FDA Denies Experimental Drug to Cancer Patient

Feb 2012
8
0
I am outraged beyond words how the FDA handles terminally ill cancer patients by denying them access to alternative medicine, particularly Patricia Clarkson, all as exposed in Mr. Jonathan Edmonds article appearing on NewsWithViews entitled, "FDA CONDEMNATION OF THE TERMINALLY ILL"

Just go to the NewsWithViews.com website, today's edition and click on his article.

It is time for this highhanded Federal Agency to be brought down to size and start putting human life ahead of profit. This is the whole problem with the health care industry today.

I hope the public will rise up and let the FDA and Big Pharma they are sick of the alleged collusion between the two of them and for both to start protecting and saving human life rather than destroying just to make a big profit.

Also it is time to find more natural alternatives to these drugs being approved regardless of the side effects they cause which frequently result in death and long term health problems. We need to demand the FDA stop trying to put the natural supplement out of business. I am scared to death to take a new prescription drug after reading all the side effects which can cause your demise, yes I said "demise"

Unfortunately the whole health care industry has lost its original objective--to heal the patient first and get paid second. Greed has replaced wellness. I don't always see eye to eye with Mr. Edmonds on all issues, but on this one I am behind 101% and I hope you the public are also.
 
Mar 2012
108
0
Whidbey Island, Wa
And you think that the FDA isn't aggressive enough. Well, elect Romney, and we will have no more FDA. No regulation, no more protecting us. We will have free-for-all science. If you believe that then I want you to eat thalidomide when u are pregnant, it is okay because there isn't enough 'evidence' to prove that thalidomide is harmful. And, of course, we can't obscure the valiant efforts of the drug 'big pharma' to convince us that thalidomid is harmless. The FDA stands between us and corporate greed. But, according to conservatives, that is contraindictative of "progress". Give me a break, am I stupid?
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
Romney won't get rid of the FDA. "Free-for-all science" as you describe it is not science. Also, regulatory capture is a concern and everything the FDA does might not be good. Just a few points I wanted to put in response to your rant.
 
May 2012
3
0
I was wondering, why would they deny that they hace the experimental drugs for cancer patients? It would give the patients a hope to be cured if really there is a drug.
 
Mar 2012
108
0
Whidbey Island, Wa
Romney won't get rid of the FDA. "Free-for-all science" as you describe it is not science. Also, regulatory capture is a concern and everything the FDA does might not be good. Just a few points I wanted to put in response to your rant.

Grin, another of my more or less drunken rants, which even I can't understand the following morning. My concern is less with the FDA than the manufactured doubt industry.

It started with the big tobacco industry hiring the public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton, to combat the increasing scientific data suggesting a link between smoking and lung cancer in 1952. Hill and Knowlton successfully mounted a campaign to confuse and obfuscate the gathering consensus of scientists that there is a link between smoking and negative health consequences. This effort didn't stop the onslaught, but it did (very successfully) delay the eventual consensus. It gave big tobacco many decades of profit (and by consequence, their own profit) before the inevitable.

But that isn't the last we heard of from Hill and Knowlton. They were subsequently hired (as experts, via their tobacco success) by anyone who wanted to produce science favorable to the industry that needed defending. With corporate money, they repeatedly set up phony science to defend the asbestos, lead, vinyl chloride, beryllium, and dioxin products industries. Gee, what a profitable business, and gee, what lives were lost? Right now, scientists are being hired to provide a reasonable doubt about global warming. Now, I don't really care about how anyone feels about any of these issues, but let's let science be science, not bought by the highest bidder.

I agree, the FDA can be a pain in the ass, especially because it is politically influenced. But contrast that with science that can be economically influenced by the manufactured doubt industry.
 
Last edited:
May 2012
1
0
And how are they different

Now, I don't really care about how anyone feels about any of these issues, but let's let science be science, not bought by the highest bidder.

I agree, the FDA can be a pain in the ass, especially because it is politically influenced. But contrast that with science that can be economically influenced by the manufactured doubt industry.

So, just how is the FDA not bought by the highest bidder? I think you should take a look at how much it costs to be "evaluated" and just how many products there are on the market that have been evaluated as safe that are literally killing people. But hey, the idea that they protect us is pretty nice...
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
So, just how is the FDA not bought by the highest bidder? I think you should take a look at how much it costs to be "evaluated" and just how many products there are on the market that have been evaluated as safe that are literally killing people. But hey, the idea that they protect us is pretty nice...

Just because drugs have side-effects (which are usually well known) does not mean the FDA was paid off to get them approved. Taking mostly all drugs is a tradeoff.
 
Jun 2012
36
0
The FDA is pretty much a stop-gap for drugs that would cause undo amount of harm to the people. Now as far as being politically lead in one direction or the other. That's a given with any branch/department of government. With the OP story about a terminally ill cancer patient, I don't see the reasoning in keeping the drugs from her. As so long as she takes care of any legal paperwork between her and the FDA it should be fine. I can also see the FDA's side of things. Her family could be quick to throw a lawsuit because of something that happened or didn't happen.

The FDA is just the necessary evil that we need to have in place.
 
Top