Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Drug Company Lets People Go Blind
    #5761960 - 06/17/06 09:48 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Drugs firm blocks cheap blindness cure

Company will only seek licence for medicine that costs 100 times more

Sarah Boseley, health editor
Saturday June 17, 2006
The Guardian

A major drug company is blocking access to a medicine that is cheaply and effectively saving thousands of people from going blind because it wants to launch a more expensive product on the market.
Ophthalmologists around the world, on their own initiative, are injecting tiny quantities of a colon cancer drug called Avastin into the eyes of patients with wet macular degeneration, a common condition of older age that can lead to severely impaired eyesight and blindness. They report remarkable success at very low cost because one phial can be split and used for dozens of patients.

But Genentech, the company that invented Avastin, does not want it used in this way. Instead it is applying to license a fragment of Avastin, called Lucentis, which is packaged in the tiny quantities suitable for eyes at a higher cost. Speculation in the US suggests it could cost £1,000 per dose instead of less than £10. The company says Lucentis is specifically designed for eyes, with modifications over Avastin, and has been through 10 years of testing to prove it is safe.

Unless Avastin is approved in the UK by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) it will not be universally available within the NHS. But because Genentech declines to apply for a licence for this use of Avastin, Nice cannot consider it. In spite of the growing drugs bill of the NHS, it will appraise, and probably approve, Lucentis next year.

Although Nice's role is to look at cost-effectiveness, it says it cannot appraise a drug and pass it for use in the NHS unless the drug is referred to it by the Department of Health. The department says its hands are tied.

"The drug company hasn't applied for it to be licensed for this use. It wouldn't be referred to Nice until they have made the first move," said a Department of Health spokeswoman. "They need to step up and get a licence. If they are not getting it licensed, why aren't they?"

New drugs for the condition are badly needed: those we have now only slow the progression to blindness. With Avastin, many patients get their sight back with just one or two injections.

Avastin was first used on human eyes by Philip Rosenfeld, an ophthalmologist in the US, who was aware of animal studies carried out by Genentech that showed potential in eye conditions. This unlicensed use of Avastin has spread across continents entirely by word of mouth from one doctor to another. It has now been injected into 7,000 eyes, with considerable success.

Professor Rosenfeld has published his results and a website has been launched in the US to collate the experiences of doctors from around the world. But although the evidence is good, regulators require randomised controlled trials before they grant licences, which generally only the drug companies can afford to carry out.

Prof Rosenfeld said the real issue was drug company profits. "This truly is a wonder drug," he said. "This shows both how good they [the drug companies] are and on the flip side, how greedy they are." He would like to see governments fund clinical trials of drugs such as Avastin in the public interest.

Rising drug bills are a big problem on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, said David Wong, chairman of the scientific committee of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, doctors are fighting battles to persuade primary care trusts to pay for drugs to stop their patients going blind while they wait for Nice to decide on Lucentis and another expensive drug called Macugen. That decision is not expected before the end of next year.

About 20,000 people are diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration in the UK each year. "From the patient's point of view, if they have an eye condition that deteriorates very quickly, there is no question of waiting," said Professor Wong. "We're talking about days and weeks, rather than months. The question is should we do nothing and say there is no randomised controlled trial to prove Avastin is of value?" He called for primary care trusts to agree to pay for the planned phasing-in of new drugs for the condition.

Last night Genentech said its main concern over the use of Avastin to treat eye conditions was patient safety. "While there are some small, single-centre, uncontrolled studies of Avastin being performed, safety data on patients who are treated with Avastin off-label is not being collected in a standard or organised fashion," said a spokeswoman for the company.

Pharmaceutical firms say they need to launch drugs at high prices because of the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on developing them. Critics point out that the company's calculations also include the marketing budget.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1799772,00.html


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekotik
fuckingsuperhero
 User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
Re: Drug Company Lets People Go Blind [Re: Diploid]
    #5761982 - 06/17/06 09:57 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Pharmaceutical firms say they need to launch drugs at high prices because of the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on developing them. Critics point out that the company's calculations also include the marketing budget.




