Re: OT (?): FDA reverses approval of Avastin on grounds it doesn't provide "sufficient" benefit

Janet <boxhill@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: Ellen K. wrote:
: > "Janet" <boxhill@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: > news:8njp4qFrjnU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: >> Ellen K. wrote:
: >>> I specifically stated at the top of the post that the piece
: >>> reproduced was an editorial, and specifically recognized that some
: >>> readers might disagree with the opinion expressed by the writer, but
: >>> that there were substantive points that deserved attention. I'm
: >>> sorry you didn't care to address any of the substantive points.
: >>
: >> I didn't see any "substantive points." Unless you consider
: >> references to Kevorkian and "death panels" and so forth to be
: >> "substantive." Wendy addressed the factual reality behind us of the
: >> drug. The article was a piece of pure propaganda that didn't even
: >> make a faint effort to do so.
: >
: > One particularly striking substantive point of the article was the
: > decision of the European Medicines Agency approving Avastin for
: > metastatic breast cancer: Benefits of the drug, the EMA said,
: > "continue to outweigh the risks, because the available data have
: > overwhelmingly shown to prolong progression-free
: > survival of breast cancer patients without a negative effect on the
: > overall survival." This agency is the EU equivalent of our FDA, yet
: > our FDA ruled that the drug does not provide "a sufficient benefit in
: > slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to
: > patients."

: That is possibly the ONLY substantive point in the article. (I'm assuming
: that it is factually accurate, without checking it. In a clear propaganda
: piece like this, that is probably unwise, of course.) What was the
: reasoning behind the decision in Europe vs here? (Thalidomide was approved
: for use in pregnant women in Europe while the FDA banned it here, saving
: untold thousands of babies from severe deformity.) What percentage of women
: who receive it does it help? What are the side effects for them and for
: those who are not helped? Can you tell in advance who it will help and who
: it will not help? Do they pay the same amount for the drug that we do?
: (Unlikely....) All questions that I have no time or inclination to research,
: and which the article made no effort whatever to address. Frankly, I doubt
: that the writer gives a shit about women with breast cancer. S/he was simply
: grasping at this one decision as a stick to beat the Obama Administration
: with.

Not Obama care, but good Republican budget cutting, look at Arizona who is
cutting off all Medicade transplants because they are too expensive. Let
those poor folk dieas it costs to much to give them the possibility of
continued PRODUCTIVE life.

Talk about death panels!

Wendy
.

Relevant Pages