LWW
07-06-2011, 10:07 AM
From the reich wing USAToday:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A recent Food and Drug Administration advisory committee meeting led to much debate about the use of Avastin for breast cancer. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The debate is not about whether Avastin significantly prolongs the time women live without their breast cancer worsening; it clearly did in three clinical trials with 2,400 women. The debate is whether Avastin works well enough to continue to be a choice for women — are the results clinically meaningful, and who should decide?</span>
OUR VIEW: Let science guide policy on costly breast cancer treatments
The 29,000 women diagnosed each year in the U.S. with metastatic breast cancer will not be cured with today's medicines; many will spend the rest of their lives moving from one treatment to the next. Their options are limited: Only one other first-line treatment has been approved by the FDA in the past decade.
Like other treatments used in metastatic breast cancer, which will claim 40,000 lives this year, Avastin results in an incremental improvement, not a cure, and it has serious risks that must be considered. We don't have data showing it prolongs survival. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>However, doctors and patients recognize that some women greatly benefit from Avastin.</span>
There is no question — we need better therapies for people fighting cancer, and this will take significant investments in research and development. An October 2009 report by consulting firm Booz & Co. noted that Roche, our parent company, is among the top three R&D spenders in the world. Roche spent approximately $9.1 billion on R&D in 2009.
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The American Cancer Society cites premature death and disability from cancer as the "single largest drain on national economies compared to other causes of death." Yet cancer medicines account for less than 1% of total health care spending in this country.</span>
Curing cancer isn't easy and won't happen overnight. Collaboration is needed among industry, academia, government and payers. Ultimately, we believe treatment decisions should be made between doctors and their patients. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>For women with metastatic breast cancer, we believe Avastin should be part of that discussion. While it may not be the right medicine for everyone, it should be an option for every woman facing this disease.</span></div></div>
Let the denials begin! (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-08-24-editorial24_ST1_N.htm)
By decertifying AVASTIN to save the gubmint money, it has an even more heinous effect than a death panel putting a dollar figure on human life ... it effectively bans separate private insurance, or even using the patients own money, to pay for the treatment.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A recent Food and Drug Administration advisory committee meeting led to much debate about the use of Avastin for breast cancer. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The debate is not about whether Avastin significantly prolongs the time women live without their breast cancer worsening; it clearly did in three clinical trials with 2,400 women. The debate is whether Avastin works well enough to continue to be a choice for women — are the results clinically meaningful, and who should decide?</span>
OUR VIEW: Let science guide policy on costly breast cancer treatments
The 29,000 women diagnosed each year in the U.S. with metastatic breast cancer will not be cured with today's medicines; many will spend the rest of their lives moving from one treatment to the next. Their options are limited: Only one other first-line treatment has been approved by the FDA in the past decade.
Like other treatments used in metastatic breast cancer, which will claim 40,000 lives this year, Avastin results in an incremental improvement, not a cure, and it has serious risks that must be considered. We don't have data showing it prolongs survival. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>However, doctors and patients recognize that some women greatly benefit from Avastin.</span>
There is no question — we need better therapies for people fighting cancer, and this will take significant investments in research and development. An October 2009 report by consulting firm Booz & Co. noted that Roche, our parent company, is among the top three R&D spenders in the world. Roche spent approximately $9.1 billion on R&D in 2009.
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The American Cancer Society cites premature death and disability from cancer as the "single largest drain on national economies compared to other causes of death." Yet cancer medicines account for less than 1% of total health care spending in this country.</span>
Curing cancer isn't easy and won't happen overnight. Collaboration is needed among industry, academia, government and payers. Ultimately, we believe treatment decisions should be made between doctors and their patients. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>For women with metastatic breast cancer, we believe Avastin should be part of that discussion. While it may not be the right medicine for everyone, it should be an option for every woman facing this disease.</span></div></div>
Let the denials begin! (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-08-24-editorial24_ST1_N.htm)
By decertifying AVASTIN to save the gubmint money, it has an even more heinous effect than a death panel putting a dollar figure on human life ... it effectively bans separate private insurance, or even using the patients own money, to pay for the treatment.