#1 excuse. i hear it over and over. if drugs were cheap, then profits would be low, and there would be less motivation for developing new drugs.

my problem with that logic is that doctors should not be motivated by profit, but rather the Hippocratic Oath. crazy words for a capitalist society right?


--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinegrimR
hippiousmaximous
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/29/06
Posts: 1,235
Loc: North America
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Drug Company Lets People Go Blind [Re: kotik]
    #5761993 - 06/17/06 10:01 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

damn drug dealers


--------------------
- grimR


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://egolost.com 
"I am already given to the power that rules my fate. And I cling to nothing, so I will have nothing to defend. I have no thoughts, so I will see. I fear nothing, so I will remember myself."

- Don Juan teachings

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Drug Company Lets People Go Blind [Re: Diploid]
    #5762110 - 06/17/06 10:30 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

LOL!

This is the typical Guardian Leftist mantra, and I'm surprised you fell for it.

The article attacks the company that developed the drug in the first place, when the real problem is not with the drug or with the company that supplies it, but with idiotic government regulations (and possibly litigation-happy patients).

If Avastin works, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why an opthalmologist cannot buy a vial of it and keep it on hand in his surgery to use on patients suffering from macular degeneration. As a matter of fact, that is what they are doing right now! All over the world.

Would this new "fragment" of Avastin (presumably either a precursor or an analog -- we cannot know for sure due to the usual scientific illiteracy of journalists assigned to science beats) work even better than Avastin? No one knows. All we know is that it has been through ten years of testing specifically for use on eyes, while Avastin has not. Big whoop. If I were an opthalmologist, I'd lay it out for my patients exactly the way they have apparently been doing in over 7,000 cases to date -- "Look, this drug hasn't been approved specifically for this use, but it works and it's cheap. You want to give it a go or not?"

Note the caveat here --

Quote:

Unless Avastin is approved in the UK by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) it will not be universally available within the NHS.




Not "universally available" within the National Health Service. Unless you have colon cancer, of course, when somehow it magically becomes available.

This is always what happens when you socialize medicine. Standard government idiocy and bureaucratic crap gets in the way of what is best for the patient. All that is really happening here is that the NHS is refusing to reimburse opthalmologists for the cost of the Avastin they administer to their patients -- a cost of less than £10, if we can believe the reporter -- because it isn't on the NHS "approved" list for that specific medical condition.  I somehow find it hard to believe that even NHS opthalmologists would let a patient go blind because the government stiffed them for less than ten quid. I'm sure if an opthalmologist were faced with a patient who needed the injection to stop him from going blind, he'd go ahead and eat the cost, or maybe ask the patient to treat them to a dinner sometime down the road if the treatment worked.

This is yet another shriek in an endless stream of Guardian hysteria incorrectly aimed at Greeedy Capitalists.

What a ripe old load of bollocks.





Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Drug Company Lets People Go Blind [Re: Phred]
    #5762907 - 06/18/06 01:38 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

This is the typical Guardian Leftist mantra

Would that be the same "Guardian Leftists" recently warned for smearing Chomsky?  :rolleyes:

You seem to believe anyone not as far to the right as the deranged bloggers you get your "facts" from must be a "leftist". That isn't the case.

I'm sure if an opthalmologist were faced with a patient who needed the injection to stop him from going blind, he'd go ahead and eat the cost, or maybe ask the patient to treat them to a dinner sometime down the road if the treatment worked.


Did you even read the article before spouting this tripe? There are 20,000 people being diagnosed with this condition every year. Are you seriously saying opthalmologists should come up with £200,000 year in year out of their own pockets to pay for this?

I can assure you Genentech have slightly more money to spare than the average opthalmologist.

This is always what happens when you socialize medicine

Yeah, people get the chance to save their eyesight for free. Terrible isn't it  :rolleyes:

This is yet another shriek in an endless stream of Guardian hysteria incorrectly aimed at Greeedy Capitalists.


