You don't read newspapers, do you? This article is nothing but an exaggeration of the existing controversy surrounding the FDA.
In short, the FDA is under criticism for not green-lighting certain drugs for terminally ill patients; the reason is that the FDA's analysis is so weighted towards "absolute safety", that they refuse or delay drugs that have been shown to improve end-of-life care, but have dangerous side-effects. In short, drugs that will help a person who's going to die live a better life also carry a risk of complications if administered incorrectly or to the wrong person, moreso than many other drugs. They'd never be approved for general patient care, but they can do an awful lot to someone who's got zero chance of living.
Patients who are going to die essentially say "I'm going to die no matter what happens, but if the drug will help me enjoy my life a little better before the end, it's worth the risk - let me have the drug", but the FDA refuses to allow it. In short, instead of being bed-ridden all the time, the drugs sometimes allow the patients to get up and move around, with less pain and more mobility, thereby enjoying their life more. The drugs don't cure anything - they allow people who are terminally-ill to have a better quality of life before they die; but because the drugs carry a larger than normal risk of death, the FDA delays or outright refuses to allow them from reaching the market
It's a controversy that's been going on for decades, and every few months, a story about it pops up, or a newspaper like the WSJ runs an editorial about the latest drug that got denied and how the patients who want it are being ignored due to the FDA's onerous requirements.
It's not the "evil pharmaceutical industry" that's stopping these drugs - it's an FDA that's overly-cautious and has too much red-tape about approving new drugs, and it's been going on through multiple administrations for decades. It doesn't get much press because it's not a hot-button issue to most people, but it's a good example of too much Government, too much red tape, and a Government-panel of experts putting what it deems "best" ahead of doctors and their patients
Seriously - stop relying on all this conspiracy-theorist crap and educate yourself a bit.
You two really do have fun at this. Put a label on it. "It might kill you. Take at your own risk." The same folks that went to Dr. Kevorkian would sign up. Get the government out of our health.
If you read the labels on almost every drug, even aspirin, they already carry this warning, along with stroke, seizure, paralysis, etc - it's harder to get sued for a bad side-effect if you put it on the label.
I love the pharmaceutical commercials, "Certain side effects such as **** bleeding, going blind, losing limbs, death, slow painful melting of your skin and organ failure may occur...."
I love the pharmaceutical commercials, "Certain side effects such as **** bleeding, going blind, losing limbs, death, slow painful melting of your skin and organ failure may occur...."
thoughts of killing your family is my favorite to hear lol
I love the pharmaceutical commercials, "Certain side effects such as **** bleeding, going blind, losing limbs, death, slow painful melting of your skin and organ failure may occur...."
What's always puzzled me is the "side effects" listed that like the symptoms of the disorder. Like (in a confabulated example because my memory's not good enough to pull up a real one) "Prilosec OTC may cause indigestion, upset stomach, and diarrhea." I'm always left trying to figure out if they mean it might not work, or it might make things worse...
I love the pharmaceutical commercials, "Certain side effects such as **** bleeding, going blind, losing limbs, death, slow painful melting of your skin and organ failure may occur...."
So why wait? Click on...
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
You don't read newspapers, do you? This article is nothing but an exaggeration of the existing controversy surrounding the FDA.
In short, the FDA is under criticism for not green-lighting certain drugs for terminally ill patients; the reason is that the FDA's analysis is so weighted towards "absolute safety", that they refuse or delay drugs that have been shown to improve end-of-life care, but have dangerous side-effects. In short, drugs that will help a person who's going to die live a better life also carry a risk of complications if administered incorrectly or to the wrong person, moreso than many other drugs. They'd never be approved for general patient care, but they can do an awful lot to someone who's got zero chance of living.
Patients who are going to die essentially say "I'm going to die no matter what happens, but if the drug will help me enjoy my life a little better before the end, it's worth the risk - let me have the drug", but the FDA refuses to allow it. In short, instead of being bed-ridden all the time, the drugs sometimes allow the patients to get up and move around, with less pain and more mobility, thereby enjoying their life more. The drugs don't cure anything - they allow people who are terminally-ill to have a better quality of life before they die; but because the drugs carry a larger than normal risk of death, the FDA delays or outright refuses to allow them from reaching the market
It's a controversy that's been going on for decades, and every few months, a story about it pops up, or a newspaper like the WSJ runs an editorial about the latest drug that got denied and how the patients who want it are being ignored due to the FDA's onerous requirements.
