Atheistforums.com

Humanities Section => Political/Government General Discussion => Topic started by: PickelledEggs on May 31, 2018, 02:01:57 AM

Title: Right To Try
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 31, 2018, 02:01:57 AM
I don't like Trump, but credit where credit is due, I think this is a good call. This could bring about some great things
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/05/30/president-trump-signs-right-try-bill-jordan-mclinn-joe-donnelly-duchenne/657513002/
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Jason78 on May 31, 2018, 02:31:56 AM
Isn't this a law allowing doctors to experiment on the terminally ill?
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Blackleaf on May 31, 2018, 02:41:38 AM
Quote from: Jason78 on May 31, 2018, 02:31:56 AM
Isn't this a law allowing doctors to experiment on the terminally ill?

The agency seems to be on the patient, not the doctor. The doctor can't just ignore the FDA, but their patients can. Imagine trying all of the federally approved treatments, with no results, and hearing about a new treatment that seems promising but hasn't gone through FDA approval yet. Would you want to wait several years for FDA requirements to be met and the treatment given the green light?
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Baruch on May 31, 2018, 05:05:26 AM
Quote from: Jason78 on May 31, 2018, 02:31:56 AM
Isn't this a law allowing doctors to experiment on the terminally ill?

Doctors experiment on all their patients ... we can only hope there are more positive results than not.  Have you ever read the side effects of every medication in The Pill Book?
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Cavebear on May 31, 2018, 11:37:38 PM
If push comes to shove and I am sure to die from some particular thing, I should have the right to consider treatments that I think MIGHT work after some research.  I wouldn't have a lot to lose.

If someone complains that it is "nearly suicide", well, I let my life insurance expire years ago.  And who's life is it, anyway. 

I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

"Soul" being a poetic analogy of existence in my case, of course...
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Unbeliever on June 01, 2018, 01:54:58 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on May 31, 2018, 11:37:38 PM
And who's life is it, anyway. 

Ha! Sounds like a game show.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: PickelledEggs on June 01, 2018, 04:19:31 PM
Quote from: Jason78 on May 31, 2018, 02:31:56 AM
Isn't this a law allowing doctors to experiment on the terminally ill?
In a way of speaking, yes. But only when the terminally ill have tried other things and there isnt any other way they have a chance. They can opt to try something new...

Yes, it's basically making the terminally ill, lab rats. But it's with their consent in hopes of helping them and developing cures for things that we might not otherwise have a way to figure out cures for... at least as quickly as this would be.

I honestly don't know why this wasn't done earlier
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Baruch on June 01, 2018, 07:28:48 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 01, 2018, 04:19:31 PM
In a way of speaking, yes. But only when the terminally ill have tried other things and there isnt any other way they have a chance. They can opt to try something new...

Yes, it's basically making the terminally ill, lab rats. But it's with their consent in hopes of helping them and developing cures for things that we might not otherwise have a way to figure out cures for... at least as quickly as this would be.

I honestly don't know why this wasn't done earlier

Lawyers.  Ambulance chasers literally.  If the doctor/drug company can't be completely protected from lawsuit, in this extreme case, they can't take the chance of a lawsuit by the family of the patient etc.  But I don't see why the patient or guardian can't sign away the right to sue.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: _Xenu_ on June 02, 2018, 12:42:43 AM
Trump is a moron, but he is right about this. If someone is terminal and nothing else is helping, they should be allowed to try anything they want.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Jason Harvestdancer on June 03, 2018, 04:17:40 PM
Quote from: Jason78 on May 31, 2018, 02:31:56 AM
Isn't this a law allowing doctors to experiment on the terminally ill?

