Drug company refuses to help save 7 year old boy

[Truthmatters]

They shouldn't receive any federal money. Neither should any other economic sector. Be it green energy or pharma., or even agriculture.

Regardless of that, because you elect morons that give it to them, doesn't mean you have claim to lay on their production or products.

you don't get to decide that idiot.


Our democracy is not owned by your stupid ass

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Chimerex CEO Kenneth Moch told Fox News that the company made the decision two years ago to stop the compassionate use program, saying they 'cannot afford it' anymore.


'As we progressed to larger and more complex safety trials, we made the decision two years ago to stop the program and focus resources on earning FDA approval,' Moch said.


Moch says that saying yes to Josh would mean saying yes to many more patients, draining the company's resources and delaying the time it will take for the drug to progress through the formal studies required before it can be given FDA approval and help many more future patients.


However, the company received $72 million in federal funding to develop Brincidofovir
Read more: Chimerex refuses to allow Josh Hardy, 7, access to life-saving Brincidofovir medicine | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

facts

I already gave them money

No you didn't. At over 700 billion in deficit and 17 trillion in debt, the money they were given was borrowed. You didn't pay a nickel into that. In fact, you didn't pay a nickel to much besides servicing the interest on the debt. it's all in the perception when you live in a country where monetary insianity rules the day.

 

[Contumacious]

Guess 70+ million wasn't enough eh?

The FDA has failed

This attempt by the government to insure consumers against the risk of using drugs and medical devices has flopped on numerous occasions. First of all, FDA regulations have often prevented U.S. consumers from gaining access to new life-saving drugs. Examples of this include major delays in the marketing of drugs used to treat cancer, blood pressure, heart attacks, cholesterol, and strokes and delays in marketing such high-tech items as cardiac pacemakers and in the use of such techniques as balloon angioplasty for blocked coronary arteries. For many years, the FDA would not allow the makers of aspirin to claim on their product labels that aspirins thinned blood and could thus save one from dying if taken during a heart attack. The costs of FDA regulation of these markets has likely run into the billions, possibly hundreds of billions, of dollars and is composed of higher drug prices, fewer drugs, and more and lengthier illnesses and earlier deaths.

.

 

[Truthmatters]

don't invest in any sector?


what an idiot

 

[TakeAStepBack]

don't invest in any sector?


what an idiot

Yes, it is well known that you're an idiot.

 

[Truthmatters]

lew rockwell is a right wing hack

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Guess 70+ million wasn't enough eh?

The FDA has failed

This attempt by the government to insure consumers against the risk of using drugs and medical devices has flopped on numerous occasions. First of all, FDA regulations have often prevented U.S. consumers from gaining access to new life-saving drugs. Examples of this include major delays in the marketing of drugs used to treat cancer, blood pressure, heart attacks, cholesterol, and strokes and delays in marketing such high-tech items as cardiac pacemakers and in the use of such techniques as balloon angioplasty for blocked coronary arteries. For many years, the FDA would not allow the makers of aspirin to claim on their product labels that aspirins thinned blood and could thus save one from dying if taken during a heart attack. The costs of FDA regulation of these markets has likely run into the billions, possibly hundreds of billions, of dollars and is composed of higher drug prices, fewer drugs, and more and lengthier illnesses and earlier deaths.

.

Then it needs revamped.

 

[Truthmatters]

your corporate masters would off your party if you tried to take their gov investments away

 

[TakeAStepBack]

They shouldn't receive any federal money. Neither should any other economic sector. Be it green energy or pharma., or even agriculture.

Regardless of that, because you elect morons that give it to them, doesn't mean you have claim to lay on their production or products.

you don't get to decide that idiot.


Our democracy is not owned by your stupid ass

This isn't a democracy, idiot. Go eat more paint chips. Wash it down with Draino.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Guess 70+ million wasn't enough eh?

The FDA has failed

This attempt by the government to insure consumers against the risk of using drugs and medical devices has flopped on numerous occasions. First of all, FDA regulations have often prevented U.S. consumers from gaining access to new life-saving drugs. Examples of this include major delays in the marketing of drugs used to treat cancer, blood pressure, heart attacks, cholesterol, and strokes and delays in marketing such high-tech items as cardiac pacemakers and in the use of such techniques as balloon angioplasty for blocked coronary arteries. For many years, the FDA would not allow the makers of aspirin to claim on their product labels that aspirins thinned blood and could thus save one from dying if taken during a heart attack. The costs of FDA regulation of these markets has likely run into the billions, possibly hundreds of billions, of dollars and is composed of higher drug prices, fewer drugs, and more and lengthier illnesses and earlier deaths.

.

Then it needs revamped.

No it needs to be eliminated. The FDA, the EPA, etc..etc..etc...these are drags on everything.