It's not the "evil pharmaceutical industry" that's stopping these drugs - it's an FDA that's overly-cautious and has too much red-tape about approving new drugs, and it's been going on through multiple administrations for decades. It doesn't get much press because it's not a hot-button issue to most people, but it's a good example of too much Government, too much red tape, and a Government-panel of experts putting what it deems "best" ahead of doctors and their patients
Seriously - stop relying on all this conspiracy-theorist crap and educate yourself a bit.
dude, if anyone needs education it's you. I mean you are all about how great corporations are, and oh we shouldn't have any protections against them. I could figure as much, I mean people like you feel that people should be under the control of money when it comes to their life. pretty much sums it up. The whole thing over the FDA and drug companies trying to cover up anything that changes the way people get treatments is nothing new. Hell there's rumors of an aids cure, however it's suppressed. I believe a German scientist found a cure or at least cured the disease in a controlled environment. The simple way to explain it is this, private corporations run or work "closely" with much if not all govt agencies. It doesn't who matter who is in control it's the way it is. People like you push off anything that goes against what the news or any mainstream media pushes as facts as "conspiracies". I bet you still think that JFK was killed by Oswald? Or that 9-11 not only was committed by Muslims working alone, that the white house new nothing about it. Keep on burying your head, and being a slave to what "they" want you to believe. You have no idea how far stretching not only the corporate dominance over our very own government is, but that there is much more going on than what the GOP or Dems are doing. Conspiracies exist for a reason, sure some are way out there but all conspiracies have truth behind them in some way or fashion.
You don't read newspapers, do you? This article is nothing but an exaggeration of the existing controversy surrounding the FDA.
In short, the FDA is under criticism for not green-lighting certain drugs for terminally ill patients; the reason is that the FDA's analysis is so weighted towards "absolute safety", that they refuse or delay drugs that have been shown to improve end-of-life care, but have dangerous side-effects. In short, drugs that will help a person who's going to die live a better life also carry a risk of complications if administered incorrectly or to the wrong person, moreso than many other drugs. They'd never be approved for general patient care, but they can do an awful lot to someone who's got zero chance of living.
Patients who are going to die essentially say "I'm going to die no matter what happens, but if the drug will help me enjoy my life a little better before the end, it's worth the risk - let me have the drug", but the FDA refuses to allow it. In short, instead of being bed-ridden all the time, the drugs sometimes allow the patients to get up and move around, with less pain and more mobility, thereby enjoying their life more. The drugs don't cure anything - they allow people who are terminally-ill to have a better quality of life before they die; but because the drugs carry a larger than normal risk of death, the FDA delays or outright refuses to allow them from reaching the market
It's a controversy that's been going on for decades, and every few months, a story about it pops up, or a newspaper like the WSJ runs an editorial about the latest drug that got denied and how the patients who want it are being ignored due to the FDA's onerous requirements.
It's not the "evil pharmaceutical industry" that's stopping these drugs - it's an FDA that's overly-cautious and has too much red-tape about approving new drugs, and it's been going on through multiple administrations for decades. It doesn't get much press because it's not a hot-button issue to most people, but it's a good example of too much Government, too much red tape, and a Government-panel of experts putting what it deems "best" ahead of doctors and their patients
Seriously - stop relying on all this conspiracy-theorist crap and educate yourself a bit.
