Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
F GWB for not allowing stem cell research.
And F big pharmacy and their lobbyists pushing against legal medicinal Marijuana.
bush didnt end stem cell research, he just limited it to the lines already open, try researching it as this has been rehashed time and time again.
that said, i do agree with you on pushing to keep MJ on the schedule one list of drugs. while i dont think we should be legalizing MJ, it should be at least removed from the schedule one list.
and while the right to try act is good on the surface, and i think it will do a lot of good down the road, not only helping in finding drugs that will work, but drugs that wont work as well. my problem with it is that unless some protections are built into the act, the lawyers will have a field day every time an unapproved drug fails.
It never made sense to me to have healthy people be paid to try experimental drugs. How would you know if it would help sick patients?
I had a dear relative go to Mexico, when she was dying of cancer. to try some quack treatments. Sadly this bill has come years too late for her and many, many others.
I wish that Congress would take a similarly compassionate stance on the use of medical marijuana. During the last months of his life, my father had little to no appetite and considerable pain and nausea. I believe the drug could have helped with all of these.
Agreed, and not the synthetic garbage that doesn't do anything. I realize a lot of states, like my own, are tiptoeing around the feds...but just do it.
It never made sense to me to have healthy people be paid to try experimental drugs. How would you know if it would help sick patients?
I had a dear relative go to Mexico, when she was dying of cancer. to try some quack treatments. Sadly this bill has come years too late for her and many, many others.
You are mistaken if you think there were some magic drugs years ago that would have cured her cancer if only she could have gotten access to them. To the extent that there are drugs in trial that a treating physician thinks may benefit a terminal patient, it's a quick process to get expedited review for compassionate use - as quick as a couple of days in some cases. Of course, the drug company has to agree which has to happen before there is any FDA involvement, and the treating doctor has to know about a drug that might benefit the patient in the first place. With hundreds of studies going on all the time, doctors aren't going to know about all the early phase trials out there.
I'm not saying this bill is bad, but on a practical level, it's not a game changer. I say that as someone who works in a research hospital and has been involved with the process to get compassionate use drugs to our patients many times.
It never made sense to me to have healthy people be paid to try experimental drugs. How would you know if it would help sick patients?
I had a dear relative go to Mexico, when she was dying of cancer. to try some quack treatments. Sadly this bill has come years too late for her and many, many others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
You are mistaken if you think there were some magic drugs years ago that would have cured her cancer if only she could have gotten access to them. To the extent that there are drugs in trial that a treating physician thinks may benefit a terminal patient, it's a quick process to get expedited review for compassionate use - as quick as a couple of days in some cases. Of course, the drug company has to agree which has to happen before there is any FDA involvement, and the treating doctor has to know about a drug that might benefit the patient in the first place. With hundreds of studies going on all the time, doctors aren't going to know about all the early phase trials out there.
I'm not saying this bill is bad, but on a practical level, it's not a game changer. I say that as someone who works in a research hospital and has been involved with the process to get compassionate use drugs to our patients many times.
while i agree that this bill should have been created long ago, i think emm is right on this. there is no magic drug that will cure cancer.............
yet. but perhaps there might be a cure over the horizon, but we will never get there except with this new law.
while i agree that this bill should have been created long ago, i think emm is right on this. there is no magic drug that will cure cancer.............
yet. but perhaps there might be a cure over the horizon, but we will never get there except with this new law.
nope, this bill will have no impact on research. The drugs in question are ALREADY in clinical trials, and past the initial phase. Compassionate use patient data isn't even used in determining the trial results, because chances are those patients wouldn't even qualify for the study using the standard inclusion/exclusion criteria.
So they get access to a drug that may help them, hopefully, that's what everyone wishes for. But whatever happens, it doesn't impact the research aspect at all. This bill has nothing to do with discovering cures - the drugs involved have already been "discovered" and are in the process of determining the efficacy, completely unrelated to this bill.
