How Dangerous Cancer Drugs Had Endpoints Changed by Pharmaceutical Companies for FDA Approval

Executive Summary

• Pharmaceutical companies developed many dangerous chemotherapy drugs that they changed the endpoints on to obtain FDA approval.

Introduction

There is an easy way to rig a pharmaceutical study entirely accepted by the FDA, and the approach is to change the endpoint after the study has begun. This article will provide a fascinating quote on this topic. 

The Trick of The Changed Endpoint

This quote begins by discussing covid. However, it then switches to the topic of cancer drugs. The quote is highly illuminating because it describes a trick that pharmaceutical companies repeatedly use. This is covered in the quotation from US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity.”

No pivotal clinical trial for a vaccine preventing an infectious disease has ever demonstrated an improvement in health using these scientific measurements of health as a primary
endpoint.

Instead, vaccine clinical trials have relied on misleading surrogate endpoints of health such as infection rates with a specific infectious agent. Manufactures and government agents have made the scientifically disproved and dangerous philosophical argument that these surrogate endpoints equate to a health benefit. 

And this point is critical.

Choosing Among Multiple Endpoints

Pharmaceutical companies want to control the endpoint because they can choose the endpoint where their drug shows an effect. And the more, the merrier when it comes to endpoints.

For example, if a pharmaceutical company only has one endpoint it can test, its probability of showing no benefit from the test dramatically increases. If the pharmaceutical begins a study and is allowed to switch between endpoints, this dramatically increases the likelihood of a successful study, therefore obtaining approval and making money. Changing the endpoint was done by Fauci in the NIH-funded study into Remdesivir. How this was done is explained in the following quotation from Washington Times.

Dr. Anthony Fauci and others at the National Health Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases preferred remdesivir, a proprietary, intravenous drug manufactured by Gilead Sciences, costing about $3,500 per treatment, with unknown side effects.

Although, many doctors around the world were finding success with HCQ, in February 2020 NIH started enrolling patients for a remdesivir COVID-19 trial, with Dr. Fauci overseeing its progress. He had the final say on all the press releases, and presumably was working closely with Gilead.

On April 16 something funny happened with the trial — the endpoints of it were quietly changed and updated on the clinicaltrials.gov website. Instead of evaluating remdesivir’s ability to prevent death from COVID-19, the study was redesigned to evaluate how fast a patient recovered from remdesivir.

Now let us return to the quote before seeing how chemotherapy drug manufacturers made this same adjustment.

True medical scientists, outside the vaccine fields, have embraced the use of true health measurements as the proven proper scientific endpoint of clinical trials.

Decades ago, a pharmaceutical manufacturer would only need to show that a chemotherapeutic agent shrank a tumor or reduce cancer deaths to obtain FDA approval. Manufacturers would market their products under the fraudulent philosophical argument that shrinking tumors or reducing cancer deaths equates to improved survival. However, many of the toxic chemotherapeutic agents would destroy vital organs and actually reduce survival while decreasing cancer deaths at the same time.

The FDA and comparable agencies around the world switched to “all cause mortality” as the primary endpoint for pivotal cancer drug trails. The gold standard for marketing approval is to show that those receiving a cancer drug actually live longer than those who do not. Typically, new “miracle” anticancer drugs only prolong survival about 2 months but this added time may be spent severely ill suffering from adverse events caused by the chemotherapy. Application of true scientific principles often severely deflates the hype promoting pharmaceutical products. 

However, this approach was abandoned by the FDA concerning covid vaccines. The covid vaccines caused more harm than good because the FDA did not apply not harming. 

The FDA is allowing pharmaceutical companies to rig the endpoints and to decide what they consider an improvement to be accepted as an improvement. This is explained in the following quotation.

As discussed earlier with cancer treatments, a trial endpoint showing reduced cancer deaths is not equivalent to enhanced survival. One could apply enough radiation (or cytotoxic chemotherapy) to cancer patients to kill all their cancer cells and prevent cancer deaths but these cancer patients would die of radiation sickness (or chemotherapy induced organ failure) faster than if they died naturally of cancer. In the same manner, reducing severe COVID-19 infections does not equate to enhanced survival especially when the vaccine can cause clotting, heart disease and many other severe adverse events.

Conclusion

The pharmaceutical industry is constantly attempting, and in many cases succeeding in getting ineffective and dangerous drugs approved or given Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA. The FDA backed off its previous stance on cancer drugs and lowered the standard with covid vaccines to the point where the accepted vaccines degraded the subjects’ health. The vaccines are not working to do anything against covid.