A board recommends disapproving cancer drug

I think the FDA should focus more on information than on regulation. Long-term side effects of treatments/drugs may not come into play for patients threatened by shortly terminal illnesses. Maybe they and their physicians should have more latitude to experiment. On the other hand, if the FDA were to butt out altogether, we would be back to the crazy nostrums of the 1800s, or Laetrile, or psychic surgery. It's hard to draw the right line, if even there is any such thing.

"The narcotic did not make the patient live longer while growth was really only slowed by about three months, more studies have shown. In addition, the panel claims the drug has extreme side effects including high blood pressure, internal bleeding and holes in the stomach."

"The panel determined that the drug has extreme side effects and is ineffective."

I'm curious as to your motivation for posting this. Can't really tell, are you for it, or against it?

Do you have cancer? Have you ever had cancer?

Once again, an example of government bureaucrats overreaching and getting involved in healthcare decisions that should be personal. If this drug works for some, and not others, it should be approved, and the decision should be up to the patients and their doctors..................not the FDA.

Another one that really burns me up, is the FDA's refusal to allow the use of experimental drugs on terminal patients and fast tracking human trials on people that are more than willing to participate.......................meanwhile, they die, or get duped into some expensive bogus treatment in a foreign country...........then die.

Pray that Obamacare gets the ax. If it doesn't, none of us will have much input into our own treatment options..........or anything else regarding our health care.

I won't even get started on the federal government's continued battle to refuse people medicinal marijuana to alleviate some of their pain and suffering.

"medicinal marijuana to alleviate some of their pain and suffering"

Come on, everybody knows that marijuana makes you want to kill babies.

Do you mean kill and eat those little baby marshmallow ducks and rabbits, while not moving from the couch?

"Once again, an example of government bureaucrats overreaching and getting involved in healthcare decisions that should be personal."

Unfortunately, now that pharmaceutical companies are spending billions on unrestricted marketing to Joe-six-pack , who is mostly uninformed and easily mislead by commercials, not to mention buying doctors, I, for one would hate to see where we would be without any controls at all on the bastards.

I hate those commercials too...................so do most, if not all, doctors. It totally screws up the process. Doctors hate it when patients come in and demand a particular drug that they've seen on TV. Drug companies shouldn't be allowed to market prescription drugs directly to consumers...........period. Over the counter drugs.....yes.

It's the old argument of corporate greed vs government overstepping it's bounds.................................which really isn't an argument...............there's plenty of both.

The only thing that's truly being trampled, is common sense.

on the narcotic Avastin...

Uh, Avastin is not a narcotic. And it's got some really nasty adverse effects.

From WIKI:

Adverse effects

Bevacizumab inhibits the growth of blood vessels, which is part of the body's normal healing and maintenance. The body grows new blood vessels in wound healing, and as collateral circulation around blocked or atherosclerotic blood vessels. One concern is that bevacizumab will interfere with these normal processes, and worsen conditions like coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease.^[28]

The main side effects are hypertension and heightened risk of bleeding. Bowel perforation has been reported. In advanced lung cancer, less than half of patients qualify for treatment.^[29] Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome,^[30]nasal septum perforation, and renal thrombotic microangiopathy have been reported.^[31] In December 2010, the FDA warned of the risk of developing perforations in the body, including in the nose, stomach, and intestines.

These effects are largely avoided in ophthalmological use since the drug is introduced directly into the eye thus minimizing any effects on the rest of the body.

end

A bad chemo drug with limited or questional efficacy.

I'll have morphine, please.