Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Obama's Watergate

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 2 Votes, Average 1.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2011 at 4:31pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 
So the first trials that were used for the decision to sell the drug showed a considerable difference to the next trials where A DIFFERENT DRUG was partnered with Avastin...

Some key points that seem to be missing from your approach to this: 
  • The drug is still available to be prescribed and sold for certain cancers — particularly kidney, colon and prostate cancer. The FDA is revoking the approval for the treatment of breast cancer with Avastin, not banning the drug all-together. 
  • The FDA originally granted the use of Avastin for breast cancer treatment a provisional approval. This means that it was temporarily OK to diagnose with FDA approval, but further tests would be conducted to see the long-term viability of the drug — these are the tests that Avastin did not pass. 
  • There were four separate trials conducted, that I can find, after the initial provisional approval. None of which could show, conclusively, that Avastin did anything to help breast cancer patients. The methods of testing this drug in combination with other, varied growth-inhibitors and chemotherapy injections is normal — including Taxol. The drug is studied in these cases with the kinds of drugs it would be reasonably prescribed with, which as you may guess, is not the same every time. Thus, it would be dangerous to grant FDA approval when results of the drug are coming from only one complementary drug that would meet one condition. You're statement of "They used a different drug!" shows a lack of understanding of medical testing. In the follow-up tests, the independent research teams could not find any significant aggregate improvement of patient condition. These are medicines we are talking about here, they do not play fast and loose with the testing of these drugs. 
  • On the aggregate level, one of the deciding factors of them pulling their approval of Avastin for breast cancer was the prolonged side-effects (When compared to the lack of benefit). The long-term side effect is increased blood pressure and heart conditions. Women - the primary victims of breast cancer - are particularly susceptible to those side effects. 
Also, about the drug itself, it's not a cure-all anti-cancer miracle drug. It's an angiogensis inhibitor taken with other anti-cancer medications to help control the spread and regrowth of cancerous areas. 

Quote  I've read a ton on this drug 
 

It does not appear that this is correct. 

Because, if you did indeed do a lot of reading on this subject, you wouldn't say something as dull as: 

Quote   the way it has been "pulled" from the market by our government 

...

That is a fact, and the FDA banned it anyway... 
 

Avastin has not been "pulled" from the market in any way, shape or form. At all. Not even close. We're now up to two lies in this conversation. 

It's still highly prescribed for kidney cancer and colon cancer. It's still being covered by Medicare. 

The revoking of FDA approval was ONLY for the use of treating breast cancer. And, even then, doctors are still absolutely able to prescribe Avastin to breast cancer patients — The only issue is that private health insurance companies are less likely to approve coverage of the drug for breast cancer patients.  

What the FDA has done is the equivalent of removing an endorsement. It's not a ban. At all. 

Still though — your original statement reamins blatantly false. You stated: 

Quote  And the US is following in their footsteps as the breast cancer drug that just got dropped because it "didn't work well" (actually it got dropped because of the cost...)
 

Which remains absolutely incorrect. It had its FDA approval revoked because four post-approval studies could not find anything conclusive in actually helping patients. 

Do you have any sort of evidence to show that this is some kind of money-driven conspiracy, especially seeing as Medicare is still covering the drug? 

Or will you correct yourself? 



Edited by agentwhale007 - 21 December 2011 at 7:59pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2011 at 5:42pm
But if the FDA "endorsed" the drug, wouldn't they be "picking winners and losers"? If it got dropped "because of the cost"isn't that letting the free market decide? I fail to see why you of all people have a problem with that.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 December 2011 at 7:57am
This is a perfect example of liberalism vs logic. 

Here we have a breast cancer treatment that clearly has success of 5 1/2 months of additional life. (remember the medical oath, of DO NO HARM). 

Avastin, combined with the drug paclitaxel is the original study, that the FDA approved. 

They even said it prolonged life in breast cancer patients when they approved it based on the study done. 

Which added 5 1/2 months on average to the life of the patients. 

So mathematically, lets write down the formula...

A+P = 5 1/2 months of life


Then they did some other studies, that didn't use A+P =5 1/2 months instead they tried different drug combinations. 

(cancer is treated with combinations of drugs)

They did A+B=0 which equaled no change...

