Drug companies, my bad. So you are claiming that people being able to use trial medicine instead of simply dying is a bad thing and you don't support it because. "drug companies"
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I'm just not feeling it...
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
Drug companies, my bad. So you are claiming that people being able to use trial medicine instead of simply dying is a bad thing and you don't support it because. "drug companies"
The FDA exists for a reason. Bypassing the FDA for patients to seek experimental treatment is dangerous as shit. Also, this bill lets those companies maintain exclusivity over the patent, which means what for consumers and patients?
You know what's more dangerous?
death.
Someone is dying of a terminal illness, you are agains them trying anything they want?
So lets cut to the chase, you are against the "Right to try bill".
Yes, because of the fine print.
Drug companies, my bad. So you are claiming that people being able to use trial medicine instead of simply dying is a bad thing and you don't support it because. "drug companies"
No, I oppose it for a variety of reasons:
1. It's not approved by the FDA, so that means it's dangerous as shit.
2. It doesn't reform the patent exclusivity which is then used to jack up the cost on patients
3. It's a gift to drug companies who develop and run trials on experimental medicine, funded by taxpayers, whose cost is then also borne by taxpayers to receive the treatment taxpayers paid to fund.
You know what's more dangerous? death
Oh really?
What if said medicine is administered in trials and it creates a longer, more prolonged side effect of suffering beyond the condition the medicine was supposed to treat?
Would you risk that as a patient?
I think this question is better served not by allowing experimental treatments to commence without FDA approval, but rather allowing patients to decide if they want assisted suicide rather than prolong their suffering?
That doesn't benefit insurance or drug companies, so you know it's probably something worth taking a serious look.
Someone is dying of a terminal illness, you are agains them trying anything they want?
What if what they want is assisted suicide, but are forced into these trials that might serve as a Hail Mary but probably won't do anything more than prolong suffering and pain? That's the conversation we should be having...not "let's let a patient subject themselves to a trial of a drug not approved by the FDA".
Oh really?
What if said medicine is administered in trials and it creates a longer, more prolonged side effect of suffering beyond the condition the medicine was supposed to treat?
Would you risk that as a patient?
I think this question is better served not by allowing experimental treatments to commence without FDA approval, but rather allowing patients to decide if they want assisted suicide rather than prolong their suffering?
That doesn't benefit insurance or drug companies, so you know it's probably something worth taking a serious look.
What if what they want is assisted suicide, but are forced into these trials that might serve as a Hail Mary but probably won't do anything more than prolong suffering and pain? That's the conversation we should be having...not "let's let a patient subject themselves to a trial of a drug not approved by the FDA".
I am for assisted suicide. *shrug*
your what-ifs are a silyl game.
I am for assisted suicide.
Which then makes your support of non-FDA approved trials that much more confusing.
your what-ifs are a silyl game.
Your entire position is predicated on a "what if". "What if" the drug was not approved by the FDA but cured patients. Literally, your argument in favor of this stupid thing is a "what if".
"What if" the experimental treatment worked.
Is that not your position?
Why wouldn't you want the FDA to approve clinical trials of an experimental drug or treatment you were convinced would work?
Which then makes your support of non-FDA approved trials that much more confusing.
Your entire position is predicated on a "what if". "What if" the drug was not approved by the FDA but cured patients. Literally, your argument in favor of this stupid thing is a "what if".
"What if" the experimental treatment worked.
Is that not your position?
Why wouldn't you want the FDA to approve clinical trials of an experimental drug or treatment you were convinced would work?
Nope. My position is if a terminally ill person wants to try an experimental medication, it's their right. YOu disagree.
Nope. My position is if a terminally ill person wants to try an experimental medication, it's their right. YOu disagree.
It's not that simple.
Also, because it's not FDA approved, the drug company could just completely lie about the effects of the treatment, bilking the insurance company and patient out of money on a treatment they knew wouldn't work.
You're basically cool with letting drug companies lie to patients about the benefits of these experimental treatments for the sole reason that they will make money off it.
If you can't get past the emotion and see this for what it is, then that's your problem.
