Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Re: THE REAL DRUG WAR IS VIOXX

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ilena Rose - 16 Jun 2005 18:29 GMT
tcart...@elp.rr.com   Jun 12, 10:58 pm     hide options

From: tcart...@elp.rr.com wrote:

Hi Tim and Steve,
        Some say the FDA should loosen up, some say it should tighten
up. I think it should smarten up.

~~~~~~~~

What must be noted is that those who claim the FDA should 'loosen up'
are the corporations and their vast and enormous PR teams via quacky
front groups and "foundations" like Cato and CEI and AEI ...

who believe in less government regulation over these same
corporations.

~~~~`

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
tcarter2@elp.rr.com - 27 Jun 2005 06:52 GMT
Hi,
     There are also others with this belief. Some would be the
families of people with less than one month to live due to impending
heart failure. The Abiocore heart has been shown to extend their life
expectancey by about four months. Cancer drugs have been approved with
efficacy in this range, yet the artificial heart is apparently not
going to be. Why not??

Thomas

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The first fully implantable artificial heart hasn't
yet proved its promise, say government advisers worried that most of
the few recipients so far suffered serious side effects for little
gain.

The AbioCor artificial heart has been tested in only 14 men. Two died
from the operation; another never regained consciousness. The rest
survived only an average of five months, with one exception: a man who
lived 17 months, until the mechanical heart wore out.

Still, maker Abiomed Inc. asked the Food and Drug Administration for
permission to sell the device, under a special rule allowing sale of
medical devices with less than the normally required proof of benefit
if they're for small groups of people who have no treatment options.

Abiomed is targeting heart failure sufferers too sick for a heart
transplant, who have exhausted other options and are likely to die
within a month.

Thursday, advisers to the FDA were moved by two families of recipients
who called the extra time priceless. But panelists were more worried
that many AbioCor recipients suffered severe strokes, some fatal, that
compromised their final weeks.

Ultimately, panelists wanted more information on how to decide which
dying patients were appropriate candidates, and how to lower their
stroke risk.

"I voted against (this) with some angst," said adviser Dr. Clyde Yancey
of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, after the panel
voted 7-6 that the heart's probable benefit didn't outweigh the risks.

That is an "agonizingly thin" line, added Dr. John Somberg of Rush
University.

The FDA is not bound by its advisers' recommendations but usually
follows them.

"This one, I think, is a real dilemma," said the FDA's chief reviewer,
Dr. Julie Swain. She asked whether, for most patients, the AbioCor was
really "prolonging life, not prolonging death."

The AbioCor is the first attempt at a mechanical heart with no wire
sticking through the skin. The battery that powers the softball-sized
device is recharged by an electrical charge through the skin.

Abiomed's chief scientific officer, Robert Kung, pledged that if his
company were authorized to sell the heart, the company would allow
implants at only 10 hospitals where surgeons would get special
training. He said the company also would continue studying how the next
20 patients fare.

If approved, the implant is expected to cost about $250,000. It is
unclear if insurance would cover it. It is too large for most women;
the company is developing a smaller version.
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 27 Jun 2005 18:56 GMT
>>  There are also others with this belief. Some would be the
families of people with less than one month to live due to impending
heart failure. The Abiocore heart has been shown to extend their life
expectancey by about four months. Cancer drugs have been approved with
efficacy in this range, yet the artificial heart is apparently not
going to be. Why not?? <<

COMMENT:

Those cancer drugs don't cost a quarter of a million bucks.

The longer answer is that even if the thing was only bought for cash by
rich people, the FDA really doesn't care about the problems of a few
rich people.  The FDA isn't dying. It doesn't "feel your pain."  Get
it?

Perhaps the artificial heart makers couldn't pay as much in bribes as
Merck or Glaxo-Smith-Kline. Why knows?

I do know that if these expensive and somewhat rickety artificial
hearts are not approved at some point, they won't ever evolve the cheap
device that anybody can "buy."  Consider what would have happened if
we'd decided that computers were just too expensive in 1952 (when there
were only 2 Univacs in existance), and we'd just quit. Why then, we
wouldn't be where we are today, when even small universities can afford
computers :).

I saw my first big plasma TV in Las Vegas about 3 years ago.  No place
but Vegas could afford them. Today, they are toys of the affluent.  But
in ten or fifteen years, there won't be a picture tube left except, in
trailor parks.   That's how progress WORKS. In aviation transport, in
the auto industry, everywhere.