Then they did A+C=0 which equaled no change...

Then they did A+D=0 again equaled no change... 


Therefore in liberal logic land you throw out the success of A+P = 5 1/2 months for breast cancer survival.

because A+B and A+C and A+D yielded no change... Yup, that makes sense!


Total breakdown of logic, typical... And yet whale again calls me a liar, when the obvious nature of his fail is obvious...


Now I didn't make up that fact that the decision to stop using Avastin was because of cost...

http://www.nyhealthinsurer.com/articles/coverage-for-avastin

"One of the more expensive pharmaceutical medications, Avastin, was under consideration for being discontinued. 

Under The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, this particular medication was considered above the cost line

This is a special medication for all patients who are in the last stages of breast cancer. 

The health insurance providers were to remove Avastin from their internal list of acceptable medication 

because of the high cost and because of a few of the predominant side effects such as the following."


Clearly that shows that because of the cost, Obamacare didn't want that medication to be used... 

As Obama himself said, why spend so much on someone who is going to die anyway... Just take a pain pill! 

(clearly his point is to die already, if you are a woman, you aren't worth the cost to get you an additional 5 1/2 months of life!)


So if you have breast cancer, and you want to live a few extra months, since the FDA dropped it, 

and your insurance followed them, and doesn't cover it anymore, wouldn't that mean it was "banned" to you? 

You can no longer get it, and you will now die faster than if you could get it...

The free market doesn't decide on a drug when the FDA stops approval for it in ONE type of cancer, 

yet keeps it for other "less common" cancers because of its success! 

(strange breast cancer rates are very high compared to other cancers). It was clearly a 

"cost saving" decision from Obamacare and an example of rationing, proving my point. 

Now that I proved you wrong, are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?




How exactly is rationing by the government our ability to get a product "free market"?


It sure looks like the government telling everyone, it is OK to stop saving 5 1/2 months of your life, 

because we can save some money by "dropping" it and blame the FDA on the decision. 

(weird as tons of insurance companies now don't pay for Avastin for breast cancer... very strange... )



Oh, and back on topic... Another Justice department person busted for lying under oath. 

Shocking, don't worry, it will be ignored, and no one will lose their jobs. 


because they can...


http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-justice-department-condones-perjury/

http://biggovernment.com/jcadams/2011/12/22/confessions-of-perjury-inside-doj/




Edited by FreeEnterprise - 22 December 2011 at 8:07am
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 December 2011 at 9:21am
Your misunderstanding of medical science is scary, FE.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 December 2011 at 11:00am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 clearly has success of 5 1/2 months of additional life.
 

The "clearly" part here is simply not true. 

The initial test suggested that the time of life extension could be about five months through a sample study, based on their results. The initial tests earned them the preliminary approval. 

Subsequent tests could not show an aggregate, significant improvement of quality of life. 

If the results were "clear" they would have been able easily replicate the results, including the initial results with Taxol, even with additional complimentary drugs. The FDA cannot, and should not, approve a drug because of a single preliminary test with a single complementary drug, especially because of the other variables that could have been occurring in the preliminary sample. 


Quote Avastin, combined with the drug paclitaxel is the original study, that the FDA approved.
 

Let's get some things clarified here. 

1) The FDA gave the drug, when used for breast cancer, a preliminary approval, as it was already being used in other cancer cases, until further tests could be done. 

2) The way science works, the way this sort of drug testing works, is through repetition and diversity. You cannot simply test the drug once under one combination once and give it approval. There are a number of reasons for this. Mainly, not everyone can be given Taxol. Not everyone's cancer warrants the use of Taxol. Like I said, the FDA simply cannot approve a drug because it might work under some certain conditions with one drug in one non-replicated study, especially when the side effects are such that it could cause harm to the actual anti-cancer medications if exposure is prolonged. 

Quote Then they did some other studies, that didn't use A+P =5 1/2 months instead they tried different drug combinations.

You're attempted logic equations are simply not how extremely powerful and potentially dangerous medications are tested. There is a reason the threshold of significance level when testing these types of medications, and any medication really, is so extremely high. 

Medications are not tested, or approved, under such light conditions. 

