Breast cancer drug shown to reduce recurrence risk

It's good this drug company and ASCO are taking the lead on this, as the WHO would run it into the ground.

What evidence do you have to assume the WHO could not test a new drug to demonstrate efficacy? several different therapeutic interventions have been evaluated without problems and incorporated into the recommendations for the different countries. The difference is that private companies obviously prioritize things that can give important profits while the WHO is focused on those that have better cost/benefit rations (for example repurposed drugs).

In the case of Novartis they bet for the development of an effective Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor and dedicate all the necessary resources without having to worry about leaving other health care needs unaddressed by this investment. Even if the drug ended up being ineffective they would eventually recover the cost with the profits from their other products.

What evidence do you have to assume the WHO could not test a new drug to demonstrate efficacy?

They obviously didn't because according too the article:

Novartis said in a statement it planned to submit the data to regulatory authorities in the US and Europe before the end of the year.

They obviously didn't because according too the article:

The question is not if they did it or not, but what is the basis of your claim that they would fail if they did it. There is nothing in the article that could indicate that, the WHO is completely unrelated to the topic and has successfully tested many different therapeutic interventions without problem.

The question is not if they did it or not, but what is the basis of your claim that they would fail if they did it. There is nothing in the article that could indicate that, the WHO is completely unrelated to the topic and has successfully tested many different therapeutic interventions without problem.

Now you're trying to claim the WHO developed a drug that reduces the risk of breast cancer by a quarter in a large group of early-stage survivors!!!

Incredible news.

Please provide a link.

Now you're trying to claim the WHO developed a drug that reduces the risk of breast cancer by a quarter in a large group of early-stage survivors!!!

Nothing in your quote says this, the text clearly and unequivocally says that the claim that the WHO would have "run to the ground" the study is not only completely out of topic for this article (that has nothing to do with the WHO) but also is completely baseless.

Nothing in your quote says this, the text clearly and unequivocally says that the claim that the WHO would have "run to the ground" the study is not only completely out of topic for this article (that has nothing to do with the WHO) but also is completely baseless.

So this affirms it.

You have no link showing the WHO developed a drug that reduces the risk of breast cancer by a quarter in a large group of early-stage survivors like Novartis did.

No one is surprised. Especially the medical experts of the world.

So this affirms it.

Why quote text and then make up something completely unrelated?

The quote clearly denies your claim.

You have no link showing the WHO developed a drug that reduces the risk of breast cancer by a quarter in a large group of early-stage survivors like Novartis did.

that would be because this is a claim only you have made. My argument is that the WHO is still completely unrelated to this article, not matter how many times you try to comment about it, and that there is no basis to assume it would fail any clinical trial in which it would be involved (again, not this one).

So no, the WHO is still unrelated to the topic the same as two days ago.

Why quote text and then make up something completely unrelated?

Wrong. If you read the actual text instead of spamming the same non sequiturs over and over maybe you would understand the context.

So no, the WHO is still unrelated to the topic the same as two days ago.

It's unrelated to you because you cannot dispute the reality.

Unless you are saying the WHO has nothing ti do with global health.

Are you saying now the WHO is not related to global health and its achievements?

Wrong. If you read the actual text instead of spamming the same non sequiturs over and over maybe you would understand the context.

The non-sequitur is pretending a claim only you have made comes from anybody else, you have repeatedly failed to quote where anybody but you have made the claim the WHO is involved in any way with this article, instead you quote me explicitly saying they are not.

It's unrelated to you because you cannot dispute the reality.

You have been unable to provide any reason to relate the WHO to this article, that means it is completely off topic in this article.

Unless you are saying the WHO has nothing ti do with global health.

I am saying it has nothing to do with the clinical trials of this article, pretending they are is where your comments become off topic.