 |
By *hagTonight OP Man 2 days ago
From the land of haribos. |
Did you hear what trump will do soon? He will introduce the right to try, so people with cancer, terminal diseases will have a right to try a new drug, or a repurposed drug, that means that they should be available on prescription only in the usa for the moment.
The positive thing with this is, is that when they start this, they can collect data and show if it works and is a good idea and no doubt the rest of the world will give the right to try too.
What is your view about it and do you think it is a good idea? I think it is good, because then people can choose what they want to try with of course advice, things like ivermectin which is proven to work too  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don’t know anything about the proposed policy but based on your synopsis OP I would generally be in favour of people having the right to do what they want with their body - as long as they took _full_ responsibility for those actions. To me that would mean they paid for it and any side effects were their issue to deal with.
I could see big issues down the road with people claiming companies had mislead them or that they had been coerced which is why it would need to be very clear anyone taking this course could find it go badly wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man 2 days ago
From the land of haribos. |
"I think it's your body and should be your choice, I would personally never have chemotherapy or radiotherapy "
Hi wildatheart, yes. I also agree that it is your body, your choice should be your choice too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think it's your body and should be your choice, I would personally never have chemotherapy or radiotherapy "
If I hadn't had chemo / RT 9 years ago I'd be long dead, but hey ho, each to their own. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man 2 days ago
From the land of haribos. |
"I don’t know anything about the proposed policy but based on your synopsis OP I would generally be in favour of people having the right to do what they want with their body - as long as they took _full_ responsibility for those actions. To me that would mean they paid for it and any side effects were their issue to deal with.
I could see big issues down the road with people claiming companies had mislead them or that they had been coerced which is why it would need to be very clear anyone taking this course could find it go badly wrong."
I heard about it from one of john campells video where he talked about what plan trump had in mind about it, yes. I am also in favour of it too  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Waivers signed over the treatment.. policies in place that the family can't then sue for the damages of the treatment. Full medical disclosure and documentation. Possibly even requiring them to have weekly in person medical consultants at home or hospital to record the results.
Ohh like clinical trials.....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I have some fairly strong views on this.
Before the right to try act there was the expanded access system
Same basic premise with some key differences. Expanded access still exists.
Under expanded access, companies and doctors were required by law to report regularly on adverse affects, patient outcomes (eg did it even help them) and all the same nitty gritty detail needed as if they were taking part in a medical trial.
The right to try act removes those. There is one annual report required and nowhere does it say that patient outcomes must be reported.
From 2018-2023 only 16 types of treatment were given through this act. We have no idea if the hundreds of patients that recieved these treatments were helped or not.
Under expanded access reports are essential as is the fda approval for the treatment - to help prevent ethical and other types of abuse. If the evidence suggests it will help they’ll approve it. The number of treatments approved in this manner annually is in the hundreds and the number of patients in the hundreds of thousands. The fda approve 89% of applications, and this is evidence based.
The only people protecting the patients on the right to try scheme is if the company themselves deny treatment. That’s it. It leaves it really open to abuse. That abuse though they’re immune from as the act gives immunity to the doctors and companies supplying the treatment.
Huge amount of red flags.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If it's absolutely any policy from Trump, you know that it's only purpose is for the benefit of himself and his rich friends. In this particular case, my guess is that it's a lead up to allowing drug trials on human subjects with zero protection for the subjects. Tell people who can't afford health insurance that they can try this new miracle drug that the evil FDA didn't want them to have. Just sign this form disallowing them from claiming if their skin falls off... Drug companies get to test new stuff without having to bother with all the safety costs, and when the poor people die then hey, it doesn't matter...
I'm guessing that all the trump supporters who scream blue murder about "evil big pharma vaccines" will now be totally in favour of feeding untried drugs to human guinea pigs... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
