard psychiatrists failed to report at least $4.2 million in payments between 2000-2007.

It is a scary situation to think that professors are getting incentives by drug companies to promote their product, especially with an industry leader like Harvard at fault. This further proves the large extent of control that major pharmaceutical manufacturers have in the health care field. Hopefully Harvard will be able to get all of this straightened out within the next couple years, or its status as a prestigious medical institution could go down the drain.

Front Page News?

Yesterday, I was skimming the paper and the headlines when I ran across something that made me stop. On the front page of the Wall Street Journal was an article at the bottom named: “Silencing the Lambs: Scientists Target Sheep Belching to Cut Methane”.

You might ask yourself, “Why would scientists care about stopping sheep from belching?” I know that I asked myself that question. Well it turns out that sheep methane is a large cause to “global-warming”. Then I thought, “This is front page news? It really must have been a slow day for you Wall Street Journal!” Was there no other news in the entire world that could have been slightly more interesting? Personally, I do not even want to hear that scientists are being paid to figure out how to keep sheep from belching.

After noticing the article, my first instinct was to laugh. “Is this article a joke?” For the sake of my sanity, I am going to say that this article wasn’t even true. Wall Street Journal, you have let me down.

Forest Laboratories Accused of Fraud

The manufacturer of Celexa and Lexapro, Forest Laboratories, is in deep trouble with the US government by failing to report the negative side-effects of their drugs on children. Their studies showed that the drugs were not very effective in children and that they could lead to suicidal feelings as well.

By hiding these facts, Forest did not adequately inform the health care industry about the detrimental effects of their drugs, which is illegal. This led to doctors prescribing drugs that they did not know the whole truth about; therefore, the government is suing Forest for 3 times the amount of federal money spent on all pediatric prescriptions for Lexapro and Celexa.

In addition, Forest also used incentives such as gift certificates to restaurants and paid vacation to entice doctors to prescribe their medications. When Celexa’s active ingredient became generic in 2002 (citalopram), they marketed Lexapro, which is a different version of citalopram, an anti-depressant.

An article in the New York Times suggested that this is a common situation with many antidepressant manufacturers. Antidepressant makers try to hide the negative symptoms to further promote their drug. Most antidepressants can have negative side-effects, so doctors should take extra care when prescribing them.

Many doctors require a check up with patients several weeks to a month after prescribing the antidepressant to verify that the drug is doing its job. This is the best way to approach the problem because it minimizes potential problems caused by antidepressants. The healthcare industry is a lucrative business, but patient care must continue to be the highest priority for doctor’s in order to further benefit the health of our nation.