I suggest you read the article. The person calling the drug company greedy is Professor Rosenfield not the Guardian.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Drug Company Lets People Go Blind [Re: Alex213]
    #5763330 - 06/18/06 05:35 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Would that be the same "Guardian Leftists" recently warned for smearing Chomsky? :rolleyes:




The Guardian undeniably leans to the Left.  I'm not saying that's horrible or anything...but it is the blatant truth.  Dissing one Lefty doesn't negate everything else that they put out.

Quote:

Alex213 said:
I suggest you read the article. The person calling the drug company greedy is Professor Rosenfield not the Guardian. 




But, the Guardian is quite clearly implying that the drug company is greedy....which they could well be.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Drug Company Lets People Go Blind [Re: Alex213]
    #5763513 - 06/18/06 07:43 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Alex213 writes:

Quote:

Would that be the same "Guardian Leftists" recently warned for smearing Chomsky?




We realize you believe there is no such thing as a left-leaning newspaper, Alex213. In your worldview they are all either neutral or right-leaning. The rest of us recognize reality.

Quote:

Are you seriously saying opthalmologists should come up with £200,000 year in year out of their own pockets to pay for this?




No, I am saying the patients should. They would in a country without socialized medicine. Ten quid isn't a lot. But if the UK government in its infinite wisdom says those enrolled in the NHS system are not allowed to pay for Avastin out of their own pockets, then the NHS should pay. After all, the NHS pays for Avastin used to treat colon cancer, and colon cancer is much more prevalent than macular degeneration, and uses much more Avastin per patient to boot.

Quote:

Yeah, people get the chance to save their eyesight for free.




As it turns out, they don't get the chance to save their eyesight for free, since the NHS won't provide the Avastin at no charge to opthalmologists, just to oncologists.

Quote:

I suggest you read the article. The person calling the drug company greedy is Professor Rosenfield not the Guardian.




LOL. I suggest you read the article, Alex213. What is the title of the article? Why, it's

"Drugs firm blocks cheap blindness cure"

And what is the first paragraph of the article? Why, it's

"A major drug company is blocking access to a medicine that is cheaply and effectively saving thousands of people from going blind because it wants to launch a more expensive product on the market."

This is a complete inversion of reality. It is not Genentech who is blocking access to Avastin, but the NHS. Genentech will sell the NHS all the Avastin the NHS wants to buy. What Genentech doesn't want to do (and shouldn't have to do) is to run yet another set of tests and studies on Avastin. If opthalmologists want to inject Avastin into the eyeballs of people suffering from macular degeneration, I'm sure Genentech is fine with that -- for several reasons, not the least of those reasons being reduced legal hassles down the road.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineYthanA
ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/08/97
Posts: 18,840
Loc: NY/MA/VT Borderlands Flag
Last seen: 9 minutes, 19 seconds
Re: Drug Company Lets People Go Blind [Re: Phred]
    #5763522 - 06/18/06 07:47 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I agree with your Phred. Perhaps we should crucify the world's farmers because some people starve to death.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Drug Company Lets People Go Blind [Re: Phred]
    #5763973 - 06/18/06 10:42 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

We realize you believe there is no such thing as a left-leaning newspaper, Alex213

"We"? Is there more than one of you typing your posts?

No Phred, that's not what I'm saying at all. Your description of the Guardian as "leftist" is what I'm questioning. Do you believe a "leftist" newspaper would support every war Blair has ever launched and need to be warned for smearing Chomsky? Does that sound "leftist" to you?

The rest of us recognize reality.


Why do you need to write as if there is more than one of you? Does it make you feel more secure?

No, I am saying the patients should.

Fortunately the british people disagree with you and believe passionately in socialised health care.

