So looks like most of the Democrats in the house are against easing the use of experimental or unproven drugs for terminally ill patients. Sounds to me like big pharma wants to protect and keep their insanely expensive chemo treatments god forbid we should have anything that cures someone. If someone has no hope we already know the dismal outcomes that most chemo treatments provide. If you are terminally ill with no hope and current treatments are not working I say they should have the right to try anything they want. They can sign a waiver or whatever. I mean what have they got to lose?..FDA? give me a damn break how many commericals have you seen on TV from lawyers from some FDA approved drug that crippled or killed someone? FDA another bureaucratic nightmare. No wonder people want to go out of the country to find alternative medicine when they have a terminal diagnosis. Gotta love the quote from Democrat Frank Pallone from NJ "The last thing I want to do is give patients false hope and to put them at risk" by reducing the FDA's powers, What a damn moron. Hope? What hope ? I sure hope no one in his family has to face that you can bet your ass he would sing a different tune ..I have had way too many friends and family that have died from cancer way too young. I say if you are facing immanent mortality from cancer or any other illness and current treatment options available here are not working for you that you should have the right to try anything you can get your hands on.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business ... story.html

I built a jet. Looks state of the art, very clean, and very modern. Has not flown yet. If you're telling me that you'd pay for it to take you to a different airport, I have a forest in the middle of the Sahara I'd like to show you.

I read that in the US you can get stem cell treatments of all kinds without any approval by any authority as long as the cells come from yourself (extracted from your fat). As a consequence, plenty of horror stories.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I built a jet. Looks state of the art, very clean, and very modern. Has not flown yet. If you're telling me that you'd pay for it to take you to a different airport, I have a forest in the middle of the Sahara I'd like to show you.

What kind of analogy is that supposed to be? You have a terminal illness no chance you will live but a few months are you telling me that you would not try something that hasn't been proven yet but maybe looked promising? How do you think drugs even get to market anyway. They are tested on something be it animals or even human trials so what is the difference? It can't do any more damage than chemo does that's for sure. If it does not work and you die well than you took a chance and lost you were going to die anyway but you might have had at least a chance.

My favorite quotes from the link below.

""If I had a terminal diagnosis, I'd even consider injecting monkey urine if I thought it would give me a few more months, a few more years with my children," said Rep. Morgan Griffith , R-Va."

"Critics said the measure misleadingly suggests the FDA is the bottleneck to providing the experimental treatments. They say the more common hurdle is manufacturers, which often prefer to use their limited quantities of early-stage drugs for clinical trials needed to gain final FDA approval for wide-spread sales or worry that a setback could damage the product's marketability.

Scott Gottlieb, FDA commissioner and a Trump appointee, told Congress in October that 70 percent of the experimental drugs his agency currently lets seriously ill patients use are never approved.

"The vast majority of people" granted access to unproven treatments "are using a drug that doesn't work," he said.
"

stratosphere wrote:

They are tested on something be it animals or even human trials so what is the difference?

You've answered your own question: they're tested in formal human trials.

I mean, here's another question: will the experimental drugs be given at no charge (test-drive)? Reduced price? Will the company cover all healthcare for any unintended side-effects? Or is that the responsibility of the lazy patient who had it coming?

When it comes to drugs, I'll stick to what's proven to work, even if it takes longer (yes, I'll take chemo over an experimental drug that can cause more harm than good). You complain about Democrats siding with big pharma, but (since we're talking about conspiracies) what's stopping big pharma from having clinical trials and releasing medicine that works? And, along those lines, what interest does the FDA have in blocking treatments that are proven to work from being out in the market?

I do believe it should be allowed for terminal patients who wish to accept experimental treatments. Create a process to allow it as right now companies cannot administer it as they will run against the FDA and could have they applications revoked or be charged etc. There are even many treatments that are well accepted and use in the EU and other nations that are still being reviewed by the FDA that aren't allowed to be used. It needs to ease.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

I do believe it should be allowed for terminal patients who wish to accept experimental treatments. Create a process to allow it as right now companies cannot administer it as they will run against the FDA and could have they applications revoked or be charged etc. There are even many treatments that are well accepted and use in the EU and other nations that are still being reviewed by the FDA that aren't allowed to be used. It needs to ease.

Tugg

According to the article, there is a process and 99% are approved by the FDA.

cledaybuck wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I do believe it should be allowed for terminal patients who wish to accept experimental treatments. Create a process to allow it as right now companies cannot administer it as they will run against the FDA and could have they applications revoked or be charged etc. There are even many treatments that are well accepted and use in the EU and other nations that are still being reviewed by the FDA that aren't allowed to be used. It needs to ease.

Tugg

According to the article, there is a process and 99% are approved by the FDA.

From what I have read that process is difficult and very time consuming and arduous. It appears designed to block as many possible requests as possible so that only the few (thousand) that make it through are ones that can be approved.

If this bill at best/worst changes nothing why not approve it? If basically all requests are approved why not approve it or at least support it?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I do believe it should be allowed for terminal patients who wish to accept experimental treatments. Create a process to allow it as right now companies cannot administer it as they will run against the FDA and could have they applications revoked or be charged etc. There are even many treatments that are well accepted and use in the EU and other nations that are still being reviewed by the FDA that aren't allowed to be used. It needs to ease.

Tugg

According to the article, there is a process and 99% are approved by the FDA.

From what I have read that process is difficult and very time consuming and arduous. It appears designed to block as many possible requests as possible so that only the few (thousand) that make it through are ones that can be approved.

If this bill at best/worst changes nothing why not approve it? If basically all requests are approved why not approve it or at least support it?

Tugg

I honestly don't know enough about that procedure or this bill to answer whether I would support it or not. Can anyone explain why 2/3 majority was required?

casinterest wrote:

My favorite quotes from the link below.

""If I had a terminal diagnosis, I'd even consider injecting monkey urine if I thought it would give me a few more months, a few more years with my children," said Rep. Morgan Griffith , R-Va."
"

Pretty sure there are anti vaxxers and GOOP devotees doing that now

stratosphere wrote:

So looks like most of the Democrats in the house are against easing the use of experimental or unproven drugs for terminally ill patients.

Good thing the Republicans control the House, so they don't have to worry what the Democrats think in order to pass bills they want to pass.