phosphoethanolamine pills to cancer patients. Moreover, preclinical in vitro (toxicity to some tumor cell lines) and in vivo tests (rodent xenograft tumor growth assays) on a possible antitumor activity of Phosphoethanolamine yielded disappointing results. Despite the lack of experimental and clinical evidence for anticancer efficacy of the Phosphoethanolamine pill, its reputation as a drug effective against otherwise untreatable advanced cancers rapidly spread among patients out of therapeutic possibility.
The popular belief regarding the effectiveness of the Phosphoethanolamine pill
against malignant tumors is typically a medical bandwagon. The authorization to test a new drug in patients in the absence of evidences of potential therapeutic usefulness and without a comprehensive preclinical safety evaluation breaks a cornerstone rule of human research ethics. According to internationally-accepted ethical principles (Declaration of Helsinki, paragraph 11) “...clinical testing must be preceded by adequate laboratory or animal experimentation to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success without undue
risks” 4 (p. 47). It is unclear why the National Committee on Research Ethics exempted Phosphoethanolamine from a preclinical evaluation, thereby making a worrisome case-law for further clinical trial applications.
Neither the Legislative nor the Executive branches honored their Constitutional duty to safeguard the people’s health, as duly expressed in article 196 of the 1988 Federal Constitution, i.e., it is the duty of the state to develop public policies to reduce diseases
and to promote, protect, and reclaim health. A Brazilian Oncologist Dr. Raul Cutait was incisive in stating that hope should be part of prescriptions in the physician-patient partnership, in the struggle against diseases, but that it should never be offered without scientific validation: “otherwise one runs the risk of promoting quackery”
This can be related to covid-19 vaccine. Majority says vaccines are safe and effective while no studies report about its long-term effects and vaccine injuries and deaths are disregarded when it comes to safety. Let the injuries and deaths be only for a small group of people, but you still say it’s safe because you appeal to the majority. The vaccine we had in our childhood were tested for at least 5 years if not decades before approval for the public. The recent ebola vaccine took 5 years before approval. Taking 5 years in an epidemic‽ That's pretty bad.This covid vaccine has only been tested for only one year and it’s been approved for the public.
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug, while hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial drug which is also used against few autoimmune diseases, The majority says it shouldn’t be used and it’s a horse dewormer. And we have doctors who prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for covid-19 treatment. Just because most people say it shouldn’t be used, it doesn’t mean the one who prescribes it for their patients for covid-19 treatment are wrong and spreads misinformation. Just don’t take ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine without your doctor’s advice and nag about it. Come up with an argument that’s scientifically sound which should say it’s unfit for human use and it’s toxic (except it’s not).
Sources:
1) Cohen, L., & Rothschild, H. (1979). The Bandwagons of Medicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 22(4), 531–538. doi:10.1353/pbm.1979.0037
https://sci-hub.st/10.1353/pbm.1979.0037
2) Paumgartten FJ. Phosphoethanolamine: anticancer pill bandwagon effectThe authors replyLei nº 13.269/2016: a comoção da sociedade vence o método científico!Câncer: esperança e ciência. Cad Saude Publica. 2016 Oct 20;32(10):e00135316. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00135316
https://www.scielo.br/j/csp/a/LLsXtT347Vw4bxM8fn7pByj/?lang=en&format=pdf
#bandwagon #majority #popularity #ivermectin #vaccine #covid
The popular belief regarding the effectiveness of the Phosphoethanolamine pill
against malignant tumors is typically a medical bandwagon. The authorization to test a new drug in patients in the absence of evidences of potential therapeutic usefulness and without a comprehensive preclinical safety evaluation breaks a cornerstone rule of human research ethics. According to internationally-accepted ethical principles (Declaration of Helsinki, paragraph 11) “...clinical testing must be preceded by adequate laboratory or animal experimentation to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success without undue
risks” 4 (p. 47). It is unclear why the National Committee on Research Ethics exempted Phosphoethanolamine from a preclinical evaluation, thereby making a worrisome case-law for further clinical trial applications.
Neither the Legislative nor the Executive branches honored their Constitutional duty to safeguard the people’s health, as duly expressed in article 196 of the 1988 Federal Constitution, i.e., it is the duty of the state to develop public policies to reduce diseases
and to promote, protect, and reclaim health. A Brazilian Oncologist Dr. Raul Cutait was incisive in stating that hope should be part of prescriptions in the physician-patient partnership, in the struggle against diseases, but that it should never be offered without scientific validation: “otherwise one runs the risk of promoting quackery”
This can be related to covid-19 vaccine. Majority says vaccines are safe and effective while no studies report about its long-term effects and vaccine injuries and deaths are disregarded when it comes to safety. Let the injuries and deaths be only for a small group of people, but you still say it’s safe because you appeal to the majority. The vaccine we had in our childhood were tested for at least 5 years if not decades before approval for the public. The recent ebola vaccine took 5 years before approval. Taking 5 years in an epidemic‽ That's pretty bad.This covid vaccine has only been tested for only one year and it’s been approved for the public.
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug, while hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial drug which is also used against few autoimmune diseases, The majority says it shouldn’t be used and it’s a horse dewormer. And we have doctors who prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for covid-19 treatment. Just because most people say it shouldn’t be used, it doesn’t mean the one who prescribes it for their patients for covid-19 treatment are wrong and spreads misinformation. Just don’t take ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine without your doctor’s advice and nag about it. Come up with an argument that’s scientifically sound which should say it’s unfit for human use and it’s toxic (except it’s not).
Sources:
1) Cohen, L., & Rothschild, H. (1979). The Bandwagons of Medicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 22(4), 531–538. doi:10.1353/pbm.1979.0037
https://sci-hub.st/10.1353/pbm.1979.0037
2) Paumgartten FJ. Phosphoethanolamine: anticancer pill bandwagon effectThe authors replyLei nº 13.269/2016: a comoção da sociedade vence o método científico!Câncer: esperança e ciência. Cad Saude Publica. 2016 Oct 20;32(10):e00135316. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00135316
https://www.scielo.br/j/csp/a/LLsXtT347Vw4bxM8fn7pByj/?lang=en&format=pdf
#bandwagon #majority #popularity #ivermectin #vaccine #covid