Quote Now I didn't make up that fact that the decision to stop using Avastin was because of cost...

http://www.nyhealthinsurer.com/articles/coverage-for-avastin

 

Yes, you very much did. 

What, pray tell, does one private insurance company's rantings about "looming universal healthcare" have to do, at all, with the FDA? 

A ranting that, funny enough, never mentions the failure of any of the tests after the preliminary approval to find any meaningful extension of life or improvement of patient quality.  

Quote and because of a few of the predominant side effects such as the following."
 

It's interesting that you chose not to list the "few" side effects. 

This was a major part of their decision to revoke the approval for Avastin. 

Simply put, the success of the drug has to outweigh the side effects in a lasting way. 

The side effects — which the four studies showed increase with prolonged exposure to the drug — are:

  • Severe high blood pressure, 
  • Massive bleeding or internal hemorrhaging 
  • Heart attacks
  • Perforations of the stomach and intestines

This was not aspirin. This was a seriously heavy injected medication with very serious side effects. The FDA's decision, based on the lack of significant improvement in four followup studies, was weighed by the exposure of the patient — who is potentially already in a state of bodily duress both from cancer and from the chemotherapy and anti-growth drugs they may also be taking. It would be irresponsible to expose a patient to those side effects when a useful outcome of the drug cannot be determined. 

Quote So if you have breast cancer, and you want to live a few extra months, since the FDA dropped it, 

and your insurance followed them, and doesn't cover it anymore, wouldn't that mean it was "banned" to you?

No. That's not what banned means. Banned means the FDA decides the drug is potentially dangerous and orders the product out of the medical closets of clinics and hospitals. Banned is when the FDA orders the drug to be no-longer prescribed for any reason. Banned means the drug is no longer legal to prescribe. Banned means the FDA pays for PSAs to warn of the danger of the dug and potentially coerces the company itself into airing commercials explaining the need to immediately stop taking the drug. 

Avastin has not, in any way, shape, or form, been banned. That continues to be a lie told by you in this thread. 

Avastin can still be prescribed for breast cancer. But, without FDA approval, most insurance companies will not cover it. 

Now, your direction of anger here should be to the insurance companies, not to the FDA. 

Quote You can no longer get it,
 

You absolutely can get it. Tallying everything up, we're now at three lies in this conversation. 

If you:

  1. Have a doctor that is still willing to prescribe Avastin for breast cancer. 
  2. Have a health insurance company that will still cover it, OR are able to pay for the drug out of pocket 
Then you are still absolutely able to get and take Avastin for breast cancer.  

Quote The free market doesn't decide on a drug when the FDA stops approval for it in ONE type of cancer, 

yet keeps it for other "less common" cancers because of its success!

 

But. What? 

If this is the case, why exactly was Avastin so popular and prescribed so often before it had preliminary approval, but simply for kidney, colon and prostate cancers? 

Not all cancer is equal. "Cancer" isn't even a disease. It's a type of disease, like a category. Kidney cancer, for example, is fundamentally different than breast cancer. Avastin is an angiogenesis inhibitor. It works by blocking new blood vessels from growing. It's not a chemotherapy drug. It is used in complimentary fashion with anti-cancer medications to help prevent the spread of hurt areas. That spread of cancerous growth is going to be completely different, and react completely different to an angiogenesis inhibitor, depending on the number of blood vessels in the areas. Thus its succes in assisting in kidney cancer treatment. 

Quote It was clearly a "cost saving" decision from Obamacare
 

They why is the drug still covered by Medicare? 

Quote (weird as tons of insurance companies now don't pay for Avastin for breast cancer... very strange... )

Then go after the insurance companies, not the FDA. 

Most insurance companies choose to not cover drugs that are not approved by the FDA. If you want them to do so, write them letters, call them. It's the FDA's job to test and approve drugs, that's it. 