dude, if anyone needs education it's you. I mean you are all about how great corporations are, and oh we shouldn't have any protections against them. I could figure as much, I mean people like you feel that people should be under the control of money when it comes to their life. pretty much sums it up. The whole thing over the FDA and drug companies trying to cover up anything that changes the way people get treatments is nothing new. Hell there's rumors of an aids cure, however it's suppressed. I believe a German scientist found a cure or at least cured the disease in a controlled environment. The simple way to explain it is this, private corporations run or work "closely" with much if not all govt agencies. It doesn't who matter who is in control it's the way it is. People like you push off anything that goes against what the news or any mainstream media pushes as facts as "conspiracies". I bet you still think that JFK was killed by Oswald? Or that 9-11 not only was committed by Muslims working alone, that the white house new nothing about it. Keep on burying your head, and being a slave to what "they" want you to believe. You have no idea how far stretching not only the corporate dominance over our very own government is, but that there is much more going on than what the GOP or Dems are doing. Conspiracies exist for a reason, sure some are way out there but all conspiracies have truth behind them in some way or fashion.
The protection you have against corporations are you get to choose which ones you do buisness with. Your big govenment ideas will take that away more and more by forcing out people who can't afford to deal with all the regulations. I'm sorry if you feel you can't make good decisions for yourself, but I think alot of us rather enjoy independence from tyranny and the ability to make our own choices.
So these huge conspiracies you talk about.... you really think the number of people who would have to be involved could keep that secret for very long?
Pheebs - the German dude you are talking about effectively cured a man's case of AIDs while treating his leukemia with some type of stem-cell based therapy.
dude, if anyone needs education it's you. I mean you are all about how great corporations are, and oh we shouldn't have any protections against them. I could figure as much, I mean people like you feel that people should be under the control of money when it comes to their life. pretty much sums it up.
Sooo . . .. since I disagree with you, I must be under the control of some evil corporate money? Seems no one could ever disagree with you out of difference of opinion, *cue choir* Hey, must da monay!!
phobicsquirrel:
The whole thing over the FDA and drug companies trying to cover up anything that changes the way people get treatments is nothing new. Hell there's rumors of an aids cure, however it's suppressed. I believe a German scientist found a cure or at least cured the disease in a controlled environment. The simple way to explain it is this, private corporations run or work "closely" with much if not all govt agencies. It doesn't who matter who is in control it's the way it is.
IIRC, the aids "cure" you're talking about is a drug cocktail that can inhibit the virus from taking hold in the body, but only if it's taken within 48 hrs of contracting the disease, and even then, it's not guaranteed.
phobicsquirrel:
People like you push off anything that goes against what the news or any mainstream media pushes as facts as "conspiracies". I bet you still think that JFK was killed by Oswald? Or that 9-11 not only was committed by Muslims working alone, that the white house new nothing about it.
. . . wow.
phobicsquirrel:
Keep on burying your head, and being a slave to what "they" want you to believe. You have no idea how far stretching not only the corporate dominance over our very own government is, but that there is much more going on than what the GOP or Dems are doing. Conspiracies exist for a reason, sure some are way out there but all conspiracies have truth behind them in some way or fashion.
dude, if anyone needs education it's you. I mean you are all about how great corporations are, and oh we shouldn't have any protections against them. I could figure as much, I mean people like you feel that people should be under the control of money when it comes to their life. pretty much sums it up.
Sooo . . .. since I disagree with you, I must be under the control of some evil corporate money? Seems no one could ever disagree with you out of difference of opinion, *cue choir* Hey, must da monay!!
phobicsquirrel:
The whole thing over the FDA and drug companies trying to cover up anything that changes the way people get treatments is nothing new. Hell there's rumors of an aids cure, however it's suppressed. I believe a German scientist found a cure or at least cured the disease in a controlled environment. The simple way to explain it is this, private corporations run or work "closely" with much if not all govt agencies. It doesn't who matter who is in control it's the way it is.
IIRC, the aids "cure" you're talking about is a drug cocktail that can inhibit the virus from taking hold in the body, but only if it's taken within 48 hrs of contracting the disease, and even then, it's not guaranteed.
phobicsquirrel:
People like you push off anything that goes against what the news or any mainstream media pushes as facts as "conspiracies". I bet you still think that JFK was killed by Oswald? Or that 9-11 not only was committed by Muslims working alone, that the white house new nothing about it.
