The Sheet invited four professionals involved in phosphoethanolamine of research for the debate, but only got refusals.
Lopes opened the discussion stating understand the personal side of those who suffer from the disease, citing several cases of cancer that he had in the family. & Quot; This side understands the patient clings to the promise of a magic pill & quot ;. He wondered, however, that today the pill showed no beneficial effects to cure patients, the analysis of the scientific community.
He rejected an impression that, according to him, pro-phospho activists try to impute to the public: that doctors and the press have a conspiracy with the pharmaceutical industry to stop the drugs. & Quot; I want is to be sure about what I’m giving the patient. & Quot;
Helano Freitas points out that this conspiratorial vision reaches oppose patients to doctors when they raise doubts about the phospho for those who are sure of their effectiveness. & Quot; It seems that opponents turned & quot ;. Freitas says the improvement in claims of their patients who take the pill are not supported by tests. & Quot; And they say we is that we are not seeing. & Quot;
& Quot; The approval of the pill as a drug without going through clinical trials, is how to lead a preschool child to university, & quot; compares Freitas. The problem, he says, is that were not collected enough data or to indicate whether the substance is toxic. & Quot; What we have seen so far is that the contents of the capsules is irregular, combining phosphoethanolamine with other substances & quot ;.
Mauricio Tuffani, the & quot; Scientific American Brazil & quot ;, indicates that it is the role of the press to mediate between science and part of the friendly society to release the pills, being skeptical of both sides. But it says that this is also the role of representatives in Congress, that & quot; is not there only to represent the people, but also to mediate. That’s the difference between democracy and demagoguery. & Quot;
He also points out that, first of all, the judiciary intervened improperly to force the USP to distribute the drug activity, he said, should not be the responsibility of the university.
In his view, the drug’s approval in Congress has eroded the authority of ANVISA (National Health Surveillance Agency) and illustrates the lack of rationality of public debate, which bequeathed now a & quot; completely cornered President & quot; the decision to punish or not the measure. & Quot; It was a slap in the face of all who are working seriously on the subject & quot ;.
Lopes described the approval in Congress & quot; populist & quot ;. & Quot; It’s easier just to approve drugs that speed up the search & quot ;.
The oncologist also urged the need to change the focus of popular mobilization. Instead of defending the release of an untested drug, he said, it is better to channel the energy to charge more quickly than public health system in diagnosing and treating cancer and to incorporate new drugs.