Edited by agentwhale007 - 22 December 2011 at 11:04am
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 December 2011 at 11:17am
For those of you following along at home, Forbes does a pretty good job of explaining the situation: 

Quote  In short, it delays for a short period the time when the tumors start to look worse on a CT scan (that’s more-or-less what progression free survival means). The radiologist is happy. But Roche has been unable to prove that this translates into something meaningful for the patient like living longer or feeling better.  One possibility: the benefits in slowing tumor growth for a a short period may be canceled by side effects. Another is that there is a real difference in survival here, but it is too small for Roche to measure. 
 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 December 2011 at 2:18pm
Sounds like big government made the right call to me.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2012 at 9:28am
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2012 at 10:13am
Congress will cite him as contempt, but if he complies to their demands, then it goes no farther and he suffers no real harm. It's only if he continues to act in contempt that the House can then have their legal counsel intervene and have the Federal District Court System demand he comply, only then can he actually be charged and face real consequences.
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2012 at 10:40am
I still find it disturbing how little respect for the law the nation's most senior law enforcement official seems to have.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 June 2012 at 8:37am
So, yesterday Holder was in front of congress again on Fast and furious. Most shocking is that Holder said when "fast and furious" was used in emails, it wasn't talking about Fast and furious but "gunwalking" a different program...


Seriously, he said that. Course you wouldn't know he said that if you read the "major" media as they as usual are covering for him and his lies. 

but "NEW" media is actually acting like journalists. 


Notice the difference in the new york times version of this exchange... No mention of the blatant lying... weird. 


The media again is complicit, hiding the facts from the public by the typical bias of omission. 


Oh, and in case you missed it... According to the head of CBS news. "ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now."



Want to see it for yourself? For some reason, even after the media was provided with this exchange, AND the email in question. It wasn't covered by the major press in our country. 





Edited by FreeEnterprise - 08 June 2012 at 8:49am
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 June 2012 at 12:56pm
Unreal. So the President who knew NOTHING about fast and furious has just claimed executive privilege to keep the documents that he clearly saw and was lying about seeing or being a part of... Private from Congress...


They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
StormyKnight View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote StormyKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 June 2012 at 1:48pm
Imagine that.  A politician lying.  /smh
Back to Top
God View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Pull My Finger

Joined: 09 May 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1348
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote God Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 June 2012 at 4:36pm
Or saw the the documements after and decided other information contained within the notes was none of Congress's business.


Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 June 2012 at 1:49am
Originally posted by God God wrote:

Or saw the the documements after and decided other information contained within the notes was none of Congress's business.




I'm not sure I see this as any more comforting.

Then again, the whole Fast and Furious scenario is pretty disconcerting.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 June 2012 at 8:55am
Obama bragged about pushing through gun control, and this was the vehicle they were going to use, to pad the statistics and make it look like this was a major problem...

But, THEY were creating the problem, even though everyone knew it was wrong. THAT is why they don't want the documentation out there, as it will show that the White house was behind the movement with the goal of gun control. 

Yes politicians lie, but under oath before congress... that is a different matter, than just lying to the public. 

Good old relative morality and all that... Typical liberal practice, lie, lie some more, get caught lying and lie again. When the most transparent administration is caught lying, claim executive privileged, and hope the media covers for you as always...


This is the same group that decided not to prosecute the black panthers in the blatant voter intimidation case... Because they were friends of the white house. 

They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 June 2012 at 4:39pm
Which gun control policies were they pushing? Allowing CC in national parks is gun control?

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 June 2012 at 6:00pm
Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Which gun control policies were they pushing? Allowing CC in national parks is gun control?


Uh, that was one of W's last acts, not one of Obama's first.
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 June 2012 at 12:41pm
Obama bragged about working on "gun control under the radar". Which many believe was directly tied to inventing a crisis on the boarder with "American" guns so he could crack down on the sale of those guns. But, it got leaked that the white house was behind this tactic, to which they denied UNDER OATH (now retracted... how exactly do you retract your testimony under oath without being in contempt?) but now they have claimed executive privileged  so no one can see it... It sure looks like they got caught manipulating statistics for the goal of more gun control. 



So here is MSNBC actually saying that fast and furious isn't a big deal... And anyone who brings it up is clearly racist...


They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
deadeye007 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member


Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: Your Face
Status: Offline
Points: 1250
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadeye007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 June 2012 at 2:28pm
Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Which gun control policies were they pushing? Allowing CC in national parks is gun control?



A few months before Fast and Furious was leaked, Hilary Clinton and others were mentioning how American guns were being used in Mexico for violence. It would appear that the violence in Mexico was going to be the new tragedy used to enhance gun control laws.
Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.