The alternative is to simply let them die.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Unbeliever on June 03, 2018, 05:13:49 PM
This will be a major boon to the pharmaceutical industry - might want to buy stock.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on June 03, 2018, 06:49:40 PM
This is the second thing Trump has done which I actually like; the first being canceling the TPP. I hope this is a sign of things to come, and that maybe our president is shaping up to be more, er, presidential.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: PickelledEggs on June 03, 2018, 07:08:45 PM
Im not sure this is a sign of anything, @Hijiri Byakuren lol

I mean, a broken clock is right two times a day. Trump was right 2 times his entire presidency so far...
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Shiranu on June 04, 2018, 05:04:05 PM
I promise this is not because of Trump but instead personal experience, but in my opinion I think this a horrible thing for the consumer and patient. I don't buy this was passed to benefit the patient for a second.

I'll elaborate more when I get home.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Mermaid on June 04, 2018, 05:38:03 PM
Quote from: Jason78 on May 31, 2018, 02:31:56 AM
Isn't this a law allowing doctors to experiment on the terminally ill?
Patient participation is strictly voluntary. Clinical studies are conducted for every single new drug out there on human patients.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: GSOgymrat on June 04, 2018, 05:51:08 PM
I was a terminally ill lab rat (working title for my autobiography). :-)

In 1993, shortly after I started graduate school I contracted HIV. I was uninsured and unable to afford medication on my part-time work-study salary, so to access treatment I volunteered for clinical trials for new HIV medications. Each trial typically lasted 3-6 months and while participating I got free doctors visits, lab work and some kind of HIV treatment, typically AZT plus something experimental. Over two years I participated in several different trials and was placed on a variety of medications, most of which were ineffective, some had bad side effects. Eventually my immune system was too compromised to qualify for any clinical trials. When I graduated and obtained full-time employment my infectious disease specialist said that I needed to quit the job, go on disability and get my affairs in order. I was 28 at the time and thought I could make it to 30 but my doctor told me I was "being unrealistic." CD4 count, generally speaking, measures impairment of the immune system, 500-1300 is normal, under 200 is AIDS and I was at 68 and dropping. I really wanted to work and didn't want to just give up and wait to die so I didn't go on disability. After a three month waiting period at my job I was eligible for insurance and got back on medications. Months later protease inhibitors were released and my HIV was suppressed for the first time. It took years for my immune system to recover. Clinical trials enabled me to make it through graduate school and live long enough for effective treatment to be invented. I feel like by participating I and other Poz lab rats were contributing to fighting the disease. Even if I hadn't lived, even if people who participate in experimental treatments don't survive, clinical trials contribute to scientific knowledge.

Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: trdsf on June 04, 2018, 05:55:21 PM
I want to know two things: what controls are there on pharma liability, and are they going to be charging patients for being their human trials?  Broadly speaking, I'm on board with patients having the option of experimental treatments when the tested ones aren't working, but not if it's really just a giveaway to the drug companies.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Mermaid on June 04, 2018, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 04, 2018, 05:51:08 PM
I was a terminally ill lab rat (working title for my autobiography). :-)

In 1993, shortly after I started graduate school I contracted HIV. I was uninsured and unable to afford medication on my part-time work-study salary, so to access treatment I volunteered for clinical trials for new HIV medications. Each trial typically lasted 3-6 months and while participating I got free doctors visits, lab work and some kind of HIV treatment, typically AZT plus something experimental. Over two years I participated in several different trials and was placed on a variety of medications, most of which were ineffective, some had bad side effects. Eventually my immune system was too compromised to qualify for any clinical trials. When I graduated and obtained full-time employment my infectious disease specialist said that I needed to quit the job, go on disability and get my affairs in order. I was 28 at the time and thought I could make it to 30 but my doctor told me I was "being unrealistic." CD4 count, generally speaking, measures impairment of the immune system, 500-1300 is normal, under 200 is AIDS and I was at 68 and dropping. I really wanted to work and didn't want to just give up and wait to die so I didn't go on disability. After a three month waiting period at my job I was eligible for insurance and got back on medications. Months later protease inhibitors were released and my HIV was suppressed for the first time. It took years for my immune system to recover. Clinical trials enabled me to make it through graduate school and live long enough for effective treatment to be invented. I feel like by participating I and other Poz lab rats were contributing to fighting the disease. Even if I hadn't lived, even if people who participate in experimental treatments don't survive, clinical trials contribute to scientific knowledge.


