Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Techniclone (TCLN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3104)	5/25/1999 9:30:00 AM
From: GregSL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3702

In general I agree with you, Maurice, that promising cancer treatments need to be made more accessible to patients. However, you have gone off the deep end. Your story about Liam points out why the FDA is necessary. Electrical stimulation to treat cancer? Even using FDA approved techniques there can be several choices of treatment. Without FDA evaluating efficacy, the door would be open for every quack to try to push their snake oil. As it is now they get bombarded with "alternative medicine." Without the FDA, the product with the best salesman would be used. As far as doctors, they are human. They do make mistakes. Every patient does need to be involved with their own care. Surely, you aren't trying suggest that the patients do their own diagnosis. And they are supposed to decide the treatment on their own? The carnage would be much greater than what you are accusing the FDA of. Should a patient in a Phase I trial be allowed to continue receiving a medicine which helped him? Yes, it is the only ethical thing to do. Should a cancer drug be approved after being proven safe? No, we would never find out which ones work or which are the best treatments. There are currently 106 clinical trials on brain cancer. How would the patient choose which treatment to try? You don't want them to ask the "priesthood"; best salesman wins again.