President Trump signs right to try law

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Good, If people want to try these experimental drugs then they should be able to. The big government idiots aren't going to like this but too bad for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IJTSSG

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Wow, that's a whole lotta tu quoque bullshit repeated over and over again.

Like I said, let's see what an expert says:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/201...to-pass-the-cruel-sham-known-as-right-to-try/

Nope, I don't sound like an anti-vaxxer. I'm not trying to support laws that allow hucksters to skirt the scientific process. In fact, I am exactly the opposite.

Fact: The "right to try" law allows drug sellers and people selling them to skit the scientific process. Period. Full fucking stop.

You are literally supporting the most anti-science president in history signing a law that allows the side stepping of the scientific process in medicine to sell desperate people unproven, untested drugs, the vast majority of which, would and could never pass testing.

According to him, you're an anti-vaxxer & I'm a follower of Ayn Rand. He's as much a charlatan as the people who will end up preying on the hopes & fears of terminally ill people & their families. I can hear the pitchmen now, siphoning off the assets of their victims promising some miracle cure.

Trump is taking us into the post truth realm in ways I never imagined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,538
16,313
146
Well this expert disagrees and I didn't have to go with Pence and the Koch brothers.

Dunning Kruger unless one knows their subject and then a shill. I want to see particulars but if the NYT is correct that's already above "snake oil".

Fork in this thread, topic is over as far as useful discussion.

Everyone ask yourself this: Why is it no medical association or significant group of doctors is asking for this. Why is it a libertarian think tank, right wing billionaires, and a whole host of naturopaths, homeopaths, chiropractors and snake oil salesmen are backing this?

Why?

Why does virtually EVERY patient advocacy group oppose these laws?

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/372600-40-patient-advocacy-groups-oppose-right-to-try-drug-bill

Because this has nothing to do with helping patients. It's all about making money off the desperate.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-right-to-try-unproven-pharmaceuticals-is-a-right-wing-scheme/

It's a right-wing scheme to sidestep the scientific process and make bank. Nothing more.

All one need do is look who supports it. Is it doctors? No. Patient rights groups? Nope. Then who? Who backed this?

Right-wing think tanks long known for being anti-science.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
Amused, thanks for the info. This is one of those bills that they can spin as being about some certain thing and talk about how great it is, when there's a whole lot of other parts that it has the potential to make horrible.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
FYI, 38 states already have essentially this exact law. This federal version will bring the other 12 states into the same legal framework.

That having been said, I generally agree with the criticisms from several posters above. I could support this if it required completion of a stage 2 clinical trial. That at least would provide some evidence of efficacy, even if based off a relatively small sample size. It would also still be well short of what is required for full FDA approval. The stage 1 trial only provides some proof of safety. You could pitch a cancer cure which is plain water and in theory, you'd pass the stage 1 trial because it has no bad side effects.
 

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,166
202
106
To be all serious, the real problem here is that there is real question about how desperation affects the choice of treatments. Experimental treatments are experimental because we don't know if they work, and how well they do. Who exactly is going to get to decide what is a legitimate 'experimental treatment' that has some chance at helping and what is profiteering off of desperation.

Desperate people can be easy marks for unethical people, and they can do a lot of harm to desperate people and their families, not the least by convincing them to attempt ineffective 'treatments' that at best do nothing, and at worst are actively harmful to their condition. You might think it doesn't matter because they are already terminal, but believe me to them and their family those extra weeks or months matter.
I could not disagree more. The last weeks and months of life are almost always the hardest usually on the family, friends and caregivers. If you have ever been involved with end of life palliative care of a loved one you might understand that keeping someone alive so that the family can have them for a few more weeks, should be meet with jail time for inflicting that on someone who cant fight back. I say as soon as a terminal diagnosis is given the gloves should come off and everything experimental should be tried. If they are cured, fucking great! If not and they die sooner it saves everyone the pain and suffering of a drawn out death.
 