This is AWESOME!!! I love your story so much, what a happy ending.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Mermaid on June 04, 2018, 08:24:06 PM
Quote from: trdsf on June 04, 2018, 05:55:21 PM
I want to know two things: what controls are there on pharma liability, and are they going to be charging patients for being their human trials?  Broadly speaking, I'm on board with patients having the option of experimental treatments when the tested ones aren't working, but not if it's really just a giveaway to the drug companies.
Patients are usually paid a small amount for their participation because it can take considerable time, but they aren't always paid. They are not charged.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: aitm on June 04, 2018, 09:09:57 PM
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 04, 2018, 05:51:08 PM
I was a terminally ill lab rat (working title for my autobiography). :-)

In 1993, shortly after I started graduate school I contracted HIV. I was uninsured and unable to afford medication on my part-time work-study salary, so to access treatment I volunteered for clinical trials for new HIV medications. Each trial typically lasted 3-6 months and while participating I got free doctors visits, lab work and some kind of HIV treatment, typically AZT plus something experimental. Over two years I participated in several different trials and was placed on a variety of medications, most of which were ineffective, some had bad side effects. Eventually my immune system was too compromised to qualify for any clinical trials. When I graduated and obtained full-time employment my infectious disease specialist said that I needed to quit the job, go on disability and get my affairs in order. I was 28 at the time and thought I could make it to 30 but my doctor told me I was "being unrealistic." CD4 count, generally speaking, measures impairment of the immune system, 500-1300 is normal, under 200 is AIDS and I was at 68 and dropping. I really wanted to work and didn't want to just give up and wait to die so I didn't go on disability. After a three month waiting period at my job I was eligible for insurance and got back on medications. Months later protease inhibitors were released and my HIV was suppressed for the first time. It took years for my immune system to recover. Clinical trials enabled me to make it through graduate school and live long enough for effective treatment to be invented. I feel like by participating I and other Poz lab rats were contributing to fighting the disease. Even if I hadn't lived, even if people who participate in experimental treatments don't survive, clinical trials contribute to scientific knowledge.



I am glad you are still with us. I do not know how I would have handled the same. We all think we have the great response but until someone looks you in the eye and says "your dead".....no one can ever know how they will react. Fighting back seems the obvious answer but then so many are willing to end it when their "problems" are quite tame in comparison. Good for you.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: GSOgymrat on June 04, 2018, 10:37:15 PM
Quote from: aitm on June 04, 2018, 09:09:57 PM
We all think we have the great response but until someone looks you in the eye and says "your dead".....no one can ever know how they will react. Fighting back seems the obvious answer but then so many are willing to end it when their "problems" are quite tame in comparison.

I've known several people with HIV who killed themselves, either directly or by choosing not to take medication. I remember an HIV+ guy through an online forum and his YouTube videos who couldn't cope. He was in his early twenties and was convinced that HIV did not cause AIDS, that it was a result of "lifestyle choices" such as using drugs, bad diet, engaging in homosexual sex and taking HIV medications, which he considered poison. He insisted that because he was now a born-again Christian and renounced his sinful ways that he was going to be fine. The members of the forum tried to persuade him he was wrong, to please take medication, but his "faith" was unshakable. Regrettably, his faith killed him.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Cavebear on June 05, 2018, 03:42:15 AM
I personally support "the right to try".  If I am really dying of something, I think I have the right to try anything. 

It's MY LIFE and that some government thinks it has the right to tell me I have to die slowly or in an approved manner is completely offensive.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Johan on June 05, 2018, 07:03:38 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 03, 2018, 06:49:40 PM
This is the second thing Trump has done which I actually like; the first being canceling the TPP. I hope this is a sign of things to come, and that maybe our president is shaping up to be more, er, presidential.
Except that in typical Trump fashion, he didn't actually do much of anything. He'll tell you he did, but he didn't. Giving terminal patients access to experimental drugs is something that already existed.


