A couple of weeks ago I wrote about a remarkable study, just published in the BMJ which had found that over half of the new cancer drugs released onto the market in a four year period by the EU drugs regulator had no good evidence that they were effective. In other words, there was also no evidence that their benefits outweighed their risk or that they were value for money.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about a remarkable study, just published in the BMJ which had found that over half of the new cancer drugs released onto the market in a four year period by the EU drugs regulator had no good evidence that they were effective. In other words, there was also no evidence that their benefits outweighed their risk or that they were value for money.

Cancer drugs can come with nasty side-effects, we know that, but they are worth taking because they have been properly scientifically tested and found to help patients live longer and have a better quality of life. But the latest research shows that the reality is not so comforting. Over half of new drugs are being prescribed to patients with little or no evidence they do any good at all. Here’s how it works.

Why are some cases of cancer cleared from the body after surgery while others lurk, waiting to metastasize and emerge elsewhere months or even years later? There is no good answer at the moment because the conditions that allow these invaders to flourish doesn’t fit with our gene-focused theory of how and why cancer develops in the first place.

It’s hardly news that things have not been going well for various professional elites lately. Economists so busy promoting the neo-liberal agenda they failed to notice the on-coming depression; politicians resolutely deaf to constituents’ complaints that generosity to those at the top had destroyed jobs and cut wages at the bottom.

Last week a ‘Presidential Advisory Statement’ about saturated fat from the American Heart Association (AHA) produced a ‘you cannot be serious’ reaction from anyone who has looked at the evidence for the theory that saturated fat raises the risk of heart disease.

Patients hoping for a diet to help with diabetes are doomed to disappointment in South Africa. Meanwhile over a billion pounds has been spent in the UK on cancer drugs that don’t work, says a new report. In South Africa, the scientist who blew the whistle is in the dock…

Three events I have attended in the last month highlight the fact that the Government’s Eatwell Guide is not just clearly unhealthy but indefensibly so.

Last week I ended my post with the finger pointing firmly at sugar (glucose) in the blood as being a vital source of fuel for cancer growth. Turning cancerous has the effect of re-wiring a cell’s energy production system so it becomes more demanding and less efficient (known as glycolosis).

Last week I ended my post with the finger pointing firmly at sugar (glucose) in the blood as being a vital source of fuel for cancer growth. Turning cancerous has the effect of re-wiring a cell’s energy production system so it becomes more demanding and less efficient (known as glycolosis).