It's not that simple.
Also, because it's not FDA approved, the drug company could just completely lie about the effects of the treatment, bilking the insurance company and patient out of money on a treatment they knew wouldn't work.
You're basically cool with letting drug companies lie to patients about the benefits of these experimental treatments for the sole reason that they will make money off it.
If you can't get past the emotion and see this for what it is, then that's your problem.
Your mom is dying of cancer, it's terminal and there is no hope. Except there is this medication that is in trials, experimental, but shows huge promise, she wants to take it. Would you fight against it?
Your mom is dying of cancer, it's terminal and there is no hope. Except there is this medication that is in trials, experimental, but shows huge promise, she wants to take it. Would you fight against it?
How would it show huge promise if it's not been tested yet, nor has it met the testing guidelines in order for it to submit and pass an FDA approval? That's just the drug company telling you what you want to hear. That, my friend, is far more dangerous than anything we're talking about relating to a patient's terminal illness.
And didn't you just excoriate me a post ago for entering in a "what if"? Come on, dude.
If something is too good to be true, it probably is.
Also, you'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical of what drug companies say about their products.
Have you ever had a dying friend or relative that wanted to undergo experimental treatment because they bought into propaganda? And then watching that experimental treatment not work, and your friend/loved one suffering and dying on top of being bilked out of money to pay for the treatment that didn't work?
I have.
It's pretty much the worst fucking thing in the world; to give someone false hope so they'll spend more money with you. That's what this shitty bill does.
A better approach would be to ditch false hope and instead, talk assisted suicide. Dying with dignity vs. dying from prolonged suffering after false hope.
How would it show huge promise if it's not been tested yet, nor has it met the testing guidelines in order for it to submit and pass an FDA approval? That's just the drug company telling you what you want to hear. That, my friend, is far more dangerous than anything we're talking about relating to a patient's terminal illness.
And didn't you just excoriate me a post ago for entering in a "what if"? Come on, dude.
If something is too good to be true, it probably is.
Also, you'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical of what drug companies say about their products.
Have you ever had a dying friend or relative that wanted to undergo experimental treatment because they bought into propaganda? And then watching that experimental treatment not work, and your friend/loved one suffering and dying on top of being bilked out of money to pay for the treatment that didn't work?
I have.
It's pretty much the worst fucking thing in the world; to give someone false hope so they'll spend more money with you. That's what this shitty bill does.
A better approach would be to ditch false hope and instead, talk assisted suicide. Dying with dignity vs. dying from prolonged suffering after false hope.
I need a simple yes or no here.
I need a simple yes or no here.
Why? I'm not going to accommodate that, so try a different tactic.
If my mother was dying and thought this experimental treatment would save her, my first question would be "who told you that this treatment would save you?"
If the answer is "a drug company", then I'd explain to her that drug company isn't interested in treating her, just billing her for the treatment, and that she's going to squander money that could be used to make her final days more comfortable.
Your question is super manipulative.
Maybe that's your point; to manipulate people's emotions so they'll be OK with getting false hope as long as it results in profits for the drug company.
False hope is the worst thing you can give to a terminally ill patient and/or their families. That's what this bill does...it should be called The False Hope Bill.
Why? I'm not going to accommodate that, so try a different tactic.
If my mother was dying and thought this experimental illness would save her, my first question would be "who told you that this treatment would save you?"
If the answer is "a drug company", then I'd explain to her that drug company isn't interested in treating her, just billing her for the treatment, and that she's going to squander money that could be used to make her final days more comfortable.
Your question is super manipulative.
Maybe that's your point; to manipulate people's emotions so they'll be OK with getting false hope as long as it results in profits for the drug company.
False hope is the worst thing you can give to a terminally ill patient and/or their families. That's what this bill does...it should be called The False Hope Bill.
Not false hope, a hail mary.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/drugs/access-experimental
your mom false under this, would you tell her no?
Not false hope, a hail mary
Same. Fucking. Thing.