The FDA already had a long standing mechanism by which terminal patients could apply to receive experimental drugs. That process included submitting an application to a board who would have to approve it. About the only thing right to try does is eliminate that board approval process. That still seems like a good thing that Trump can brag about doing until you realize that FDA board approved about 98% of all applications.

So yeah, Trump signed a bill that opens up access to experimental drugs for a 2% of terminally ill patients who didn't already have it. That's a MAGA if ever there was one I guess.

Also this bill does nothing as far as requiring drug manufacturers to actually provide their not yet approved products for these patients. And often, they won't want to do that. This is because in their clinical trials, things are tightly controlled, in field trials with approved terminal patients, not so much. So if they provide a drug to a patient who decides to double up on the dose and then has an adverse reaction, that data must be included in their application to get the drug approved.

IOW, letting just any yahoo try their new but not yet approved drug could adversely impact their ability to bring that drug to market. Most drug companies are going to tend to shy away from that.


So yeah, Trump finally did a great thing. Except he didn't.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Baruch on June 05, 2018, 07:07:31 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on June 05, 2018, 03:42:15 AM
I personally support "the right to try".  If I am really dying of something, I think I have the right to try anything. 

It's MY LIFE and that some government thinks it has the right to tell me I have to die slowly or in an approved manner is completely offensive.

Except for actual suicide, ala Kavorkian.  Liability laws block that.  If your friends and family help you by commission or omission with the attempted suicide, they are liable.  The drug companies are not looking to get into that, and of course they want a controlled trial, for science and liability protection.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Cavebear on June 08, 2018, 02:58:36 AM
Quote from: Johan on June 05, 2018, 07:03:38 AM
Except that in typical Trump fashion, he didn't actually do much of anything. He'll tell you he did, but he didn't. Giving terminal patients access to experimental drugs is something that already existed.


The FDA already had a long standing mechanism by which terminal patients could apply to receive experimental drugs. That process included submitting an application to a board who would have to approve it. About the only thing right to try does is eliminate that board approval process. That still seems like a good thing that Trump can brag about doing until you realize that FDA board approved about 98% of all applications.

So yeah, Trump signed a bill that opens up access to experimental drugs for a 2% of terminally ill patients who didn't already have it. That's a MAGA if ever there was one I guess.

Also this bill does nothing as far as requiring drug manufacturers to actually provide their not yet approved products for these patients. And often, they won't want to do that. This is because in their clinical trials, things are tightly controlled, in field trials with approved terminal patients, not so much. So if they provide a drug to a patient who decides to double up on the dose and then has an adverse reaction, that data must be included in their application to get the drug approved.

IOW, letting just any yahoo try their new but not yet approved drug could adversely impact their ability to bring that drug to market. Most drug companies are going to tend to shy away from that.


So yeah, Trump finally did a great thing. Except he didn't.

I'm a bit confused here.  You make sense at first, but then also seem to be supporting Big Pharma which sometimes drives up costs of drugs for be special reason other than profit.  What would you say I am misunderstanding?
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Johan on June 08, 2018, 02:06:20 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on June 08, 2018, 02:58:36 AM
I'm a bit confused here.  You make sense at first, but then also seem to be supporting Big Pharma which sometimes drives up costs of drugs for be special reason other than profit.  What would you say I am misunderstanding?
I have no idea what you're misunderstanding. I don't have any kind of innate hatred toward pharmaceutical companies nor do I believe they're all evil and just out to keep people sick so maybe that's it? When I'm sick, I'm kind of glad that medicine exists which can help me get better. I know, crazy right?
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Cavebear on June 08, 2018, 08:46:49 PM
Quote from: Johan on June 08, 2018, 02:06:20 PM
I have no idea what you're misunderstanding. I don't have any kind of innate hatred toward pharmaceutical companies nor do I believe they're all evil and just out to keep people sick so maybe that's it? When I'm sick, I'm kind of glad that medicine exists which can help me get better. I know, crazy right?

