• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

FDA approving Alzhemer snake oil to fleece taxpayers?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,178
3,863
126
Looks like the FDA admin is in the thankless position of trying to mediate between two competing conditions, those who have sympathies for those with Alzheimer's and those with concerns about taxes and possible government and corporate corruption. Whatever the FDA decides it will make some happy and some not happy at all. In any case the decision will be the decision.

In my imaginary world science will be conducted by university labs paid for by government funds and run by the US Medical Core, a military volunteer army whose motivation for joining would be service to humanity in return for which a guaranteed decent middle class lifelong life would be the reward. This would not be an organization that would appeal to psychopaths, seems to me, but would attract people who care about others.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,338
1,690
136
They shouldn't have approved it. The onus should be on the company to prove efficacy. Unless there is new efficacy data, it seems wrong to approve it and then try to show the efficacy data in real world use using real world tax dollars.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,211
4,850
136
All I know is that I'm continuing my studies of THC as a prophylactic for Alzheimer's. Seems to be working. My mother who died of Alzheimer's was babbling about the neighbors stealing the china at my current age. Some days I'm have to check what day it is, but, that's more of a function of not working a regular job anymore than anything else.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,393
3,455
136
Agree with it.

Alzheimer's is a devastating disease with no cure. If this has a chance to save someone, why shouldn't it be allowed?

The company must continue to collect data, of it's truly ineffective, then the decision can get reviewed.

Seems like an odd line to suddenly get religion on govt spending.
 
Nov 8, 2012
19,728
4,436
136
Agree with it.

Alzheimer's is a devastating disease with no cure. If this has a chance to save someone, why shouldn't it be allowed?

The company must continue to collect data, of it's truly ineffective, then the decision can get reviewed.

Seems like an odd line to suddenly get religion on govt spending.
countries like Canada can't afford our latest in innovations - and people are often left to fly to the US and pay out of pocket for our innovations...

In yet... you want to continue massive spending on drugs that didn't show results in studies - and somehow imply that universal healthcare is possible with these kinds of antics and ridiculous pricings?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,178
3,863
126
countries like Canada can't afford our latest in innovations - and people are often left to fly to the US and pay out of pocket for our innovations...

In yet... you want to continue massive spending on drugs that didn't show results in studies - and somehow imply that universal healthcare is possible with these kinds of antics and ridiculous pricings?
I thought the drug test showed positive results that were first deemed inclusive and later sufficient to proceed. This fits in nicely with the fact that the danger of the covid pandemic, the urgency of the situation, required the FDA to relax its normal cautions.
 

Matt390

Member
Jun 7, 2019
87
38
61
We should get rid of Medicare? Please lay out a coherent argument for this. You are no moderate democrat. Anybody who is against Medicare is a right wing tool

Because it costs too much and is going to take a lot more money in the near future. Millennials shouldn't give more of their hard earned money to boomers.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
10,109
6,202
136
Because it costs too much and is going to take a lot more money in the near future. Millennials shouldn't give more of their hard earned money to boomers.
What do you do with the healthcare of tens of millions of old people now, and what do younger people do now when they get older?

Honestly getting rid of Medicare is a far right wing fascists dream
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,964
4,979
126
Agree with it.

Alzheimer's is a devastating disease with no cure. If this has a chance to save someone, why shouldn't it be allowed?

The company must continue to collect data, of it's truly ineffective, then the decision can get reviewed.