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,166
202
106
I would support this if the treatments had no costs attached. If they dying are being used as beta testers for the drugs, they are providing a benefit to the company, not the other way around. If anything, the companies should pay the dying for being their lab rats.
I was waiting until I read the rest of the posts and was going to post something like this. Adding a payment to the family, and not just pennies would eliminate some of the concerns others are posting here.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
Good, If people want to try these experimental drugs then they should be able to. The big government idiots aren't going to like this but too bad for them.

I hope you're the first volunteer to swallow the turmeric, juniper, and nightshade "cancer cure" pills that this bill authorizes scammers to distribute to you, at massive profits to them, of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,111
926
126
Just fucking great. This combined with the disastrous FDA disclaimer abdication of responsibility given to snake oil salesmen will make it even MORE open season on the desperate and scientifically illiterate.

Trump seems to feel that the government should never stand between a con man and his mark.

FFS November cannot come soon enough.

Hey, Amused...I'm not amused by this post. Apparently, you do not like alternatives, which could save people's lives. Not every cancer patient fits into the same tried and failed treatment plan. I just lost my step mom a couple weeks ago, because, she was not allowed to step out of the square. I'm not saying she would have survived with an alternative, but at least she could have tried. She could have had other options. How is that problematic for you?

And there is cancer for profit. Some evil bastards don't ever want it to be cured, because treatment, from onset to the grave, is oh, so profitable. Even some of those bastards don't mind coughing up their lungs, as long as they have money. Yes, the problem with curing cancer, is that it will rip a huge profit margin away from certain doctors and, God forbid, they might have their lear jet or Mercedes G-Wagon repo'd.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
You can argue about who profits but non the less it will propel new drugs forward, I guess you can think of it as a lottery ticket, best case scenario this may cure you, worst case you have donated your life towards the science of curing others.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You can argue about who profits but non the less it will propel new drugs forward, I guess you can think of it as a lottery ticket, best case scenario this may cure you, worst case you have donated your life towards the science of curing others.

And your life savings, of course.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
I could not disagree more. The last weeks and months of life are almost always the hardest usually on the family, friends and caregivers. If you have ever been involved with end of life palliative care of a loved one you might understand that keeping someone alive so that the family can have them for a few more weeks, should be meet with jail time for inflicting that on someone who cant fight back. I say as soon as a terminal diagnosis is given the gloves should come off and everything experimental should be tried. If they are cured, fucking great! If not and they die sooner it saves everyone the pain and suffering of a drawn out death.

I have worked hospice, and I have personally lost loved ones to cancer. Sometimes it is terrible, sometimes it is peaceful.
The problem with statements like "everything experimental should be tried" is that you are assuming that the people pushing these treatments have good intentions. They do not. More often than not those pushing 'alternative treatments' are con artists that care nothing at all about the misery that their products produce. They are literally sociopaths. They are out to bilk their marks of every last cent and they will promise anything to get that last dollar from their terrified and desperate targets. They leave families devastated both emotionally and financially because they promise amazing results that never come but often appear to be just around the corner due to placebo effects and hidden pain killers in their products, and cost everything the family can cough up. These people encourage the families to mortgage their homes and sell their possessions because their loved one just needs a few more treatments, of what ultimately turns out to be snake oil. The families are then unprepared when their loved one ultimately passes because they have been given false hope by a con man trying to get a little more money from them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
You can argue about who profits but non the less it will propel new drugs forward, I guess you can think of it as a lottery ticket, best case scenario this may cure you, worst case you have donated your life towards the science of curing others.

I don't see how it will propel new drugs forward. These sort of unregulated trials already happen in other countries, if any of those drugs actually showed any promise they would be known. The internet is a hell of a information resource. The fact is what it is really going to do is give bad actors a license to con people while doing nothing for those seriously interested in helping people.
What I expect to see is a bunch of drugs will enter Phase 1 trials, be sold to the public at huge profit with no intention to ever going into phase 2 and 3. For drugs already intended for terminal conditions this might even become the preferred method. Clinical trials are super expensive. If they are no longer needed to sell the drugs it will remove a lot of the reason to do them, especially if the company has reason to believe that those drugs are going to have serious side effects.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136
Well now instead of sending their new drugs to Africa for "testing" they can do it here cheaper! No more trails bam straight to the consumer!

