Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Let's hear from the Doctors who prescribe the stuff.
Yeah, who needs clinical trials anyway?
willow, that's a crock of shit. already tried to sell by boedicca.
Nope! Sorry, it's not. Save that money for demoRats care donchyaknow?
the avastin story is very interesting, but not to sell the death panel narrative.
it shows how pharma companies try to make the most money in the most lucractive segments by getting their drugs FDA approved in those segments.
the initial approval has to be evaluated when new studies show that the drug is not effective.
avastin is not effective for breast cancer.
you could eat arugula instead.
and have the same chance of living 3 months longer.
now, avastin for treating age related macular degeneration, now that would get approval. if genentech would apply for the approval.
only two breast cancer oncologists?
how did they vote?
NO PATIENTS?
lol, willow, seriously.
I can only tell you what I know. Let's hear from the Doctors who prescribe the stuff. Let's see the FDA's data on it's position. I'm looking for it. obie wan cares for the poor, he takes one jet and his wifey gets her own jet, fuck those carbon footprints. Do I sound as if I don't trust what demonRats say? Why yes, I guess I do
i can tell that you don't know much.
try to keep the political bullshit about the demonrats out of this if you are seriously interested.
you even added moar shit. fuck.
this is not about obama.
Let's hear from the Doctors who prescribe the stuff.
Yeah, who needs clinical trials anyway?
moron, I included clinical trials in my list, but you don't think the doctors who prescribe it and follow the patients course are relevant. just some bureacrats in dc is fine for you. moron.
Nope! Sorry, it's not. Save that money for demoRats care donchyaknow?
the avastin story is very interesting, but not to sell the death panel narrative.
it shows how pharma companies try to make the most money in the most lucractive segments by getting their drugs FDA approved in those segments.
the initial approval has to be evaluated when new studies show that the drug is not effective.
avastin is not effective for breast cancer.
you could eat arugula instead.
and have the same chance of living 3 months longer.
now, avastin for treating age related macular degeneration, now that would get approval. if genentech would apply for the approval.
Sarah said this isn't true so there has to be death panels.
Sarah said so.
I can only tell you what I know. Let's hear from the Doctors who prescribe the stuff. Let's see the FDA's data on it's position. I'm looking for it. obie wan cares for the poor, he takes one jet and his wifey gets her own jet, fuck those carbon footprints. Do I sound as if I don't trust what demonRats say? Why yes, I guess I do
i can tell that you don't know much.
try to keep the political bullshit about the demonrats out of this if you are seriously interested.
you even added moar shit. fuck.
this is not about obama.
But Sarah said it was the fault of Democrats.
I included clinical trials in my list...
Yeah, who needs clinical trials anyway?
moron, I included clinical trials in my list, but you don't think the doctors who prescribe it and follow the patients course are relevant. just some bureacrats in dc is fine for you. moron.
Obviously you didn't, or would have seen the benefits don't out weigh the side effects.
"The bottom line is that it doesn't work very well," said Dr. Albert Braverman, chief of oncology at State University of New York Downstate Medical Center. "I've seen the occasional patient have a brief remission, which is nice, but it's certainly not doing anything important. It's not saving anyone's life."
FDA rules bar the agency from considering cost when making drug approval decisions.
From the article I already posted.
"The bottom line is that it doesn't work very well," said Dr. Albert Braverman, chief of oncology at State University of New York Downstate Medical Center. "I've seen the occasional patient have a brief remission, which is nice, but it's certainly not doing anything important. It's not saving anyone's life."
FDA rules bar the agency from considering cost when making drug approval decisions.
The Progressive-Totalitarians can't handle the truth.
But that isn't going to deter either Willow or me from speaking up.
i can tell that you don't know much.
try to keep the political bullshit about the demonrats out of this if you are seriously interested.
you even added moar shit. fuck.
this is not about obama.
But Sarah said it was the fault of Democrats.
You are the only fucking moron in sight to quote Sarah. Idiot.
The agency is making this recommendation after reviewing the results of four clinical studies of Avastin in women with breast cancer and determining that the data indicate that the drug does not prolong overall survival in breast cancer patients or provide a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients. These risks include severe high blood pressure; bleeding and hemorrhage; the development of perforations (or “holes”in the body, including in the nose, stomach, and intestines; and heart attack or heart failure.
In July 2010, after reviewing all available data an independent advisory committee, composed primarily of oncologists, voted 12-1 to remove the breast cancer indication from Avastin’s label.
Breast Surgeon: Avastin Risks Far Outweigh Benefits - FoxNews.comDr. Cynara Coomer, Chief of Breast Surgery and Director of the Comprehensive Breast Center at Staten Island University Hospital, told FoxNews.com that doctors should ultimately base their decisions on statistics.
“Avastin has been given to patients to decrease the chance of metastases, but they are not really finding that there is that much of a significant difference,” Coomer said.
The FDA still holds approval for Avastin for other types of cancer
, because breast cancer was the only disease that showed lack of evidence for improved survival rates, according to Coomer.
But Sarah said it was the fault of Democrats.
You are the only fucking moron in sight to quote Sarah. Idiot.
I thought you agreed with Sarah.
You know she has to be right.
Both of you are self proclaimed experts on health care.
So long as resources are limited, there will always be the need to determine how to use them. That's why hospitals have triage centers.I'm curious, how many folks here are willing to go on record suggesting that when it comes to public health insurance programs, cost should never be an issue? Or private insurance plans, for that matter? An unorthodox brand of fiscal conservatism, to be sure.
Granted, that's not the factor the FDA was considering here but one would think Medicare and Medicaid ought to consider that factor in making coverage decisions.
From the article I already posted.
"The bottom line is that it doesn't work very well," said Dr. Albert Braverman, chief of oncology at State University of New York Downstate Medical Center. "I've seen the occasional patient have a brief remission, which is nice, but it's certainly not doing anything important. It's not saving anyone's life."
FDA rules bar the agency from considering cost when making drug approval decisions.
well, then since we have no treatment then we don't need those pesky mammograms either. so sayeth the demonRats.
