01 - Terminal Patients Access to Promising Therapies

From Joel Nowak and Leslie Mulkey of New York City, New York: Shouldn't late-stage, terminal patients, who have run out of FDA approved treatment options, be given meaningful access to promising therapies that are not yet FDA approved?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• prostate
• cancer
• terminal
• treatment
• options
• illness
• meaningful
• access
• Provenge
• FDA
• 10questions
• 10
• questions

[TahoeCliffhucker]

Best of luck to you Joel!

This is an extremely important question that demands some serious attention by our "leaders" in government.

It sounds like a no-brainer (to allow terminal patients promising drug(s)/therapies.)

I suppose the FDA does not use a human brain but a calculator to make its decisions!?

Nice work Thurly!

[tommyfromthewho]

Delaying of the Provenge by the corrupt FDA is a travesty. FDA by this decision has condemed thousands of terminally ill PC patients to their early deaths. Shame on FDA, its leader, Von E and their corrupt employess Pazdur, Scher, Hossain and Fleming who used illegal means to delay the approval of Provenge. These men are dying silently and our representatives who are supposed to control the corrupt FDA are not even hearing their cries. Shame on the Congress for allowing this injustice to stand.

[stonerj0e]

it's kinda like if i was dying of cancer and started smoking weed, they would label me a drug addict and possibly have me thrown in jail to die with no pain meds .

this is how government works .

[1010pine]

The FDA are the REAL Terrorist! The U.S. Government is the REAL Al-Qaeda threat!

[chatykat]

Awesome!!

[achchhaa]

Best of luck to you Joel!

[diedra]

Finally - good to see this up here... now what we need is a clip of Scher's fruedin slip up on the 'investors' during the panel. PLease put that up!

[rock6191]

I didn't say it's a reputable publication...only that it's widely read in DC circles. Calling it a third rate rag won't win over those who need to be won over.

[Thurly]

If they're so reputable, why didn't they post any rebuttals to the Scher, Hussain or Fleming letters? There were several important rebuttals published elsewhere, but not published or even mentioned by The Cancer Letter. Why? I think their credibility as an objective source of information is highly suspect in this instance.

[mhigg]

Where do you get 8-10%? I know of one other application withdrawn and none directly overturned until Provenge ... this in close to 40 AC meetings ... oh yeah, and one more recently. Ok ... that's 3 and I do see your 8-10% ... certainly a trend change in play here.

[rock6191]

Your conflict of interest points may be valid, but trial center investigators typically test more than one drug in their careers. Just do a Pubmed search for the lead investigator for any trial and I bet he or she is associated with a ton of other investigative treatments for the same disease.  I'd direct your conflict of interest questions toward financial, rather than professional conflicts if you want to win over Congressmen or presidential candidates.

[rock6191]

The FDA has been turning down drugs recommended by its advisory committees for years. It only happens about 8-10% of the time, but it still happens. Also FWIW, The Cancer Letter is one of the most important oncology periodicals, especially if you're talking about inside the DC Beltway. Calling it a third-rate rag won't win you many friends on either side of the Beltway aisle.