I heard Forsythia cures stuff.
 
Last edited:

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
I don't see how it will propel new drugs forward. These sort of unregulated trials already happen in other countries, if any of those drugs actually showed any promise they would be known. The internet is a hell of a information resource. The fact is what it is really going to do is give bad actors a license to con people while doing nothing for those seriously interested in helping people.
What I expect to see is a bunch of drugs will enter Phase 1 trials, be sold to the public at huge profit with no intention to ever going into phase 2 and 3. For drugs already intended for terminal conditions this might even become the preferred method. Clinical trials are super expensive. If they are no longer needed to sell the drugs it will remove a lot of the reason to do them, especially if the company has reason to believe that those drugs are going to have serious side effects.

That is of course the other side of the coin. Regulation is all I can say. Objectively you have a good idea, now you apply what you know about government bureaucracy and greed motivated big pharma and conclude this is going to suck either way... but if you dont try and/or risc anything you aint gonna win nothin either, ever..
 

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,166
202
106
I have worked hospice, and I have personally lost loved ones to cancer. Sometimes it is terrible, sometimes it is peaceful.
The problem with statements like "everything experimental should be tried" is that you are assuming that the people pushing these treatments have good intentions. They do not. More often than not those pushing 'alternative treatments' are con artists that care nothing at all about the misery that their products produce. They are literally sociopaths. They are out to bilk their marks of every last cent and they will promise anything to get that last dollar from their terrified and desperate targets. They leave families devastated both emotionally and financially because they promise amazing results that never come but often appear to be just around the corner due to placebo effects and hidden pain killers in their products, and cost everything the family can cough up. These people encourage the families to mortgage their homes and sell their possessions because their loved one just needs a few more treatments, of what ultimately turns out to be snake oil. The families are then unprepared when their loved one ultimately passes because they have been given false hope by a con man trying to get a little more money from them.
You assume that A) there will be no oversight and any tom dick or harry can hand a pill to someone. 2) that these trials will come at a cost. I can tell you from watching my father, grandfather, 3 uncles a brother and a sister in law die of cancer, there is no peacefulness involved in the shutting down of organs and the slow crushing death of cancer. I'm not sure where you worked in hospice but it must be in some fantasy land. So long as the drugs are free in every way shape and form, the treatment is not designed to cause more harm then good, and the patient is of a sound enough mind to willingly commit to it, I see no reason why it matters what is in it. If it's at a cost them I'm of the same mind as you.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,538
16,313
146
Hey, Amused...I'm not amused by this post. Apparently, you do not like alternatives, which could save people's lives. Not every cancer patient fits into the same tried and failed treatment plan. I just lost my step mom a couple weeks ago, because, she was not allowed to step out of the square. I'm not saying she would have survived with an alternative, but at least she could have tried. She could have had other options. How is that problematic for you?

And there is cancer for profit. Some evil bastards don't ever want it to be cured, because treatment, from onset to the grave, is oh, so profitable. Even some of those bastards don't mind coughing up their lungs, as long as they have money. Yes, the problem with curing cancer, is that it will rip a huge profit margin away from certain doctors and, God forbid, they might have their lear jet or Mercedes G-Wagon repo'd.

Sigh.

I explained it over and over in my later posts in this thread.

I understand your feelings. However, the entire alt-med industry is a scam. Full stop. I know people like to believe in it and many, including apparently you, have a large mistrust of science and many irrational conspiracy theories about cancers and medicine.

However, none of that is evidence based. All of it has a very strong anti-science undertone. And virtually all of it is propagated by alt-med huxters who wish to sell treatments and meds that are not, nor ever could pass any testing for efficacy.

The scientific process exists for a reason. To protect you... and not only your physical health, but your financial health as well.

ANYTHING that seeks to sidestep the scientific process is not a good thing. Ever. Especially when it comes to medicine. Add in that this bill removes ALL responsibility for, and reporting of, negative outcomes and this is nothing but a con man's paradise.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,651
26,752
136
Hey, Amused...I'm not amused by this post. Apparently, you do not like alternatives, which could save people's lives. Not every cancer patient fits into the same tried and failed treatment plan. I just lost my step mom a couple weeks ago, because, she was not allowed to step out of the square. I'm not saying she would have survived with an alternative, but at least she could have tried. She could have had other options. How is that problematic for you?