And I wasn't suggesting you did.  Oh gosh no, not to keep people sick (though I'm sure someone out there is considering that as a marketing strategy).  I meant just taking advantage of trade protections to raise prices of limited drugs outrageously.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Johan on June 09, 2018, 09:09:37 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on June 08, 2018, 08:46:49 PM
And I wasn't suggesting you did.  Oh gosh no, not to keep people sick (though I'm sure someone out there is considering that as a marketing strategy).  I meant just taking advantage of trade protections to raise prices of limited drugs outrageously.
Ok that makes it a clearer. What I think you're misunderstanding then is exactly how the process of getting a drug approved for market works, what it costs and how expensive bone headed mistakes can be.

It costs many many millions to get a drug from the lab to the store shelves. This is common knowledge. The manufacturer has to boatloads of testing. This is also common knowledge. What you might not understand is that once they're in the clinical trial and field trial stage, all that data must be submitted. The manufacturers don't have the option of leaving any data out.

So lets say a manufacturer is developing a cancer drug for a certain type of cancer. And lets say their initial lab testing suggested it to be 90% effective on individuals meeting a certain profile but only 50% on individuals who did not meet that profile. You would want to conduct all your efficacy study field trials on individuals who met the 90% profile and maximize your chances of getting good data. So now right to try comes along and suddenly every Tom Dick and Harry wants to try your new formula. If you give it all of them, you're bound to get lots of individuals who don't fall into your 90% profile and that's going to lower your overall efficacy results. Which could mean your drug doesn't get approved for anyone or it could mean the FDA decides it wants a shit ton more testing first which could add years and millions of dollars to the development process.

Much cheaper for them to do all their testing on the group meets the 90% efficacy profile and get the drug approved and labelled for individuals meeting that profile. Get it out on the shelves and get revenue coming in from it. Then you take that revenue and go back and work on figuring out why its only 40% effective for people outside the profile and figuring out how to modify it so it can approved and labelled for everyone. Obviously I'm watering the process down quite a bit and bastardizing it more than a little here, but it hopefully it gives a sense of what I was eluding to.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Baruch on June 09, 2018, 09:41:45 AM
That testing thing ... that is what tripped up Martha Stewart.  The drug of the company she invested in, didn't work out.

Or Elizabeth Holmes, CEO of Theranos.  Temptation to cheat the tests, or to over promote the marketing, is great.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Cavebear on June 11, 2018, 02:41:50 AM
Quote from: Johan on June 09, 2018, 09:09:37 AM
Ok that makes it a clearer. What I think you're misunderstanding then is exactly how the process of getting a drug approved for market works, what it costs and how expensive bone headed mistakes can be.

It costs many many millions to get a drug from the lab to the store shelves. This is common knowledge. The manufacturer has to boatloads of testing. This is also common knowledge. What you might not understand is that once they're in the clinical trial and field trial stage, all that data must be submitted. The manufacturers don't have the option of leaving any data out.

So lets say a manufacturer is developing a cancer drug for a certain type of cancer. And lets say their initial lab testing suggested it to be 90% effective on individuals meeting a certain profile but only 50% on individuals who did not meet that profile. You would want to conduct all your efficacy study field trials on individuals who met the 90% profile and maximize your chances of getting good data. So now right to try comes along and suddenly every Tom Dick and Harry wants to try your new formula. If you give it all of them, you're bound to get lots of individuals who don't fall into your 90% profile and that's going to lower your overall efficacy results. Which could mean your drug doesn't get approved for anyone or it could mean the FDA decides it wants a shit ton more testing first which could add years and millions of dollars to the development process.