A "Hail Mary" that isn't even approved by the FDA. And BTW - the FDA already has an extremely low bar when it comes to approving drugs and treatments. So if a particular treatment or drug isn't approved by the FDA, it's likely snake oil.
your mom false under this, would you tell her no?
Maybe you missed the part of the link where it says it has to go through the FDA:
Apply to the FDA, if the drug company agrees to supply the drug. Your doctor should refer to Expanded Access: Information for Physicians on the FDA site for complete information.
So if the FDA doesn't approve the drug, why would that be? Why would the FDA not approve an experimental drug or treatment? What could be the reason?
Same. Fucking. Thing.
A "Hail Mary" that isn't even approved by the FDA. And BTW - the FDA already has an extremely low bar when it comes to approving drugs and treatments. So if a particular treatment or drug isn't approved by the FDA, it's likely snake oil.
Maybe you missed the part of the link where it says it has to go through the FDA:
So if the FDA doesn't approve the drug, why would that be? Why would the FDA not approve an experimental drug or treatment? What could be the reason?
so under no circumstances would you support a terminal family member from getting an experimental drug. lets just cut to the chase here.
Not false hope, a hail mary.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/drugs/access-experimental
your mom false under this, would you tell her no?
So, do you just post links because you're lazy, or do you have another motivation for lying about this?
FROM YOUR LINK:
How Your Safety Is Protected if You Obtain a Drug through Expanded Access
>Several measures help protect your rights and safety if you are treated with a drug through Expanded Access:
>An Institutional Review Board or its representative must approve the use.
>The FDA must approve the use.
>You will go through an informed consent process, which ensures that you understand the potential risks and benefits of taking the experimental drug.
The bill you're on record here supporting doesn't require experimental drugs to be approved by the FDA.
So you posted something without even knowing the details of the thing you posted.
And you did that just to be manipulative.
Now, we have to ask why?
Why would someone come on a message board and defend/promote a bill that doesn't even do the thing you said it did? What would be the reason for you doing that? What's your motivation?
This is what I mean when I say "I'm not feelin' it" from you people. You're lazy. You're sloppy. You don't exercise due diligence on the things you post. And you seek to manipulate people by playing on their emotions, probably because it's so easy to play you on your own.
so under no circumstances would you support a terminal family member from getting an experimental drug. lets just cut to the chase here.
Not under the circumstances of the False Hope Bill you're here supporting on record.
I'm totally OK with them seeking treatment so long as it's FDA approved, but that's not the emotional manipulation you're trying to do here. You're trying to show you're somehow bipartisan because you agree with Trump on the False Hope Bill, and that you think by agreeing with Trump on something -something you're not even 100% clear on yourself- that means your "both sides"/"I'm above it all"/"I am an independent" posturing has credibility.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Getin the ring
Verified User
Why? I'm not going to accommodate that, so try a different tactic.
If my mother was dying and thought this experimental treatment would save her, my first question would be "who told you that this treatment would save you?"
If the answer is "a drug company", then I'd explain to her that drug company isn't interested in treating her, just billing her for the treatment, and that she's going to squander money that could be used to make her final days more comfortable.
Your question is super manipulative.
Maybe that's your point; to manipulate people's emotions so they'll be OK with getting false hope as long as it results in profits for the drug company.
False hope is the worst thing you can give to a terminally ill patient and/or their families. That's what this bill does...it should be called The False Hope Bill.
you're kind of being a little combative for no reason on this one.
The context is the person is going to die anyway, that's what terminal means.
Most people would eat elephant poop if someone made a half legitimate argument that it would prolong life.
But we're not talking about elephant poop, most experimental drugs have some sort of documented success rate.
And because of regulations the FDA can be years away from approving it.
Not under the circumstances of the False Hope Bill you're here supporting on record.
I'm totally OK with them seeking treatment so long as it's FDA approved, but that's not the emotional manipulation you're trying to do here. You're trying to show you're somehow bipartisan because you agree with Trump on the False Hope Bill, and that you think by agreeing with Trump on something -something you're not even 100% clear on yourself- that means you have credibility.
Tell me I'm wrong.
You are wrong.
S.204
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/204/text
Here is the bill. what part do you take issue with?