The drugs have not been clinically proven to prolong survival, compared with other therapies. But patients are more likely to respond to them than standard treatments, and trials to test whether the drugs do have a survival benefit are nearly complete.
Other, more thoroughly tested lymphoma drugs are preferred as first-line treatments. But doctors often repeatedly prescribe such drugs even after they have lost their effectiveness — and when Bexxar and Zevalin might work better.
One reason is that cancer doctors, or oncologists, have financial incentives to use drugs other than Bexxar and Zevalin, which they are not paid to administer. In addition, using either drug usually requires oncologists to coordinate treatment with academic hospitals, whom the doctors may view as competitors.
As a result, many doctors prescribe Bexxar and Zevalin only as a last resort, when they are unlikely to succeed because the cancer has advanced. “Oncologists use everything in their cupboard before they refer,” Dr. Press said. “At least half the patients who get referred to me have had at least 10 courses of treatment.”
While Bexxar and Zevalin help many patients, only a minority become cancer-free for many years. But clinical trials indicate that they are as good as or better than other treatments. When the drugs were approved, analysts expected they would be used widely.
But the drugs have run into an obstacle that so far has been impassable. Because they are radioactive, they are almost always administered in hospitals, not doctors’ offices. As a result, doctors are not paid by Medicare and private insurers for prescribing them, as they are when they give patients a more common treatment, chemotherapy.
If the market economy didn't exist, there is a good chance that those drugs wouldn't exist either. From what I've read, the problem is that the FDA is too slow to approve these drugs, even for patients who are on their death beds.
By the way, how many blockbuster drugs have been developed in socialist or communist countries?
Without our public universities (i.e., that dirty villain, government) there is a good chance that drugs as we know them wouldn't exist either. More to the point, Big's assertion that the market is interfering with sound health care goes unaddressed. One way to avoid responding to such assertions is to change the subject and attack a well known villain (taken from the book of talk radio).
If the market economy didn't exist, there is a good chance that those drugs wouldn't exist either. From what I've read, the problem is that the FDA is too slow to approve these drugs, even for patients who are on their death beds.
By the way, how many blockbuster drugs have been developed in socialist or communist countries?
Without a market economy more people would have more free time to be happy and take care of their health. Thanks to Michael Moore, we now know life expectancy in Cuba is similar to USA.
I was listening to a podcast about heirloom tomatoes and they were saying that not only are the tomatoes that you get in the store hybridized for shipping and shelf life, the varieties of plants that nurseries carry are chosen for their strong stems and resilience to shipping damage. We'd like to think that taste was up there a little higher in the priorities, but we're on our own there.
Still, you'd like to think that it's not the same principle at work when your life is on the line.
__________________ "You can't have a light without a dark to stick it in." -- Arlo Guthrie
More to the point, Big's assertion that the market is interfering with sound health care goes unaddressed. One way to avoid responding to such assertions is to change the subject and attack a well known villain (taken from the book of talk radio).
Do you have any other arguments (or comments) that don't reference talk radio? It seems as if you use that weak argument in any occasion where you disagree with something. Next, you'll be calling me a racist as well.
I said that the FDA is the problem, not the free market. Breakthrough drugs are possible because of the huge amounts of money that big pharma invests in R&D. I have no idea whether those are talking points from talk radio. They are facts, and that's all that matters.
How is it FDA's fault if some very good drugs are radioactive as the article states and can be administered only at the hospital? The doctor refuses to prescribe this treatment because he can make money only with other drugs.
But the drugs have run into an obstacle that so far has been impassable. Because they are radioactive, they are almost always administered in hospitals, not doctors’ offices. As a result, doctors are not paid by Medicare and private insurers for prescribing them, as they are when they give patients a more common treatment, chemotherapy.
Do you have any other arguments (or comments) that don't reference talk radio?
What part of my argument did you disagree with, or did you not understand?
It seems as if you use that weak argument in any occasion where you disagree with something.
No, only when I see weak arguments that parrot those used on talk radio.
I said that the FDA is the problem, not the free market.
Hence, my comments about government. There might actually be multiple problems, with multiple causes, relating to the development, supply, and use of drugs, but you are unlikely to hear about them from news sources who only follow the KISS principle.
Breakthrough drugs are possible because of the huge amounts of money that big pharma invests in R&D. I have no idea whether those are talking points from talk radio. They are facts, and that's all that matters.
Yes, that is a talk radio talking point, but I was not commenting on their factual claims, only about the quality and technique of their arguments.
I was listening to a podcast about heirloom tomatoes and they were saying that not only are the tomatoes that you get in the store hybridized for shipping and shelf life, the varieties of plants that nurseries carry are chosen for their strong stems and resilience to shipping damage. We'd like to think that taste was up there a little higher in the priorities, but we're on our own there.
Still, you'd like to think that it's not the same principle at work when your life is on the line.
It's not everyday that someone posts on this forum something that I know anything about, but I have a little experience with plants.
Anyhow, fruits and vegetables are bred for numerous characteristics, such as taste, shipping quality, storage quality, cooking quality, anti-oxidant content, size, maturity time, disease resistance, etc., etc. Numerous varities of tomato are grown today (though the varities are not distinguished to the consumer -- they are only called 'tomato'), they are bred for these certain characteristics, based on industry needs. When Gerber Products tells us that their tomatoes bruise easily in shipping, we try to cross tomatoes with good consumer characteristics with those that resist bruising. When Wal-Mart tells us that their spinach doesn't last more than a day or two on the shelf, we breed existing varities that have good characteristics with varities that store longer.
Taste is also of the utmost importance importance for fruit and vegetable breeders. Those guys may be boring PhDs who specialize in plant fornication, but they do know that taste is what sells. Also, (WARNING: free-market forces at work) large producers like Del Monte, Gerber, and the like won't stand for a product that doesn't meet stringent taste tests and sugar content (responsible for much of the taste in fruits). Because of the free market and the freedom of choice that it allows you, these companies know that they must put out what you want, or you will buy it from someone else. It is because of the free market that we have made such great strides in fruit and vegetable breeding.
Market economy hurts cancer patients 
Linear Mode