 

[Truthmatters]

hahahahahahahaha



don't invest in medications we need to have made?


do you know what that would do to our pharma companies?


Hand all their future sales to other countries pharma.

jesus you rightes are stupid

 

[Contumacious]

[However, the company received $72 million in federal funding to develop Brincidofovir

It’s also often not in a drug company’s interest to give out unapproved drugs on compassionate grounds, because it can make it harder for the drug win approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Those looking for access to a drug on compassionate grounds are usualy very sick patients, who might not necessarily do well on the drug. Any poor outcomes have to be reported by the company to the FDA in its application to market the drug, which Chimerix is hoping will be available to all by the end of 2016

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

hahahahahahahaha



don't invest in medications we need to have made?


do you know what that would do to our pharma companies?


Hand all their future sales to other countries pharma.

jesus you rightes are stupid

I'm actually a leftie, Dullard.

 

[Contumacious]

jesus you rightes are stupid

Jesus , you fascists are ignorant:

The FDA has failed

(1) with trial lawyers looking for multi-billion dollar settlements in lawsuits, pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical equipment manufacturers have every incentive to be cautious in bringing out new drugs and new medical devices. To this end, they would avail themselves of independent private reviews of the results of clinical trials and tests.

(2) Medical experts – the same ones who testify on behalf of and against manufacturers in various product liability lawsuits – would also become involved as independent private review consultants. Most likely, such experts would become affiliated with independent private review institutes – similar in operational philosophy and techniques to the famous Underwriters Laboratories – which would levy a charge for a review of a new drug or medical device. Currently, the FDA takes in about $250 million annually in fees (really taxes) it charges manufacturers for seeking approval of a drug or medical device. Manufacturers have thus demonstrated the willingness and ability to pay for product reviews."

.

 

[Truthmatters]

hahahahahahahaha



don't invest in medications we need to have made?


do you know what that would do to our pharma companies?


Hand all their future sales to other countries pharma.

jesus you rightes are stupid

I'm actually a leftie, Dullard.

hahahahahahahahahahahah


fucking liar

 

[Truthmatters]

jesus you rightes are stupid

Jesus , you fascists are ignorant:

The FDA has failed

(1) with trial lawyers looking for multi-billion dollar settlements in lawsuits, pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical equipment manufacturers have every incentive to be cautious in bringing out new drugs and new medical devices. To this end, they would avail themselves of independent private reviews of the results of clinical trials and tests.

(2) Medical experts – the same ones who testify on behalf of and against manufacturers in various product liability lawsuits – would also become involved as independent private review consultants. Most likely, such experts would become affiliated with independent private review institutes – similar in operational philosophy and techniques to the famous Underwriters Laboratories – which would levy a charge for a review of a new drug or medical device. Currently, the FDA takes in about $250 million annually in fees (really taxes) it charges manufacturers for seeking approval of a drug or medical device. Manufacturers have thus demonstrated the willingness and ability to pay for product reviews."

.

and they charge you to register your car too huh idiot

 

[TakeAStepBack]

hahahahahahahaha



don't invest in medications we need to have made?


do you know what that would do to our pharma companies?


Hand all their future sales to other countries pharma.

jesus you rightes are stupid

I'm actually a leftie, Dullard.

hahahahahahahahahahahah


fucking liar

No, I'm not lying, Dullard. I'm lefthanded.

 

[Contumacious]

jesus you rightes are stupid

Jesus , you fascists are ignorant:

The FDA has failed

(1) with trial lawyers looking for multi-billion dollar settlements in lawsuits, pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical equipment manufacturers have every incentive to be cautious in bringing out new drugs and new medical devices. To this end, they would avail themselves of independent private reviews of the results of clinical trials and tests.

(2) Medical experts – the same ones who testify on behalf of and against manufacturers in various product liability lawsuits – would also become involved as independent private review consultants. Most likely, such experts would become affiliated with independent private review institutes – similar in operational philosophy and techniques to the famous Underwriters Laboratories – which would levy a charge for a review of a new drug or medical device. Currently, the FDA takes in about $250 million annually in fees (really taxes) it charges manufacturers for seeking approval of a drug or medical device. Manufacturers have thus demonstrated the willingness and ability to pay for product reviews."

.

and they charge you to register your car too huh idiot

Excuse me Dingle Berry, Sir:

If this boy dies because the drug has not been fully tested and the Company is sued, will the FDA intercede?

Will the marketplace forgive Chimerex because they were just being nice guys?

I only pay $70.00 dollars a years to register my vehicle, not a gazillion dollars.

I wish you would show the same stamina when defending our Constitutional rights against government encroachment.

.

 

[depotoo]

You can probably blame this on lawyers and the fda for how long it takes to get approval.

 

[Harry Dresden]

yes the right seeks to destroy our union

and so this guy is a righty now?.....i did not see anything about his political leanings in the story,did i miss something?....