4 ms·

Not to be a little harsh here, but is it really all that bad? People with alzheimers are basically knocking on deaths door. They aren't even themselves anymore

Not to be a little harsh here, but is it really all that bad? People with alzheimers are basically knocking on deaths door. They aren't even themselves anymore when it gets real bad. They constantly are in a state of of "who are you people being nice to me?" with friends and family. It's like getting upset over a risky drug for cancer patients in stage 4. It's not like in the grand scheme of morality it's going to do much if any harm. And unfortunately, some people need to be test subjects.

busymom0 5y ago
I think giving false hope is definitely bad. Also the price of the drug alone (regardless of who covers it) is ridiculous for something which is useless.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  If you're expressly told before taking it the same information we know now, is it false hope? Also isn't praying to a god false hope? Rolling dice in Vegas...false hope? Everything in life is a gamble. How you interpret the results is you own undoing.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    That's not what's happening here. If someone really wanted, they could have gotten the drug under Right to try Act if it was life saving drug or something. This instead is FDA approving the drug as if it actually works which based on current reporting isn't the case. Also this drug is crazy expensive for something which doesn't even work.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    The fact that money is involved makes it a zero-sum game. Money spent on Aduhelm won't be available for other therapies that might potentially be more effective.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >Everything in life is a gamble. How you interpret the results is you own undoing. The biggest problem is this is a gamble with other people's money because medicare and the taxpayers are on the hook for the bill.
toast0 5y ago
I think this is a legitimate question. In my mind, there are two main issues. The first is what other alternatives would be overlooked because of an approved treatment, including further research. The other issue is money. These medicines cost a lot of money, and it there's no improvement it's a waste of resources not only for the patient, but also for the insurance pool they're in. If it's something that's not expensive, go nuts, but thousands of dollars to move the metric but not the symptoms doesn't make sense to me.
dannyw 5y ago
With that logic, if you're being DDoS'd, might as well as start piping /dev/random to /.bash_history. It gives hope!
javagram 5y ago
The drug is extremely expensive, it’s a vast waste of money if it doesn’t work and millions are prescribed it. Running another trial makes sense if “test subjects” are needed but giving the drug general availability when the previous trial failed and was actually stopped because of failure doesn’t make much sense to me.

busymom0 5y ago

I think giving false hope is definitely bad. Also the price of the drug alone (regardless of who covers it) is ridiculous for something which is useless.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
If you're expressly told before taking it the same information we know now, is it false hope? Also isn't praying to a god false hope? Rolling dice in Vegas...false hope? Everything in life is a gamble. How you interpret the results is you own undoing.
- busymom0 5y ago
  That's not what's happening here. If someone really wanted, they could have gotten the drug under Right to try Act if it was life saving drug or something. This instead is FDA approving the drug as if it actually works which based on current reporting isn't the case. Also this drug is crazy expensive for something which doesn't even work.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  The fact that money is involved makes it a zero-sum game. Money spent on Aduhelm won't be available for other therapies that might potentially be more effective.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >Everything in life is a gamble. How you interpret the results is you own undoing. The biggest problem is this is a gamble with other people's money because medicare and the taxpayers are on the hook for the bill.

toast0 5y ago

I think this is a legitimate question. In my mind, there are two main issues. The first is what other alternatives would be overlooked because of an approved treatment, including further research. The other issue is money. These medicines cost a lot of money, and it there's no improvement it's a waste of resources not only for the patient, but also for the insurance pool they're in. If it's something that's not expensive, go nuts, but thousands of dollars to move the metric but not the symptoms doesn't make sense to me.

dannyw 5y ago

With that logic, if you're being DDoS'd, might as well as start piping /dev/random to /.bash_history. It gives hope!

javagram 5y ago

The drug is extremely expensive, it’s a vast waste of money if it doesn’t work and millions are prescribed it. Running another trial makes sense if “test subjects” are needed but giving the drug general availability when the previous trial failed and was actually stopped because of failure doesn’t make much sense to me.