And there is cancer for profit. Some evil bastards don't ever want it to be cured, because treatment, from onset to the grave, is oh, so profitable. Even some of those bastards don't mind coughing up their lungs, as long as they have money. Yes, the problem with curing cancer, is that it will rip a huge profit margin away from certain doctors and, God forbid, they might have their lear jet or Mercedes G-Wagon repo'd.

FFS, I have no problem with people trying early stage drugs if all other alternatives have failed. But this goes way beyond that and lets people start pushing garbage remedies that never have a chance of working to desperate people.

You last paragraph is just nutter bull shit.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
FFS, I have no problem with people trying early stage drugs if all other alternatives have failed. But this goes way beyond that and lets people start pushing garbage remedies that never have a chance of working to desperate people.

You last paragraph is just nutter bull shit.


You didn't read the bill did you?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
For those who decided that they didn't care what the truth was, here you go.

the term ‘eligible investigational drug’ means an investigational drug (as such term is used in section 561)—
“(A) for which a Phase 1 clinical trial has been completed;
“(B) that has not been approved or licensed for any use under section 505 of this Act or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act;
“(C) (i) for which an application has been filed under section 505(b) of this Act or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act; or
“(ii) that is under investigation in a clinical trial that—
“(I) is intended to form the primary basis of a claim of effectiveness in support of approval or licensure under section 505 of this Act or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act; and
“(II) is the subject of an active investigational new drug application under section 505(i) of this Act or section 351(a)(3) of the Public Health Service Act, as applicable; and
“(D) the active development or production of which is ongoing and has not been discontinued by the manufacturer or placed on clinical hold under section 505(i); and

“(3) the term ‘phase 1 trial’ means a phase 1 clinical investigation of a drug as described in section 312.21 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations).
“(b) Exemptions.—Eligible investigational drugs provided to eligible patients in compliance with this section are exempt from sections 502(f), 503(b)(4), 505(a), and 505(i) of this Act, section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act, and parts 50, 56, and 312 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations), provided that the sponsor of such eligible investigational drug or any person who manufactures, distributes, prescribes, dispenses, introduces or delivers for introduction into interstate commerce, or provides to an eligible patient an eligible investigational drug pursuant to this section is in compliance with the applicable requirements set forth in sections 312.6, 312.7, and 312.8(d)(1) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations) that apply to investigational drugs.

All medications would ALREADY have gone through FORMAL FDA Phase I trials.
These investigations ARE to be evaluated for efficacy and not discontinued.

This means that the untruthful claims about there being no FDA involvement or that anything goes is just that- untruthful. Also these are absolutely last ditch opportunities for medicines which HAVE been and ARE undergoing CONTINUING FDA approval.

IMO the tab for this ought to be paid by the government. The manufacturers do not get a break in the process or a shortcut. What they may get is compensation from the patient which I am against.
 

Mandres

Senior member
Jun 8, 2011
944
58
91
\So long as the drugs are free in every way shape and form ... If it's at a cost them I'm of the same mind as you.

Are you joking? Do you have any idea how much it costs to lobby the White House/Congress to get a rule change like this pushed through? The treatments won't be free ... lol I can barely type the word without starting to laugh at what an absurd notion that is.

They'll be incredibly expensive, and the next battle will be over whether or not insurance or medicare/medicaid has to cover the costs. We'll see which group (pharma or insurance) has the better lobbyists to get that particular question settled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,651
26,752
136
BTW Trump mentioned that thanks to signing this bill drug companies were going to cut prices bigly. Who is ready for the winning?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
They'll be incredibly expensive,
Yep. Companies already have a few hundred or more million out of pocket already. Considering there's very few who would qualify then no one is going to make a profit. The fairest thing would for the cost of manufacturing alone to be reimbursed, but again I think this should be paid by Uncle Sam.