But the FDA doesn't get it. The people who vote in the idiots who
appoint the FDA and make its rules, don't get it. So you're going to
need an artificial heart one day, and it won't be there and you're
going to die of your stupidity. Welcome to the pitiless universe. It
doesn't suffer fools.

SBH
tcarter2@elp.rr.com - 27 Jun 2005 19:43 GMT
Hi,
     It's not that easy to make a vote that could maximize the medical
progess we want to see. Maybe we're not that far from the time when
some of the major natural medicine companies could get together and
make some recommendations in key congressional races. Not to mention
the presidential one. Politicians have immense respect for anyone who
can swing even a few tens of thousands of votes.

Thomas
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 27 Jun 2005 20:10 GMT
>>It's not that easy to make a vote that could maximize the medical
progess we want to see. <<

COMMENT:

Why isn't it easy?  You let the people with the problem and the market
decide.

Did some giant frigging government agency make the decissions that led
to the "progress we want to see" that gave us all cheap cellphones,
digiital watches, computers, color TVs, DVD movies, camcorders, and so
on?  NO.  All that was necessary is they got out of the way.

I remember the first Amana Radar Range microwave ovens. They were
dinosaurs and expensive as hell. Just like the first $400 calculators
and digital watches. Nobody could afford them. But a few months ago I
bought a Chinese made microwave oven at Target for $30 and it works
just great.

There is NO reason whatsoever that medical progress cannot be as fast,
since we spend even more on healthcare than we do on consummer
electronics. We are held back merely by cowardice, stupidity, denial,
ignorance, and lack of empathy for people who need the medical
technology at the moment (while we happen---(briefly---to be healthy).
All of these qualities which the average voter and lawmaker and
regulator has in abundance.

SBH
tcarter2@elp.rr.com - 28 Jun 2005 01:55 GMT
Hi Steve,

> >>It's not that easy to make a vote that could maximize the medical
> progess we want to see. <<
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Why isn't it easy?  You let the people with the problem and the market
> decide.

Both major parties support the status quo. Which of the two congressmen
running in given district will maximize the progress of medical
science? All have their prejudices, but no one knows. What will be the
result of a few more votes for a fringe party. More prejudices, but no
one knows. What we need is a caucus of some power that will force both
candidates to vie for the vote of a bloc of people who favor more
effort, money and freedom in the field of medical research.

Thomas
mbraff@gmail.com - 28 Jun 2005 05:09 GMT
> Did some giant frigging government agency make the decissions that led
> to the "progress we want to see" that gave us all cheap cellphones,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> since we spend even more on healthcare than we do on consummer
> electronics.

Wrong. Progress in electronics is unique. It hasn't happened in any
other
industry, so there is no reason to expect it to happen in medicine.

For example, the house I live in was build in 1965.  Houses today are
build almost exacly the same as they were back then.  That house cost
$25,000 when new and today costs $300,000. By your logic my house
should only cost $2,000 today if not for the government messing things
up. Not very likely.

Cars havn't changed very much since my 1964 chevy impala.  Why don't I
get 3000 miles per gallon for a car that costs $2000?  After all disk
drives were 20 megabytes not that long ago, and now they are 200
gigabytes.  Fact is not many things improved by a factor of 1000 in the
last 30 years.  

Marty
Eric Bohlman - 29 Jun 2005 05:20 GMT
mbraff@gmail.com wrote in news:1119931795.622440.26650
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Wrong. Progress in electronics is unique. It hasn't happened in any
> other
> industry, so there is no reason to expect it to happen in medicine.

Definitely true.  Note that the physical processes involved in
electronics are almost perfectly understood, as compared to the
biological processes involved in medicine.  The scientific underpinnings
of electronics essentially amount to a mature subject; biology is a
century or two behind physics.

There's also the fact that nearly all the innovations SBH mentioned
filled completely new market niches; they didn't have to be backwards-
compatible with a massive installed base.  Medicine would be a lot easier
if we got to make up the specs for the patient.

> For example, the house I live in was build in 1965.  Houses today are
> build almost exacly the same as they were back then.  That house cost
> $25,000 when new and today costs $300,000. By your logic my house
> should only cost $2,000 today if not for the government messing things
> up. Not very likely.

That, however, is a poor analogy, since the vast majority of the price of
a "house" is the price of the land, not of building the structure.

