August 16, 2010
Die Quietly, Ladies
The Washington Post reports this morning that the Food and Drug Administration is considering revoking the approval of the anti-breast cancer drug Avastin. Some are already identifying this as an attempt by the Obama Administration to use the FDA to give political cover for "Death Panel" Donald Berwick, Barack Obama's controversial recess appointment for the director of Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Berwick is a staunch advocate of the flawed and failing British Health Care system, including their care rationing schemes. Ace makes a very compelling argument that this is "the Chicago way" at its very worst. Obama continues to cravenly hide from the public the unarguable fact that under Obamacare, services and treatments will be rationed.
Call it a death panel. Call it whatever you will.
The fact remains that under Obamacare, a bureaucrat, not a doctor, will ultimately decide whether or not you life is worth the price of medications and procedures that could prolong your life, and/or the quality of your life.
Our friends on the left seem willing to sacrifice their mothers, wives, daughters and even themselves to this barbaric and deceptive practice.
Die quietly, ladies. It's for the good of the Party.
You obviously don't understand the FDA. They are saying that the drug is dangerous to use. Of course the women who use the drug are going to die within a short period of time without it. But the logic of the government is that they will not be having any problems with the drug.
On the other hand, I have never been able to understand this logic either. Where is Jim when we need him, he could explain it to us.
Posted by: David at August 16, 2010 04:21 PMOne other word on government medical care. They are not currently paying their bills. Almost everyone that I know in the medical industry is having significant trouble right now due to the fact that Medicare/Medicaid are not paying their bills. They have done this to an extent in the past but now it is much worse. One physical therapist is almost out of business as a result.
Posted by: David at August 16, 2010 04:40 PMS.O.P. for socialists. Although I LOVE your byline about liberalism being a persistent vegitatve state, the truth is, as they admitted in the press earlier this year, the libs are quietly moving America in the direction of a socialist state. Marxist theory regards the socialst state as the transitional phase between capitalism and communism.
In short, they know EXACTLY what they are doing!
http://m.facebook.com/pages/The-Enemy-Inside-Out/127323863980144?r9209deb8&refid=0&rd71c8543
Posted by: David C Schupbach at August 16, 2010 05:11 PMHi David,
The logic of the FDA's decision seems pretty obvious to me:
An FDA advisory committee voted 12 to 1 on July 20 to withdraw Avastin's authorization for advanced breast cancer based on two new studies that the advisers concluded had not shown that the drug extends life. Not only that, the committee concluded that the studies indicated the drug slowed tumor growth for even less time -- perhaps as little as about a month. "The vast majority opinion of the committee was that the drug was not doing very much, and what it was doing was more than offset by the negative," said Wyndham Wilson of the National Cancer Institute, who chaired the committee. Avastin can cause a variety of potentially serious side effects, including blood clots, bleeding and heart failure. "In our best judgment, we did not feel this drug was safe to give relative to its benefits," Wilson said.
CY,
My insurance company has to OK every drug, procedure, treatment I get, or they don't pay for it. It's not my Dr's decision what gets paid for, it's my insurance company's decision. How is that any better than having the decision made by Dr's who are employed by the government? How does your health insurance work, does your insurer cover everything your Dr prescribes, or are there limits and restrictions? You act as though there's no one currently in the loop other than Dr's and patients and I'd love to know who covers you if that is the case.
Posted by: Jim at August 16, 2010 05:12 PM"But Avastin is also one of the most expensive of a new generation of anti-cancer medications that only eke out a few extra months of life."
In the above sentence from the WaPo link, notice the combined use of the phrase "one of the most expensive" and "eke out a few extra months of life." That tells me other Stage IV cancer drugs are in the FDA's cross hairs. Too expensive for the "general welfare" of the people as leftians like to stretch that clause in the Constitution. Or in other words; F 'em!
Posted by: Col Bat Guano at August 16, 2010 06:04 PMAvastin is a product of Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.
There is about $1 billion and 7 million man-hours invested in Avastin.
Jim,
I knew you would come through. It is amazing to see the convoluted logic at work. As to the insurance relationship with patient and doctor, I am afraid that is your government at work again. They institued those measures about 25 years ago in the guise of HMO's. Thus empowering all insurances and all plans to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. It the free market was able to work, we would have a very quick return to the traditional doctor/patient relationship. And, medical care would be much less expensive.
Jim,
The efficacy of this drug is about 30%. Now considering that you are talking about terminally ill people, that is not too bad.
If this is the future of medical care, were the government is short changing us because they are racking up the expenses on producing a drug and then saying it is too expensive, then we can kiss our a## good by. The next thing you will see will be the govenment interfering with the production of the next generation of antibiotics. These are necessary as the current drugs are not working. But I am sure they could care as they are the ones that felt a book of fiction was real and thus eliminated DDT and resulted in the death of about 50 million people.
Posted by: David at August 16, 2010 07:30 PMDavid,
I quoted from the link CY provided, it says the two new studies found no extension in lifetime for breast cancer patients. Where are you getting your 30% figure from, perhaps one of the cancers that Avastin was developed to treat, like colon or lung? If you have data suggesting it's effective vs breast cancer I'd love to see it.
Posted by: Jim at August 16, 2010 08:37 PMHere's what the manufactuer says about using Avastin to treat this particular cancer:
There are no data demonstrating an improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin
The 30% figure is indeed the case for other cancers. http://www.avastin.com/avastin
Congrats Yankee! you got your own Media Matters paid troll. You got noticed and are moving up in the world...
Jim, I will ask you what I ask all the other paid shills. When did you leave you soul at the door, or are you so stupid to think that socialism is a good thing?
Twit.
Posted by: Toaster802 at August 17, 2010 09:31 AMHi Twit,
I took googled 'avastin efficacy breast cancer' and found (first link) that the guys who make the drug say it doesn't extend the life of people with breast cancer and has some pretty bad side-effects like heart failure.
I'm not the one here making money off this, that would be CY, but apparently I'm the only one who skips the multi-paragraph chatter about the Chicago Way and instead goes looking for the underlying facts of this particular case. I'm sorry that didn't go over well inside your bubble.
Again if you have different information please share it, and you might want to let Genentech know too, they're apparently socialists trolls as well.
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