Much cheaper for them to do all their testing on the group meets the 90% efficacy profile and get the drug approved and labelled for individuals meeting that profile. Get it out on the shelves and get revenue coming in from it. Then you take that revenue and go back and work on figuring out why its only 40% effective for people outside the profile and figuring out how to modify it so it can approved and labelled for everyone. Obviously I'm watering the process down quite a bit and bastardizing it more than a little here, but it hopefully it gives a sense of what I was eluding to.

But what you are also supporting is a situation where a gigantic overnight increase in the price of a 62-year-old drug that is the standard of care for treating a life-threatening parasitic infection (a drug called Daraprim), was acquired in August by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager. Turing immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Please explain how the development costs of that drug justified the price increase...



Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Baruch on June 11, 2018, 06:14:56 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on June 11, 2018, 02:41:50 AM
But what you are also supporting is a situation where a gigantic overnight increase in the price of a 62-year-old drug that is the standard of care for treating a life-threatening parasitic infection (a drug called Daraprim), was acquired in August by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager. Turing immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Please explain how the development costs of that drug justified the price increase...

Hypothetical ... the original lower price was a typo?  But unless the entire cost accounting is given, all one can have is a hypothesis.  Otherwise one only has an ad hominem.

Pricing in risk and market leverage is more dicey.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Johan on June 11, 2018, 07:06:18 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on June 11, 2018, 02:41:50 AM
But what you are also supporting is a situation where a gigantic overnight increase in the price of a 62-year-old drug that is the standard of care for treating a life-threatening parasitic infection (a drug called Daraprim), was acquired in August by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager. Turing immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Please explain how the development costs of that drug justified the price increase...
Development costs obviously have nothing to do with that price increase. And show me specifically where you think I said I supported that specific case because I can assure you I do not.

You're talking about one asshole who owns one company and isn't shy about price gouging. Just because that exists doesn't mean I'm against the entire industry. And just because that one guy/company exists does not change anything having to do the process/costs of development.

If you want new drugs, they have to go through the government mandated approval process. And that is expensive but also necessary. And in many cases, giving your as yet to be approved experimental compounds to just anyone who asks can really fuck up the process and put the entire project at risk.

And here's the other thing no one has mentioned. No insurance company on the planet will pay for experimental drugs nor will they pay for any care required as a result of negative side effects from the use of experimental drugs. So right to try gives every American that can afford to pay for their own health care, i.e. the wealthy, the right to try any experimental drug they want so long as the manufacturer agrees to provide it for them, i.e. in certain select cases. Like I said, Trump did a great thing expect he didn't really do anything at all. And honestly I think we're all better off any day that Trump does nothing at all.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Cavebear on June 11, 2018, 07:18:48 AM
Quote from: Johan on June 11, 2018, 07:06:18 AM
Development costs obviously have nothing to do with that price increase. And show me specifically where you think I said I supported that specific case because I can assure you I do not.

You're talking about one asshole who owns one company and isn't shy about price gouging. Just because that exists doesn't mean I'm against the entire industry. And just because that one guy/company exists does not change anything having to do the process/costs of development.

If you want new drugs, they have to go through the government mandated approval process. And that is expensive but also necessary. And in many cases, giving your as yet to be approved experimental compounds to just anyone who asks can really fuck up the process and put the entire project at risk.

And here's the other thing no one has mentioned. No insurance company on the planet will pay for experimental drugs nor will they pay for any care required as a result of negative side effects from the use of experimental drugs. So right to try gives every American that can afford to pay for their own health care, i.e. the wealthy, the right to try any experimental drug they want so long as the manufacturer agrees to provide it for them, i.e. in certain select cases. Like I said, Trump did a great thing expect he didn't really do anything at all. And honestly I think we're all better off any day that Trump does nothing at all.