Note that construction, like medicine, is still a very labor-intensive
process.
mbraff@gmail.com - 28 Jun 2005 05:31 GMT
>   That's how progress WORKS. In aviation transport, in
> the auto industry, everywhere.

Well The Boeing 747 was developed in the 1960's  and it's still
around today.  Not much progress in aviation.  Considering that
we were able to fly ar 600 miles per hour back in the 1960's
we should be able to go at least 6000 mph today. After all,
look at the progress in electonics.

So who is responsible for screwing this up??

Martin
mbraff@gmail.com - 28 Jun 2005 04:28 GMT
> Hi,
>       There are also others with this belief. Some would be the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Thomas

Maybe because drugs are not approved after being tested on only 14
subjects.  With this limited testing you probably not have confidence
that the devices do extend life.

Martin
tcarter2@elp.rr.com - 28 Jun 2005 15:17 GMT
Hi,
      An excellant point. My reading of the article I posted is that
the approval was sought under conditions which amounted to a
progression from a phase I trial, which was successful, to a phase II
trial of twenty subjects. Except that the cost of the device would be
borne by the subject or some alternative source if Abiomed could find
such subjects. I see this as more of a financial rather than medical
question, and that the FDA should have confined its participation to
the latter.

Thomas
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 28 Jun 2005 16:05 GMT
>>I see this as more of a financial rather than medical
question, and that the FDA should have confined its participation to
the latter. <<

COMMENT:

And yet the two are inextricably intertwined.  The Wright Brothers
hadn't been flying for more than 7 years before they killed a passenger
in 1908.  How long before the airplane would became "safe and
effective."?  Can you imagine of the FDA had been involved?  I doubt
we'd be past wooden biplanes yet.

And yet people don't HAVE to fly.  We do have to have medical advances,
though, or we die just doing nothing. Millions of us a year, just in my
own country. You see the problem?

SBH
mbraff@gmail.com - 29 Jun 2005 01:30 GMT
> Hi,
>        An excellant point. My reading of the article I posted is that
> the approval was sought under conditions which amounted to a
> progression from a phase I trial, which was successful, to a phase II
> trial of twenty subjects.

I don't think this reading is correct. They wanted the device approved
so they could sell it.  If approved the device would not be part
of a phase XX trial, which is done to obtain approval.

The FDA is clearly saying they want further testing prior to approval.

 "Ultimately, panelists wanted more information on how to decide which

  dying patients were appropriate candidates, and how to lower their
  stroke risk. "

The fact that:

  " He (Abiomed's chief scientific officer, Robert Kung) said the
   company also would continue studying how the next 20 patients
   fare."

Does not mean there will be a phase II trial going on monitered by
the FDA. The company could study the next 20 patients any way they
pleased, and publish or not publish the results.

> Except that the cost of the device would be
> borne by the subject or some alternative source if Abiomed could find
> such subjects. I see this as more of a financial rather than medical
> question, and that the FDA should have confined its participation to
> the latter.

I don't see your basis for this.  I don't see any indication in the
article that finances were the issue.

 "government advisers worried that most of the few recipients
  so far suffered serious side effects for little gain. "

I read from this that they are considering the medical question,
and that is the basis of their decision not to approve, but require
further testing.
tcarter2@elp.rr.com - 29 Jun 2005 03:11 GMT
Hi,
     All good and valid points. But the fact is the FDA could have
withdrawn approval at any time, could have dictated the study
proceedure, and above all there is now no ongoing progress in a very
important medical life saving device.
      My basic premise is the FDA needs to do a better job, and they
should have let this program go forward now.

Thomas
mbraff@gmail.com - 29 Jun 2005 03:31 GMT
tcart...@elp.rr.com wrote:
> Hi,
>       All good and valid points. But the fact is the FDA could have
> withdrawn approval at any time, could have dictated the study
> proceedure,

I don't think they could dictate the study proceedure after they
approve the device.  By not approving they are dictating further
study.

> and above all there is now no ongoing progress in a very
> important medical life saving device.

Well, the FDA folks, after reviewing the trial results
say that it has not been shown to be a "medical life saving device".

There will be no progress only if this company is unwilling to continue
to test this device without marketing approval.

>  My basic premise is the FDA needs to do a better job,
> and they should have let this program go forward now.

If this company has confidence they will continue to test
it, and the program will go forward.

> Thomas

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.