Quote:

LOL. I suggest you read the article, Alex213. What is the title of the article? Why, it's

"Drugs firm blocks cheap blindness cure"

And what is the first paragraph of the article? Why, it's

"A major drug company is blocking access to a medicine that is cheaply and effectively saving thousands of people from going blind because it wants to launch a more expensive product on the market."




So what exactly is your problem? Are you denying any of this is true?

As I've already pointed out to you it was Professor Rosenfeld who called them greedy, not the Guardian. Presumably in your utterly closed-minded belief system that makes Professor Rosenfeld a "leftist" too  :rolleyes:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Drug Company Lets People Go Blind [Re: Alex213]
    #5764167 - 06/18/06 12:12 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

You can find somebody to say anything. Who you choose to publish is entirely up to you


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Drug Company Lets People Go Blind [Re: Alex213]
    #5764176 - 06/18/06 12:16 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Your description of the Guardian as "leftist" is what I'm questioning.




You have said in a previous post that you have yet to find a major left-leaning newspaper. Therefore, it follows that to you, all major newspapers are either neutral or right-leaning.

As I said before, the rest of us recognize reality -- that there are MANY left-leaning major newspapers: few if any are more left-leaning than The Guardian.

Quote:

Fortunately the british people disagree with you and believe passionately in socialised health care.




Too bad what they passionately believe in doesn't deliver. Here we have an inexpensive drug that apparently shows significant success when used to treat macular degeneration, yet the NHS will not reimburse its cost to the opthalmologists who use it.

Now, since I am not a passionate believer in socialized medicine, I would have no problem going to an opthalmologist and paying him about the same amount I would pay for three and a half gallons of petrol in the UK so he could buy enough stuff to inject into my eye. But apparently the Brits are so thoroughly brainwashed into believing they should get the stuff for free, they are completely stymied by this turn of events -- "Oh no! The NHS doesn't want to pay my opthalmologist for the meds he wants to use to cure me. Guess I have no choice but to go blind, then." It never even occurs to them to offer to buy the necessary drug themselves until the NHS can get its shit together.

Quote:

So what exactly is your problem? Are you denying any of this is true?




Of course it's not true. Genentech is not blocking anything, especially sales of Avastin. They sell Avastin every day to physicians on the NHS. It's not THEIR problem the NHS is handcuffed by a crazy quilt of insane regulations. Even a cursory reading of the article shows where the real problem lies -- government idiocy.

Quote:

As I've already pointed out to you it was Professor Rosenfeld who called them greedy, not the Guardian.




The Guardian does the same, just in different words. They first falsely accuse Genentech of blocking access to the use of Avastin, then they claim Genentech's motivation for this "blocking" (which isn't in fact occurring in the first place) is due to Genentech's desire to launch a different, more specifically-targeted medication.

In actual fact, of course, Genentech isn't blocking anything. They are just declining to invest another ten years and untold millions to run yet another set of tests on an existing product to satisfy some inflexible regulations-obsessed government department in the UK. And why on earth should they?



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Why It Is Time To Decriminalize Drug Use RonoS 2,060 19 10/02/02 04:12 PM
by LSAuser
* The War On Drugs is one of the BIGGEST issues
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
LearyfanS 6,193 83 12/17/03 10:15 PM
by Anonymous
* A preacher's view on The War on Drugs Phred 1,186 2 07/19/01 10:52 PM
by fuzzysquirelnuts
* What Drugs Do You Think Should Be Legal?
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 3,366 56 01/22/03 02:18 AM
by Anonymous
* The drug czar says pot is 30 times more potent today mntlfngrs 746 10 12/13/03 06:15 PM
by enimatpyrt
* WHAT AN IDIOT-Ted Nugent speaks to kids about drugs
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
carbonhoots 6,811 80 11/11/03 04:09 PM
by enimatpyrt
* Leftist think tank
( 1 2 3 4 all )
nugsarenice 7,021 76 06/01/02 03:20 PM
by Great_Cthulhu
* anyone here support the drug war?
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 4,784 52 03/20/03 03:21 PM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,100 topic views. 3 members, 1 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 12 queries.