The Liberal War on Women

[Katzndogz]

Avastin worked very well for many women and saved their lives. Right up to the point where the government decided that it didn't want to pay for Avasin anymore, then came the government propaganda that Avastin wasn't effective.

With government paid health care it has a vested interest in getting the sick to die quickly. As obama said, don't get treatment, take a pill.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Avastin worked very well for many women and saved their lives. Right up to the point where the government decided that it didn't want to pay for Avasin anymore, then came the government propaganda that Avastin wasn't effective.

With government paid health care it has a vested interest in getting the sick to die quickly. As obama said, don't get treatment, take a pill.

And that is exactly what's going on.

 

[bobcollum]

So how long before we get rid of most other medicines and procedures?

They're all exceedingly expensive.

 

[teapartysamurai]

So how long before we get rid of most other medicines and procedures?

They're all exceedingly expensive.

That's just trying to deflect and change the subject.

The FACT that you want to avoid is, liberals are claiming a PHONY war on women based on giving out free birth control, while A LIFE SAVING drug is being denied women because the government doesn't think they are worth saving.

 

[FA_Q2]

Fuking hypocrite.

Bitch and moan about Obama's preventative health ideas that give a better quality of life with less costs then bitch because an end of life drug that has issues and is to expensive is questioned.

What the hell you want to happen. You know how much money is wasted trying to extend a dying patients life by a few days or weeks.

There has to be a limit on how much is spent to prolong life a few days or even weeks.

We are all gonna die. Bankrupting the health system for a few days is stupid. I watched it happen with a MIL. Spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to do what? Postpone the inevitiable by a week. And she didn't even know it was being done to her. Stupid.

What is truly amazing is that you do not understand what the big issue everyone has when it is the government that simply makes this choice for you over their costs without any input or concern for you whatsoever. It is exactly this attitude that you leftists were bemoaning that insurance companies have and calling it evil and terrible. Let's make this simple:

When you have insurance companies deciding things you have options AND the government lawmakers to back you up.


When it is the government paying the bill, well, legally you have no options AND when the lawmakers are the ones cutting your life to save costs who are you going to turn to? That's right, no one...

 

[Old Rocks]

So Obama cuts costs and you complain...maybe you should just get your own medication and stop relying on Obama.

That isnt the point.

Do you understand that?

The point is that the 'Conservatives' have to oppose anything the President does. Look at the number of them that were whining about the fact that the President ordered the strike that took out Bin Laden.

However, I think that the wingnuts comments and attitude towards the women of this nation, as exemplified by Ol' Limp, is going to be a telling factor this November.

 

[Si modo]

So Obama cuts costs and you complain...maybe you should just get your own medication and stop relying on Obama.

That isnt the point.

Do you understand that?

The point is that the 'Conservatives' have to oppose anything the President does. Look at the number of them that were whining about the fact that the President ordered the strike that took out Bin Laden.

However, I think that the wingnuts comments and attitude towards the women of this nation, as exemplified by Ol' Limp, is going to be a telling factor this November.

You haven't much room to comment on anyone's attitude toward women, Rocks. I've no doubt you will deny that you have any 'issues' with women.

I look forward to that denial, too. I'll use it the next time you put such importance on my gender whenever I discuss science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Naw, Sis, I have no problem with women. And have supported most of the causes since I was able to vote.

As for your stance on science, I hark back to the issues that resulted in the establishment of the AAAS. The 'Natural Philosophers' refused to look at the evidence that the geologists and biologists of the day were presenting, and went with ages old mythology by a bunch of dead Greeks. By the contents of your posts, you are very much a remenent of those 'Natural Philosophers'. Your political ideology far outweighs any scientific perspective you may have. For you, ideology trumps evidence.

 

[Si modo]

Naw, Sis, I have no problem with women. And have supported most of the causes since I was able to vote.

As for your stance on science, I hark back to the issues that resulted in the establishment of the AAAS. The 'Natural Philosophers' refused to look at the evidence that the geologists and biologists of the day were presenting, and went with ages old mythology by a bunch of dead Greeks. By the contents of your posts, you are very much a remenent of those 'Natural Philosophers'. Your political ideology far outweighs any scientific perspective you may have. For you, ideology trumps evidence.

And, you attempt to use my gender to discount what I say.

You have not-so-latent misogyny. Your actions speak volumes more than your words.

 

[skipper]

Just picture a GOP administration in the middle of an entitlement slashing frenzy. This thread wouldn't exist.

 

[Montrovant]

No, he did not have breast cancer (of course, BUT HE DID HAVE CANCER), and the measures they took to extend my father's life by THREE MONTHS was everything to us.

Avastin doesn't extend your life if you're a breast cancer patient, not even the original trials upon which accelerated FDA approval was judged warranted claimed that.

I'm sorry, YOU ARE LYING. The VERY ARTICLE YOU CITED says it will extend life by ONE TO TWO MONTHS, shall I post it again?

but it will keep your cancer from worsening by an average of 1 to 2 months.”[/quote]

MMS: Error

That quote is part of a hypothetical statement. To put it more in context :
'What kind of conversation would I have with such a patient if I were trying to convince her to take a treatment like this?

“Well, I can offer you a drug that will not make you live longer, won't make you feel better, and may have life-threatening side effects, but it will keep your cancer from worsening by an average of 1 to 2 months.”'

As you can see, not only is a hypothetical conversation, but the first sentence of that hypothetical conversation says it does NOT make you live longer.

Whether the reason for this drug being pulled is financial or not, you are misrepresenting the article in question.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

And you can basically boil it down to "screw the old, let 'em die!"

