3 ms·

I find it strange that people advocate that people who are facing serious disease are not allowed to try experimental therapies. How does it hurt?

bsder 3y ago
HCQ? Ivermectin? Shall I go on? I have no problem with Right to Try. But it needs to have rules. Pre-registration. No charge or payments to anybody (doctor or patients). Forced publication of even negative results. etc. And, guess what, once you add the safeguards, that looks an awful lot like what we have right now.
- tim333 3y ago
  I took HCQ for covid before the test results on that were in. It probably did nothing. I'm not sure how I would have benefited from it being prevented.
  - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
    I think his Ive and HCQ points are pretty bad. I mean, it's cancer vs covid. Covid has a low mortality (very low) compared to cancer. Also, as you said it's not like those drugs killed you.
- DoesntMatter22 3y ago
  You want to deny people the right to try unless it's by your rules. Bizarre that you want to enforce your rules on people who are potentially dying.
  - david-gpu 3y ago
    We are all already dying, but we only allow doctors to prescribe drugs and other treatments to patients. Sometimes we enact regulations to protect vulnerable people, and the more fearful somebody is about their health the more at risk they are to be preyed upon, as has been proven through history. That's why it would make sense to require such last-chance measures to be provided free of charge. This would remove the monetary incentive to swindle people. Picture a severely ill family member giving away all of their savings to some unscrupulous person that has been swindling terminal patients for years without actually helping anybody. Would you not want to prevent that?
    - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
      Regardless of all that, ultimately, you are advocating that people can't make their own decisions, that you and others should be in charge of what they can, or cannot do. There are millions of patients where they want to be on clinical trials with drug companies but cannot due to the laws. It seems strange to me that people will advocate for people not having a choice when they have so little chance.
      - david-gpu 3y ago
        > Regardless of all that, ultimately, you are advocating that people can't make their own decisions, that you and others should be in charge of what they can, or cannot do That is how everything in society works. That's why we have a justice system, why the practice of medicine, law, engineering and so on requires a license, etc. Have you looked at societies where those requirements don't exist or didn't exist in the past? Is that the kind of place where you want to live? This is a subject that requires a little bit of nuance, so blanket statements aren't going to move the conversation forward. I am not advocating for absolute elimination of liberties, not for an absolute absence of regulations. > It seems strange to me that people will advocate for people not having a choice when they have so little chance. Well, I believe we have adequately explained our rationale, the sort of conditions that we think strike a reasonable balance. It's okay if we don't agree.
        DoesntMatter22 3y ago
        It's one thing to have restrictions on what affect other people, like criminal laws to prevent anarchy. It's another thing to tell dying cancer patients they are not allowed to try experimental drugs unless they fit your personal criteria. You want them to die rather than have a right over what treatments they are allowed to have. In effect you are claiming rights over them rather then having that right. That's pretty bad
  - bsder 3y ago
    And you want to open the Pandora's Box to legions of snake oil salesmen who will vastly outnumber the good players? see: Steve Jobs If you go this route, the snake oil will quickly crowd out the treatments that actually have a chance of making things better. Not only will dying individuals be less able to wade through the garbage, but the researchers will have a tougher time getting to the patients they need for actual trials so future patients will also be impacted negatively. Dying cancer patients have my sympathy, but I also went through this with Alzheimer's treatments for a parent. I had to wade through a VAST amount of garbage treatments that were even "officially approved". At least they went through clinical trials so they weren't actively harmful, mostly. I can't imagine the disaster that would ensue if treatments for terminal patients didn't at least have to clear some level of phased trials.
    - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
      Nobody said snake oil salesmen at all. We are talking about clinical trials by major companies. Regardless you proved my entire point. The trials they went through weren't actively harmful. Everyone feels self righteous for playing God with other people's lives restricting them from giving things a chance. Even if it's snake oil salesman, if people want to try it who are you to interfere? The vast majority of cancer right now, even with treatment is a death sentence (not counting skin cancers). The fact that people like yourself feel entitled to stop others from getting experimental treatment is incredible

bsder 3y ago

HCQ? Ivermectin? Shall I go on? I have no problem with Right to Try. But it needs to have rules. Pre-registration. No charge or payments to anybody (doctor or patients). Forced publication of even negative results. etc. And, guess what, once you add the safeguards, that looks an awful lot like what we have right now.