The House failed to pass its own bill last month because it did not give members time to read it or hold a hearing. ( A common strategy employed by both parties to blame the opposing team)
The 10 states that do not have " Right to Try" Laws are Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Massachuttes, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Nonetheless, the FDA has has a long established Expanded Access Program to allow terminally ill patients and their doctors to obtain approval to try a medication outside a clinical trial. Reportedly, 99% of requests are approved, most by phone, at the time of the request.
This legislation does not require manufacturers to provide the medications or most importantly, for public/ private insurers to pay for them.
bush didnt end stem cell research, he just limited it to the lines already open, try researching it as this has been rehashed time and time again.
that said, i do agree with you on pushing to keep MJ on the schedule one list of drugs. while i dont think we should be legalizing MJ, it should be at least removed from the schedule one list.
and while the right to try act is good on the surface, and i think it will do a lot of good down the road, not only helping in finding drugs that will work, but drugs that wont work as well. my problem with it is that unless some protections are built into the act, the lawyers will have a field day every time an unapproved drug fails.
I wouldn't oppose Marijuana being legal at all.
I would rather see department of agriculture and similar regulations applied to it that are applied to alcohol.
I'm looking at closing on 115 acres in july.
I would go to the state and federal department of agriculture for the license and pay for it.
I would put 50 acres of the Devils lettuce up.
Sell to distributors. Make money hand over fist.
Hire former felons with non violent drug charges to harvest it and package it. Toss a couple pounds their way for being good employees. Or for them to sell for a little side money.
Pay for developing a breathalyzer for police to use to detect smoking and driving and use the same penalties in place for booze.
No carcinogenic additives to the Devils lettuce. Grow it au naturale. No pesticides no herbicides. Cow manuer and water.
Sell the fibers for industrial use. Rope/hemp etc.
If the government wanted to tax it, I wouldn't be opposed to it within reason.
It helps us.
I don't smoke it. I never have smoked it. Not my cup of tea. But it isn't my place to say what you or anyone can and cannot do after 5 behind closed doors in the comfort of their own home. Just so long as they're not out driving high as a kite eyes as red as the Devils ass I don't care.
That's the one hill I wish older Republicans would get over and not want to die on...
There's a demand for it.
There's a potential million/billion dollar source of revenue.
Other farmers wouldn't need government subsidies as much as they wouldn't be stuck growing corn and veggies. They could grow the Devils lettuce to sell. Afterall we are the party of fiscal responsibility and common sense yes?
while i agree that this bill should have been created long ago, i think emm is right on this. there is no magic drug that will cure cancer.............
yet. but perhaps there might be a cure over the horizon, but we will never get there except with this new law.
Never?
What's with the absolutes?
These drugs are in clinical trial, as is.
The first state to approve a Right to Try Law was Colorado in 2014. Since then' 39 other states have enacted similar laws. This has happened in a relatively short period of time.
The FDA has a long standing policy of Expanded Access whereby a doctor and terminally ill patient can request approval to use a medication independent of the clinical trial. Reportedly, 99% of requests are approved immediately, over the phone. The prescribing MD is viewed as a satellite to the clinical trial.
The new law does not require drug manufacturers to provide medications nor for public and private insurers to pay for them.
Because the Federal Right to Try is independent of clinical trial outcomes, with no central oversight, it could lead to unverifiable anecdotal outcomes, good, bad or otherwise.
As an aside, FDA first began regulating commercial sales of medications in the early 60's as the result of an anti- morning sickness medication sold in Europe found to be the cause of profound birth defects.
If you are signed up at the White House's website you get daily emails which tell you, without media filters, what the day's schedule is and the status of various bills, speeches, trips, etc. In today's email it mentioned Trump would be signing the Right to Try Act at 12:15 ET today. I assume the White House youtube channel will cover it and/or Fox News.
This is another common sense idea that I find hard to believe no other president has supported.
I'm curious to know, why was the American Cancer Society, so dead set against this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