Considering the Conservative's opposition to Universal Health Care, extending health insurance coverage for kids, and general hatred for the FDA your comments reek of projection.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So Obama cuts costs and you complain...maybe you should just get your own medication and stop relying on Obama.

That isnt the point.

Do you understand that?

The point is that the 'Conservatives' have to oppose anything the President does. Look at the number of them that were whining about the fact that the President ordered the strike that took out Bin Laden.

However, I think that the wingnuts comments and attitude towards the women of this nation, as exemplified by Ol' Limp, is going to be a telling factor this November.

Do you ever get tired of lying?

Show some links where prominate Republicans whined about taking out Bin Laden.

Here's a fact for you...and I know how you liberals hate facts.

Vice President Joe Biden confessed this weekend that he advised President Obama not to launch the mission that ultimately killed Osama bin Laden last spring.

.

 

[Montrovant]

So how long before we get rid of most other medicines and procedures?

They're all exceedingly expensive.

That's just trying to deflect and change the subject.

The FACT that you want to avoid is, liberals are claiming a PHONY war on women based on giving out free birth control, while A LIFE SAVING drug is being denied women because the government doesn't think they are worth saving.

The article you posted in the OP doesn't say anything of the sort.

In fact, it seems to be saying that the effectiveness of Avastin on breast cancer is, at best, unclear. The article states that "The FDA endorsed Avastin for advanced breast cancer in 2008 despite divided opinion about its usefulness for that purpose. Only one study had found that the drug appeared to delay an advanced breast tumor from growing by about five months. It remained unclear whether patients lived longer or experienced an improved quality of life."

Further studies have supposedly shown no definitive improvement in breast cancer patients who use Avastin.

Again, I'm not trying to deny cost plays a role in any decision to revoke Avastin's approval, but from the information we've seen so far in this thread, including what you provided, there is no evidence this is a life saving drug being denied to women because the government doesn't consider them worth saving.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Vice President Joe Biden confessed this weekend that he advised President Obama not to launch the mission that ultimately killed Osama bin Laden last spring.

.

I can't hate on Biden for that because the safe play there was not to go in. If the mission tanks, and there was a lot that could have gone wrong, you've created an international incident with an unstable nuclear country. The possibilities for how bad that could have gotten are literally limitless. I could have seen an operation inside Pakistan leading in a straight line to mushroom cloud over Manhattan inside a year.

The secret of good leadership is knowing when NOT to make the safe play. I think in general Obama's been a fairly horrible leader and has terrible leadership skills. But in this case he made the right call. Even a broken clock gets it right twice a day.

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm sorry, YOU ARE LYING. The VERY ARTICLE YOU CITED says it will extend life by ONE TO TWO MONTHS, shall I post it again?

Avastin worked very well for many women and saved their lives.

In the instance being discussed here, Avastin doesn't save lives. It doesn't even meaningfully extend them. The initial results leading to its approval looked like this:

See the meaningful space between the lines on the right-hand ("overall survival") side? Me neither. The apparent benefit was on the left-hand side, which seemed to indicate a difference in progression-free survival. Subsequent tests saw that gap shrink, to the point that the benefit failed to outweigh the serious side effects of the drug.

For the difference between the left and ride sides of that figure, see this:

Although Avastin does extend the lives of patients with metastatic colorectal and kidney cancer, and remains FDA-approved for those uses, the new studies show it does not work the same miracle against metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Instead, Avastin increased what’s called progression-free survival (how long before cancer spreads or grows) by as little as a month, depending on which chemo agent it was paired with. But it did not keep women alive any longer than chemo alone. To some advocates, progression-free survival without an increase in overall survival is still welcome, since it suggests patients have a better quality of life during their last months.

Or this:

A clinical trial published in 2007 demonstrated that Avastin, when paired with the chemotherapy drug Taxol, halts the growth of metastatic breast cancer for about six months longer than chemotherapy alone. Genentech then asked the F.D.A. for approval of Avastin, combined with Taxol, for use against metastatic breast cancer.

This halt in tumor growth is known as progression-free survival. But delaying the worsening of cancer does not necessarily prolong life, and Avastin was not shown to lengthen patients’ overall survival time. So Genentech argued that the drug led not to longer life, but to improved quality of life.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Liberal War on Women

Yet another failure by the OP in particular and the right lie machine in general; a pathetic and transparent attempt to deflect yet another losing issue for conservatives.

The drug’s declassification has nothing to do with ‘saving money’:

But two new studies that looked closely at the drug's effectiveness for treating women with ovarian cancer did not show promising results. The studies found Avastin did not improve survival for most ovarian cancer patients and kept their disease from worsening for only a few months - while giving the patients more side effects.

Avastin unlikely to get ovarian cancer approval after disappointing studies - HealthPop - CBS News

 

[jillian]

You think republicans want to take away your birth control?

Liberals like Obama want to take away your life!

It begins: FDA may pull Avastin approval over cost concerns

When Barack Obama and the Democrats spent most of a year pushing their deeply unpopular health-care system overhaul, they repeatedly insisted that government intervention in the market would not mean that treatment decisions would come down to cost issues — even while demonizing providers as Tonsil Vultures and amputation-happy predators. Today, however, the Washington Post reports on an effort at the FDA to decertify Avastin as a treatment for breast cancer and its implications for cost savings at Medicare:

It begins: FDA may pull Avastin approval over cost concerns « Hot Air

The real war on women is coming from the left!

i always marvel at the ability of you and the other rightwingnut toons to totally twist an issue so you come out butt backwards.

it's kind of cool though because y'all have done it so many times, most normal people have figured you out.

thanks

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Shocking, those GOP'ers!!!
Shocking!

Pro-Lifer.....For Everyone-ELSE!!!

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]