tim333 3y ago
I took HCQ for covid before the test results on that were in. It probably did nothing. I'm not sure how I would have benefited from it being prevented.
- DoesntMatter22 3y ago
  I think his Ive and HCQ points are pretty bad. I mean, it's cancer vs covid. Covid has a low mortality (very low) compared to cancer. Also, as you said it's not like those drugs killed you.
DoesntMatter22 3y ago
You want to deny people the right to try unless it's by your rules. Bizarre that you want to enforce your rules on people who are potentially dying.
- david-gpu 3y ago
  We are all already dying, but we only allow doctors to prescribe drugs and other treatments to patients. Sometimes we enact regulations to protect vulnerable people, and the more fearful somebody is about their health the more at risk they are to be preyed upon, as has been proven through history. That's why it would make sense to require such last-chance measures to be provided free of charge. This would remove the monetary incentive to swindle people. Picture a severely ill family member giving away all of their savings to some unscrupulous person that has been swindling terminal patients for years without actually helping anybody. Would you not want to prevent that?
  - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
    Regardless of all that, ultimately, you are advocating that people can't make their own decisions, that you and others should be in charge of what they can, or cannot do. There are millions of patients where they want to be on clinical trials with drug companies but cannot due to the laws. It seems strange to me that people will advocate for people not having a choice when they have so little chance.
    - david-gpu 3y ago
      > Regardless of all that, ultimately, you are advocating that people can't make their own decisions, that you and others should be in charge of what they can, or cannot do That is how everything in society works. That's why we have a justice system, why the practice of medicine, law, engineering and so on requires a license, etc. Have you looked at societies where those requirements don't exist or didn't exist in the past? Is that the kind of place where you want to live? This is a subject that requires a little bit of nuance, so blanket statements aren't going to move the conversation forward. I am not advocating for absolute elimination of liberties, not for an absolute absence of regulations. > It seems strange to me that people will advocate for people not having a choice when they have so little chance. Well, I believe we have adequately explained our rationale, the sort of conditions that we think strike a reasonable balance. It's okay if we don't agree.
      - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
        It's one thing to have restrictions on what affect other people, like criminal laws to prevent anarchy. It's another thing to tell dying cancer patients they are not allowed to try experimental drugs unless they fit your personal criteria. You want them to die rather than have a right over what treatments they are allowed to have. In effect you are claiming rights over them rather then having that right. That's pretty bad
- bsder 3y ago
  And you want to open the Pandora's Box to legions of snake oil salesmen who will vastly outnumber the good players? see: Steve Jobs If you go this route, the snake oil will quickly crowd out the treatments that actually have a chance of making things better. Not only will dying individuals be less able to wade through the garbage, but the researchers will have a tougher time getting to the patients they need for actual trials so future patients will also be impacted negatively. Dying cancer patients have my sympathy, but I also went through this with Alzheimer's treatments for a parent. I had to wade through a VAST amount of garbage treatments that were even "officially approved". At least they went through clinical trials so they weren't actively harmful, mostly. I can't imagine the disaster that would ensue if treatments for terminal patients didn't at least have to clear some level of phased trials.
  - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
    Nobody said snake oil salesmen at all. We are talking about clinical trials by major companies. Regardless you proved my entire point. The trials they went through weren't actively harmful. Everyone feels self righteous for playing God with other people's lives restricting them from giving things a chance. Even if it's snake oil salesman, if people want to try it who are you to interfere? The vast majority of cancer right now, even with treatment is a death sentence (not counting skin cancers). The fact that people like yourself feel entitled to stop others from getting experimental treatment is incredible