Dying 7 year old gets the shaft from good ole big pharma/FDA

[cauthen96]

Charity offers to pay for 7-year-old's lifesaving treatment; drug maker still refuses | Fox News

Aint that some shit? Watched dallas buyers club the other night and it was the same shit with new AIDS drugs coming out in the 80s..

Big pharma and the FDA never cease to amaze me..

 

[EzekielAnon]

Charity offers to pay for 7-year-old's lifesaving treatment; drug maker still refuses | Fox News

Aint that some shit? Watched dallas buyers club the other night and it was the same shit with new AIDS drugs coming out in the 80s..

Big pharma and the FDA never cease to amaze me..

Yea I read about this and it's sooo sad. Dam FDA!!

 

[Superbeast668]

poor little shit. he doesnt deserve to die over a virus after all the other shit he's gone through. just dose him some meds. theyre throwing the money at you.

 

[Tom]

I honestly have no idea how a person like that can sleep at night.....if that decision is not reversed then it is criminal to me.

 

[triathloncoach]

I will take the other side having direct experience with launching new drugs and dealing with the FDA. And compassionate use programs.

1) the drug is not approved for use
2) the company had a compassionate use program but it became too costly to just give the drug away
3) should the company just give away it's medicine to everyone who thinks it MAY help? How do you think that would play out?
4) is this child's life more important than all the other children, young moms, etc who MAY be helped by this product?
5) why is this drug not yet approved by the FDA? None of us know, but I know there is a reason.
6) what happens if they do give this drug and there is a bad outcome? The company is attacked by everyone - especially the folks manipulating the media right now. Ever hear about a lawyer suing a drug company?

The CEO is making the right play. There are a lot of people dying horrible deaths. That's life. If the drug is ready for the market the FDA needs to approve it for everyone who it MAY help. One life is not more special than another's. Especially if they vote Republican..

I could go on and on.

 

[triathloncoach]

I honestly have no idea how a person like that can sleep at night......

You big dummy. He sleeps in a mansion next to his latest trophy wife.

 

[anabolicscuba]

The people should be angry at the FDA, not the drug company. There should be exceptions for unapproved drugs in life threatening situations like this. The person is going to die anyway, surely they are willing to roll the dice on a drug that might not work, might work, or might kill them on the spot.

 

[cauthen96]

The people should be angry at the FDA, not the drug company. There should be exceptions for unapproved drugs in life threatening situations like this. The person is going to die anyway, surely they are willing to roll the dice on a drug that might not work, might work, or might kill them on the spot.

I agree.. figured there would be something they could sign saying regardless of the outcome they waive all rights to sue or something to that extent..

 

[triathloncoach]

The people should be angry at the FDA, not the drug company. There should be exceptions for unapproved drugs in life threatening situations like this. The person is going to die anyway, surely they are willing to roll the dice on a drug that might not work, might work, or might kill them on the spot.

I agree.. figured there would be something they could sign saying regardless of the outcome they waive all rights to sue or something to that extent..

Very True, but the CEO needs to focus on getting the drug approved with the best possible labeling, not cherry picking who wins the lottery of potentially living while getting a very expensive drug for free. It is an ethical dilemma but his company is not the Red Cross, it's a business. They can't be required to give their assets away.

 

[GottaGain]

I will take the other side having direct experience with launching new drugs and dealing with the FDA. And compassionate use programs.

1) the drug is not approved for use
2) the company had a compassionate use program but it became too costly to just give the drug away
3) should the company just give away it's medicine to everyone who thinks it MAY help? How do you think that would play out?
4) is this child's life more important than all the other children, young moms, etc who MAY be helped by this product?
5) why is this drug not yet approved by the FDA? None of us know, but I know there is a reason.
6) what happens if they do give this drug and there is a bad outcome? The company is attacked by everyone - especially the folks manipulating the media right now. Ever hear about a lawyer suing a drug company?