Seems like an odd line to suddenly get religion on govt spending.
It should be allowed out of company's pocket or patient's pocket if they want to pay for placebo effect. Government should not pay $56000 per year for something that failed two clinical studies, causes brain swelling, FDA's own panel voted 10-0 against recommending, etc. This is expected to cost Medicare $5B per year, and already other failed drug companies are gearing up to submit for similar approval under similarly flimsy evidence. If we want Medicare to be sustainable, we cannot allow this sort of regulatory capture based decisions to bankrupt it.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,853
14,985
136
Looks like the FDA admin is in the thankless position of trying to mediate between two competing conditions, those who have sympathies for those with Alzheimer's and those with concerns about taxes and possible government and corporate corruption. Whatever the FDA decides it will make some happy and some not happy at all. In any case the decision will be the decision.
There is nothing here to indicate a lack of sympathy for Alzeimer's patients on the part of those opposed to approving a drug with no known benefit to Alzheimer's patients.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
Nov 8, 2012
19,728
4,436
136
There is nothing here to indicate a lack of sympathy for Alzeimer's patients on the part of those opposed to approving a drug with no known benefit to Alzheimer's patients.
Yes, but if just one $50,000 placebo helped 1 person slightly with their mood for the day... wouldn't... you want to help them?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,964
4,979
126
There is nothing here to indicate a lack of sympathy for Alzeimer's patients on the part of those opposed to approving a drug with no known benefit to Alzheimer's patients.
Yep, especially since painful brain swelling is a side effect and it costs $56000 per year, while we have people in America deciding between paying rent and affording insulin. Patients wanted snake oil too, and radium pills, that's why it was an industry. But just because desperate patients want to try something, anything, that's not a reason for FDA to approve it.
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,160
813
106
But it's not up to me. Since FDA approved it, now my Medicare taxes will go to pay for it, whether I mind it or not. I am fine with people paying for it or raising money from private charity, but Medicare should not be paying for something with such weak evidence of efficacy.
Arent most medicare drug plans supplemental plans by a private insurer? Wonder if there will be a push back from them.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,863
4,912
126
countries like Canada can't afford our latest in innovations - and people are often left to fly to the US and pay out of pocket for our innovations...

In yet... you want to continue massive spending on drugs that didn't show results in studies - and somehow imply that universal healthcare is possible with these kinds of antics and ridiculous pricings?
Are we (the UK) like Canada? Because we are using it here for patients without charging them anything above prescription charges (about £10 a box).
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,160
813
106
Yes, but if just one $50,000 placebo helped 1 person slightly with their mood for the day... wouldn't... you want to help them?
Maybe the evil liberals should just pay you 50k to quit posting on this forum. Would probably be the most efficient use of 50k for mental health that the government has ever spent.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,178
3,863
126
There is nothing here to indicate a lack of sympathy for Alzeimer's patients on the part of those opposed to approving a drug with no known benefit to Alzheimer's patients.
To have a preponderance of sympathy for one sympathy over another means only that. It does not mean all sympathy for one and none for the other.
 

cscpianoman

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2005
1,052
152
106
I have my hesitations on this. I am a physician and we often look at number-needed-to-treat to see if this is truly efficacious.

For example, COVID, corticosteroids have a low number needed to treat and has proven over and over with patients with respiratory failure there is a benefit. Cost of steroids: about $5-10. Easy answer, treat with steroids.

Another example, a Severe hemophilia patient. The risk of bleeding is insanely high but treatment is expensive. 30-40k. Again, the number needed to treat is low and the benefit of the medication is high. Answer, treat with factor replacement.

Alzheimers disease, Currently limited medications to treat including namenda and donepazil. Not super great drugs and the benefit is modest, but they are relatively inexpensive and the side effect profile is low. If what we are saying is true with the above: #1 drug is questionable if it works, #2 the side effect profile includes encephalitis and could potentially make dementia worse #3 is insanely expensive.

So why would I potentially place a patient in harms way when the risk and the benefit are about the same and spend $50k to test it? The number to treat is going to relatively high, so maybe 1-2 patients benefit out of a hundred and 1-2 out of a hundred develop encephalitis? Seems risky to me. I certainly would not risk any of my loved ones with that.
 

Matt390

Member
Jun 7, 2019
87
38
61
What do you do with the healthcare of tens of millions of old people now, and what do younger people do now when they get older?

Honestly getting rid of Medicare is a far right wing fascists dream
lmao, Fascists are fine with big government programs like Medicare. Josh Hawley supports it. What did we do before 1964? Do that.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
10,109
6,202
136
lmao, Fascists are fine with big government programs like Medicare. Josh Hawley supports it. What did we do before 1964? Do that.
Very few politicians are going to actually speak out against Medicare, it's one of the most popular government programs ever.

However, with the assistance of enough regressive voters such as yourself, they will gladly chip away and destroy Medicare if given the chance. The majority of your party, the GQP, would gladly go along with it, though some would object. But the majority would kill Medicare. They just can't right now. They need more far right Republican voters like yourself first.

Prior to Medicare just about half of those over 65 had insurance, and of those, many didn't get much coverage from that insurance, such as for hospitalizations out for surgeries. Sounds amazing.

You can order your Trump 2024 sticker from a variety of places now if you like.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY