211–220 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pharma would market a phase 2 trial drug as a “potential revolution in treatment. Only a select few can receive this treatment and as a result it costs 10x more than existing drugs. Ps. We don’t guarantee results.” Is that really the outcome you want?
What I want is fewer people to die while waiting for the FDA to take years to approve already existing drugs. You seem to care more about marketing than people's lives. We all have different priorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because (at least) for people with a high risk of dying, and operating under well-informed consent, that decision should be between patients and their doctors alone.
If we allowed any type of experimentation on dying patients as long as there was consent, dying patients would end up getting used as a Guineapigs by companies trying to get a lucky indication. It would certainly benefit the families left behind financially, but it would not be pretty. “Here’s a million bucks, please take these 40 drugs that will certainly kill you, but we’ll learn which one we should continue with”.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we allowed any type of experimentation on dying patients as long as there was consent, dying patients would end up getting used as a Guineapigs by companies trying to get a lucky indication. It would certainly benefit the families left behind financially, but it would not be pretty. “Here’s a million bucks, please take these 40 drugs that will certainly kill you, but we’ll learn which one we should continue with”.…
If I was dying I'd rather be able to make a choice to my benefit rather than worrying about that it'd "be pretty" for onlookers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I want is fewer people to die while waiting for the FDA to take years to approve already existing drugs. You seem to care more about marketing than people's lives. We all have different priorities.
(Not the OP) In a macro sense, I'd agree with you; no stranger to having to weigh the risks/rewards of experimental drugs. But at the same time, I do get why extensive approval is needed - deaths can and often do occur from allergic reactions and/or side effects to medicines, and the idea is to hopefully lower the ratio of that happening. At some point more people "will" die from allergic reactions/side effects than…
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/01/th...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
70% of Phase 2 trials fail and 50% of Phase 3 trials fail[1]. Why should the default to be to approve drugs in the early stage of human experimentation? Here are some interesting case studies of drugs graduating from Phase 2 trials only to fail Phase 3 trials on efficacy and safety grounds: https://www.fda.gov/media/102332/download [1] https://www.parexel.com/application/files_previous/5014/7274...
Because (at least) for people with a high risk of dying, and operating under well-informed consent, that decision should be between patients and their doctors alone.
and who decides that?
Can a drug company give "gifts" to doctor who then recommend the patient use that company's drugs when he/she is dying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because (at least) for people with a high risk of dying, and operating under well-informed consent, that decision should be between patients and their doctors alone.
If we allowed any type of experimentation on dying patients as long as there was consent, dying patients would end up getting used as a Guineapigs by companies trying to get a lucky indication. It would certainly benefit the families left behind financially, but it would not be pretty. “Here’s a million bucks, please take these 40 drugs that will certainly kill you, but we’ll learn which one we should continue with”.…
You are very optimistic. Medics will sell expensive snake oil treatment to desperate families. For example, from the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer#History
> In the 1980s and 1990s, thousands of women who had successfully completed standard treatment then demanded and received high-dose bone marrow transplants, thinking this would lead to better long-term survival. However, it proved completely ineffective, and 15–20% of women died because of the brutal treatment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't give insincere apologies, they're rhetorically weak and pairing insincerity with something that should be sincere isn't a good look. Which segues nicely to this pairing of public funding and private enterprise. No, if the drug wouldn't be sold for a profit then the incentive to make it wouldn't exist and the funds would not be applied for and the ironic pairing - if it is ironic, which I don't think it i…
Your response assumes that all medical research is done solely to make a profit.
> When he was asked what the device would cost, he cheerily replied "whatever the market will bear."
I also do not need to assume that companies undertaking research are doing it for profit as that is their reason for being companies, and even in the case of research being not directly undertaken for profit, that research - if useful - will go into drugs that are then sold with the intention of making a profit. Not solely, whether cynically or altruistically, the hope will be that the drug is effective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Ive been told. And yet the Dr gives them out in exactly the same circumstances as I would if I could. Perhaps more liberally, since Im far more concerned about the consequences to my kids of destroying their gut flora.
Then the doctor is doing a bad job. Making all antibiotics available over the counter would not improve the situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Ive been told. And yet the Dr gives them out in exactly the same circumstances as I would if I could. Perhaps more liberally, since Im far more concerned about the consequences to my kids of destroying their gut flora.
It seems like you want to create a general rule entirely based on your own personal experience.
We literally give industrial quantities of antibiotics to animals. So antibiotic preservation is not an honest reason to lock them up
Tylenol and Advil can very quickly mess up your kid's liver and kidneys if you misdose. Yet, they're over the counter. So safety does not appear to be an honest reason either.
Ironically, statistically considering the forum, most ppl who are against me on this thread believe in drug liberalization including opiates; the one class for drugs I would keep behind the pharmacist's counter.
Btw, antibiotics are available over the counter in Europe. The ones Id use and feel comfortable using
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I met a researcher once who was doing what appeared to be groundbreaking research on cancer care. He had this beautiful, tear-jerker story about losing his wife that cast a rosy, altruistic hue on his research. When he was asked what the device would cost, he cheerily replied "whatever the market will bear." That's always stuck with me -- the problem with American healthcare is the American interpretation of capitali…
That's not the problem, that's the reason almost all medical development happens in America. Rich people from all around the world travel to American hospitals if they have serious health problems, not to public hospitals even in rich countries like Norway. Public healthcare works (poorly) as a way to distribute existing treatment, but is worthless at incentivizing development. Really, the entire world is unfairly pa…
Capitalism works only with competition. But competition is against capital owners short-term extractionism (or rather against ceos who feels need to justify their pay). IMO solution is to let workers vote on CEO pay changes and punish white collar crime better and many problems of capitalism might get solved.
EDIT: IMO it won’t work as long as globalization can be exploited to suppress working class and avoid regulation