The CEO is making the right play. There are a lot of people dying horrible deaths. That's life. If the drug is ready for the market the FDA needs to approve it for everyone who it MAY help. One life is not more special than another's. Especially if they vote Republican..

I could go on and on.

Very True, but the CEO needs to focus on getting the drug approved with the best possible labeling, not cherry picking who wins the lottery of potentially living while getting a very expensive drug for free. It is an ethical dilemma but his company is not the Red Cross, it's a business. They can't be required to give their assets away.

The article said they came up with the money for it, then the ceo changed his excuse to it not being ethical to administer treatment that isn't fda approved.

 

[triathloncoach]

The article said they came up with the money for it, then the ceo changed his excuse to it not being ethical to administer treatment that isn't fda approved.

Well that muddied the water some. But if the drug isn't approved the price isn't public knowledge.

Honestly, this is a brutal situation.

 

[Swiper]

http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/09/kill-the-fda-before-it-kills-again-dalla

 

[GottaGain]

Well that muddied the water some. But if the drug isn't approved the price isn't public knowledge.

Honestly, this is a brutal situation.

The article says the Max Cure Foundation came up with the 50 grand that the ceo said he would need to supply the drug, then he said he couldn't do it because it wouldn't be ethical.

 

[red5150]

Very True, but the CEO needs to focus on getting the drug approved with the best possible labeling, not cherry picking who wins the lottery of potentially living while getting a very expensive drug for free. It is an ethical dilemma but his company is not the Red Cross, it's a business. They can't be required to give their assets away.

Red Cross is a business masquerading as a charity. The CEO made over 1 million plus bennies in 2010.

 

[EzekielAnon]

The article says the Max Cure Foundation came up with the 50 grand that the ceo said he would need to supply the drug, then he said he couldn't do it because it wouldn't be ethical.

I bet that ceo's ethical concerns would be elevated in a heart beat if that was his little child fighting for their life.

 

[Ashop]

The people should be angry at the FDA, not the drug company. There should be exceptions for unapproved drugs in life threatening situations like this. The person is going to die anyway, surely they are willing to roll the dice on a drug that might not work, might work, or might kill them on the spot.

Good view point. People should contact this company as state their opinions.

 

[AshopRep]

I bet that ceo's ethical concerns would be elevated in a heart beat if that was his little child fighting for their life.

Hell yeyes it would.

 

[Aikman56]

The people should be angry at the FDA, not the drug company. There should be exceptions for unapproved drugs in life threatening situations like this. The person is going to die anyway, surely they are willing to roll the dice on a drug that might not work, might work, or might kill them on the spot.

This.

The article said they came up with the money for it, then the ceo changed his excuse to it not being ethical to administer treatment that isn't fda approved.

He's protecting his company and investors from financial vulnerability that comes with administration of an unapproved drug.

I will take the other side having direct experience with launching new drugs and dealing with the FDA. And compassionate use programs.

1) the drug is not approved for use
2) the company had a compassionate use program but it became too costly to just give the drug away
3) should the company just give away it's medicine to everyone who thinks it MAY help? How do you think that would play out?
4) is this child's life more important than all the other children, young moms, etc who MAY be helped by this product?
5) why is this drug not yet approved by the FDA? None of us know, but I know there is a reason.
6) what happens if they do give this drug and there is a bad outcome? The company is attacked by everyone - especially the folks manipulating the media right now. Ever hear about a lawyer suing a drug company?

The CEO is making the right play. There are a lot of people dying horrible deaths. That's life. If the drug is ready for the market the FDA needs to approve it for everyone who it MAY help. One life is not more special than another's. Especially if they vote Republican..

I could go on and on.

As someone that works in the industry, you took the words out of my mouth.

More often than not, the "EvilPharma" stories people hear can be traced back to Managed Care, FDA and an overly-litigious society.

 

[Stewie]

Great news! Looks like Chimerix is offering the drug! My prayers go out to this little warrior that he'll pull through this and live a prosperous life.

7-year-old Cancer Patient To Receive Experimental Drug - NBC News

 

[cauthen96]

Thats great news!