. . . wow.
phobicsquirrel:
Keep on burying your head, and being a slave to what "they" want you to believe. You have no idea how far stretching not only the corporate dominance over our very own government is, but that there is much more going on than what the GOP or Dems are doing. Conspiracies exist for a reason, sure some are way out there but all conspiracies have truth behind them in some way or fashion.
Pheebs - the German dude you are talking about effectively cured a man's case of AIDs while treating his leukemia with some type of stem-cell based therapy.
Yeah that was one of them. There's been breakthroughs on the AIDS front for some time, however it's usually taken care of one way or another. There's no money in curing diseases anymore.
Pheebs - the German dude you are talking about effectively cured a man's case of AIDs while treating his leukemia with some type of stem-cell based therapy.
Yeah that was one of them. There's been breakthroughs on the AIDS front for some time, however it's usually taken care of one way or another. There's no money in curing diseases anymore.
ROFL, can you imagine the price you could charge for a cure for aids?
I think pheebs is right..... You know, my cell phone's been acting up lately. Either the gov't is tracking me and it's interfering with my performance or I must be due for an upgrade.
Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
I think pheebs is right..... You know, my cell phone's been acting up lately. Either the gov't is tracking me and it's interfering with my performance or I must be due for an upgrade.
No, it's the aliens using our technology to communicate with each other to plan a massive attack on our planet! Didn't you see Independence Day? Geez! lol
I think pheebs is right..... You know, my cell phone's been acting up lately. Either the gov't is tracking me and it's interfering with my performance or I must be due for an upgrade.
No, it's the aliens using our technology to communicate with each other to plan a massive attack on our planet! Didn't you see Independence Day? Geez! lol
Comments
You don't read newspapers, do you? This article is nothing but an exaggeration of the existing controversy surrounding the FDA.
In short, the FDA is under criticism for not green-lighting certain drugs for terminally ill patients; the reason is that the FDA's analysis is so weighted towards "absolute safety", that they refuse or delay drugs that have been shown to improve end-of-life care, but have dangerous side-effects. In short, drugs that will help a person who's going to die live a better life also carry a risk of complications if administered incorrectly or to the wrong person, moreso than many other drugs. They'd never be approved for general patient care, but they can do an awful lot to someone who's got zero chance of living.
Patients who are going to die essentially say "I'm going to die no matter what happens, but if the drug will help me enjoy my life a little better before the end, it's worth the risk - let me have the drug", but the FDA refuses to allow it. In short, instead of being bed-ridden all the time, the drugs sometimes allow the patients to get up and move around, with less pain and more mobility, thereby enjoying their life more. The drugs don't cure anything - they allow people who are terminally-ill to have a better quality of life before they die; but because the drugs carry a larger than normal risk of death, the FDA delays or outright refuses to allow them from reaching the market
It's a controversy that's been going on for decades, and every few months, a story about it pops up, or a newspaper like the WSJ runs an editorial about the latest drug that got denied and how the patients who want it are being ignored due to the FDA's onerous requirements.
It's not the "evil pharmaceutical industry" that's stopping these drugs - it's an FDA that's overly-cautious and has too much red-tape about approving new drugs, and it's been going on through multiple administrations for decades. It doesn't get much press because it's not a hot-button issue to most people, but it's a good example of too much Government, too much red tape, and a Government-panel of experts putting what it deems "best" ahead of doctors and their patients
Seriously - stop relying on all this conspiracy-theorist crap and educate yourself a bit.
Put a label on it. "It might kill you. Take at your own risk." The same folks that went to Dr. Kevorkian would sign up. Get the government out of our health.
And I do have fun with this
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
"Long ashes my friends."
People like you push off anything that goes against what the news or any mainstream media pushes as facts as "conspiracies". I bet you still think that JFK was killed by Oswald? Or that 9-11 not only was committed by Muslims working alone, that the white house new nothing about it. Keep on burying your head, and being a slave to what "they" want you to believe. You have no idea how far stretching not only the corporate dominance over our very own government is, but that there is much more going on than what the GOP or Dems are doing. Conspiracies exist for a reason, sure some are way out there but all conspiracies have truth behind them in some way or fashion.
So these huge conspiracies you talk about.... you really think the number of people who would have to be involved could keep that secret for very long?