You offerred a case explaining why drug costs go up; I offerred one that your explanation does not explain.  So explain that one, if you can.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Johan on June 11, 2018, 01:20:41 PM
1. Who claimed that drug costs go up for only one reason? I certainly didn't.
2. I did not offer a case to explain why drug costs go up. I offered a case for why a drug manufacturer might not want to make their in-development products available to anyone who asks. If you took that as an explanation for the one and only reason why drug prices increase, that was your mistake not mine.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Cavebear on June 11, 2018, 02:00:58 PM
Quote from: Johan on June 11, 2018, 01:20:41 PM
1. Who claimed that drug costs go up for only one reason? I certainly didn't.
2. I did not offer a case to explain why drug costs go up. I offered a case for why a drug manufacturer might not want to make their in-development products available to anyone who asks. If you took that as an explanation for the one and only reason why drug prices increase, that was your mistake not mine.

Your entire past 2 posts on this thread was about why drug prices are high.  Don't play the aggrieved party.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Johan on June 11, 2018, 05:10:54 PM
I think you're mistaken. I commented on the process of getting new medications approved for sale.

To wit:
QuoteWhat I think you're misunderstanding then is exactly how the process of getting a drug approved for market works
That is exactly what I wrote. Therefore everything I wrote after that sentence described... wait for it.... wait for it.... Everything the followed after was meant to describe the process of getting new medications approved. I did discuss the high costs involved because, as it turns out, costs are often a factor in getting new medications approved.

I'm sorry that you misunderstood what I wrote, but I absolutely did not claim to be explaining any of the potential many reasons why drug prices are what they are. Nor would I care to.

I believe you used the term 'big pharma' a few posts back. Its been my experience that anyone who uses that term tends to buy into the conspiracy theory that any and all involved with paramedicals are evil crooks who only intend to rip off the sick and keep them poor. I do not see any point in discussing conspiracy theory with anyone foolish enough to believe it.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Cavebear on June 11, 2018, 05:57:45 PM
Johan:  "So lets say a manufacturer is developing a cancer drug for a certain type of cancer. And lets say their initial lab testing suggested it to be 90% effective on individuals meeting a certain profile but only 50% on individuals who did not meet that profile. You would want to conduct all your efficacy study field trials on individuals who met the 90% profile and maximize your chances of getting good data. So now right to try comes along and suddenly every Tom Dick and Harry wants to try your new formula. If you give it all of them, you're bound to get lots of individuals who don't fall into your 90% profile and that's going to lower your overall efficacy results. Which could mean your drug doesn't get approved for anyone or it could mean the FDA decides it wants a shit ton more testing first which could add years and millions of dollars to the development process.

Much cheaper for them to do all their testing on the group meets the 90% efficacy profile and get the drug approved and labelled for individuals meeting that profile. Get it out on the shelves and get revenue coming in from it. Then you take that revenue and go back and work on figuring out why its only 40% effective for people outside the profile and figuring out how to modify it so it can approved and labelled for everyone."

Cavebear:  There are all kinds of profit concerns and worries in there and you probably don't see them. What you see as cost concerns comes out to the consumer as profit you make because you try to manipulate the data to get a drug shoved through the FDA process and falsely advertised. 

I really do fully understand you think this gamesmanship is legitimate.  But you are looking at it as a "business case", not a legitimate drug cost-pricing situation.   The drug company is out to make huge profits on any new drug.  That is why effective but inexpensive drugs that are not profit centers get "orphaned" and vanish, or a company spin-off ratchets up the cost in speculation.

" You would want to conduct all your efficacy study field trials on individuals who met the 90% profile and maximize your chances of getting good data"...

"or it could mean the FDA decides it wants a shit ton more testing first which could add years and millions of dollars to the development process"...


Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Johan on June 11, 2018, 05:59:46 PM
'kay thanks bye.
Title: Re: Right To Try
Post by: Baruch on June 11, 2018, 06:12:02 PM
Legitimate drug pricing?  Comrade Cavebear ... back to Siberia for giving out Soviet secret plan ... for reeducation.