why don't you let people decide what works and what doesn't.....take the politics out of it...A system which assumes individuals do not act in their own self-interest is not a good system.
Why anyone would expect better decisions to be made by third parties who pay no price for being wrong is one of the mysteries of our time.T Sowell
The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."-Thomas Sowell
Thank you for this article. As a former FDAer preparing to join pharma, I think it's important this this perspective is heard. I hear so many people touting the benefits of MRD and you make a compelling case for caution.
"Since myeloma patients can live 15 years or more— any neurologic damage or parkinsonism or blindness— is a catastrophic risk."
On the other hand, 15% will die within a year of diagnosis and another 45% will die within 5 years. That don't have years for us to worry about possible long term side effects. Are to let them die untreated because there might someday have a side effect turn up?
Yes very similar in NHS but pharma has an influence through career minded achedemics and government officials (jobs waiting for when you leave) and patient groups but I agree with your main point.
Thank you fighting the fight for protecting the patients. Your patients are blessed by your courage, wisdom and knowledge. Thank you for speaking out. The sadness comes when many patients with a new diagnosis will see oncologists that go along with the 3 letter “bought out ruling bureaucrats”.
Healthcare can't bankrupt America. America is already bankrupt and so called healthcare has certainly helped it get to that point. Whenever the connection between buyers and sellers of goods and services is broken, demand and associated costs will soar. This is particularly true when the buyers are fooled into thinking that someone else is paying the bill. Movement toward a solution would require the return to free market principles and an insurance system that operated on conventional actuarial principles.
When I was in practice I soon learned that I should wait 1-2 years after approval of new drugs under the standard approval process. Depending on the drug put forward you would need 30,000 patient years completed to even look for the true adverse event possibilities.
why don't you let people decide what works and what doesn't.....take the politics out of it...A system which assumes individuals do not act in their own self-interest is not a good system.
Why anyone would expect better decisions to be made by third parties who pay no price for being wrong is one of the mysteries of our time.T Sowell
The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."-Thomas Sowell
Thank you for this article. As a former FDAer preparing to join pharma, I think it's important this this perspective is heard. I hear so many people touting the benefits of MRD and you make a compelling case for caution.
Always appreciate your more thoughtful approach to these issues.
"Since myeloma patients can live 15 years or more— any neurologic damage or parkinsonism or blindness— is a catastrophic risk."
On the other hand, 15% will die within a year of diagnosis and another 45% will die within 5 years. That don't have years for us to worry about possible long term side effects. Are to let them die untreated because there might someday have a side effect turn up?
I think your point is well made about efficacy and approvals. But how about continuing
Yes very similar in NHS but pharma has an influence through career minded achedemics and government officials (jobs waiting for when you leave) and patient groups but I agree with your main point.
Thank you for your continued boldness in speaking out. This all can make one sick at heart.
Too much looting going on in the US health care industry. We in the medical field ignore it at our peril.
Thank you for your integrity and for picking up this (albeit small) megaphone in recent years, Vinay.
What small fraction of the $4.3 trillion spent every year (in the USA!) on “healthcare” provides any, ANY patient/ consumer benefit?
“Medicine has become a financial commodity with the rare adverse event of better health outcomes.”
Put another way, quoting the wise Pogo, “We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.”
Thank you fighting the fight for protecting the patients. Your patients are blessed by your courage, wisdom and knowledge. Thank you for speaking out. The sadness comes when many patients with a new diagnosis will see oncologists that go along with the 3 letter “bought out ruling bureaucrats”.
Healthcare can't bankrupt America. America is already bankrupt and so called healthcare has certainly helped it get to that point. Whenever the connection between buyers and sellers of goods and services is broken, demand and associated costs will soar. This is particularly true when the buyers are fooled into thinking that someone else is paying the bill. Movement toward a solution would require the return to free market principles and an insurance system that operated on conventional actuarial principles.
I’m equally concerned that the brainwashing of our youth will expedite that.
When I was in practice I soon learned that I should wait 1-2 years after approval of new drugs under the standard approval process. Depending on the drug put forward you would need 30,000 patient years completed to even look for the true adverse event possibilities.
Respectfully
Gerald M Casey MD