FDA' sought power-status (covering any/all drug prescribing) seems to be a precursor to that certain persons in power have the means to dictate how and which conditions to treat. Med- doctors will be their civil servants and patients will be their lab-rats.What occurred during 2020 -23 will in the future be the norm. It is a precursor to the WHO treaty.
This will result in an astronomical increase in the cost of medical research and therefore an astronomical increase in the cost of drugs and devices and delay in availability.
Currently if there are two or more disorders that could be treated with a drug and one is common and the other is relatively rare you do the research on the common disorder because it is easy to get enough patients to study. If the drug is approved, the doctors know that they can cautiously use it for the other less common conditions with the same pathophysiology. and additional studies will follow. It gets used and published and becomes standard of care. Safety studies do not need to be done separately because you already established that with study of the first disease and by the time that its use in the second disease become SOC you have even more safety tested by its use in the first disease.
If FDA chooses to do this they will have to do studies on each and every disease for which the drug can be used thus taking more time and money - resulting in the drug being more expensive and delaying availability.
Good post. As a layman, if I am denied a treatment that is cheap and effective and instead I am prescribed a treatment that is expensive and risky, I am going to get upset.
What baffles me is that health insurers aren't all over this like a rash, since it inflates their costs/damages their profits. Same goes for employers - the loss of value from employers not cured/treated quickly and their overpayment of health insurance is "whack".
The government is paying for the v@((*nes - so the insurance companies don't care.
But I worked for the insurance industry as a medical consultant and know that the insurance companies don't care either - or at least the one I worked for did not care. WHY? Because they can just raise premiums and the public has no unified voice to object. In addition, the insurance companies are all in partnership with the major hospitals and health care systems and the same people who run those systems also have clout in the insurance companies.
Don't forget that BCBS was started by doctors (I think in the 1930's) to come up with a way of getting paid for their services. Currently they are still in cahoots with the health care systems. The only group without a voice are the subscribers.
So much for competition! It used to be - in more "animal spirits"/entrepreneurial times, that predatory pricing and sloppy management would attract new entrants in droves until the predatory pricing and sloppiness had been wiped out. Now it looks as though it is the case that such behavior is rewarded and encouraged by the complexity of regulation and legal liability protections.
Over reach? Or just NWO's 1World Govtard's Lockstep in action.
FDA' sought power-status (covering any/all drug prescribing) seems to be a precursor to that certain persons in power have the means to dictate how and which conditions to treat. Med- doctors will be their civil servants and patients will be their lab-rats.What occurred during 2020 -23 will in the future be the norm. It is a precursor to the WHO treaty.
This will result in an astronomical increase in the cost of medical research and therefore an astronomical increase in the cost of drugs and devices and delay in availability.
Currently if there are two or more disorders that could be treated with a drug and one is common and the other is relatively rare you do the research on the common disorder because it is easy to get enough patients to study. If the drug is approved, the doctors know that they can cautiously use it for the other less common conditions with the same pathophysiology. and additional studies will follow. It gets used and published and becomes standard of care. Safety studies do not need to be done separately because you already established that with study of the first disease and by the time that its use in the second disease become SOC you have even more safety tested by its use in the first disease.
If FDA chooses to do this they will have to do studies on each and every disease for which the drug can be used thus taking more time and money - resulting in the drug being more expensive and delaying availability.
Good post. As a layman, if I am denied a treatment that is cheap and effective and instead I am prescribed a treatment that is expensive and risky, I am going to get upset.
What baffles me is that health insurers aren't all over this like a rash, since it inflates their costs/damages their profits. Same goes for employers - the loss of value from employers not cured/treated quickly and their overpayment of health insurance is "whack".
The government is paying for the v@((*nes - so the insurance companies don't care.
But I worked for the insurance industry as a medical consultant and know that the insurance companies don't care either - or at least the one I worked for did not care. WHY? Because they can just raise premiums and the public has no unified voice to object. In addition, the insurance companies are all in partnership with the major hospitals and health care systems and the same people who run those systems also have clout in the insurance companies.
Don't forget that BCBS was started by doctors (I think in the 1930's) to come up with a way of getting paid for their services. Currently they are still in cahoots with the health care systems. The only group without a voice are the subscribers.
So much for competition! It used to be - in more "animal spirits"/entrepreneurial times, that predatory pricing and sloppy management would attract new entrants in droves until the predatory pricing and sloppiness had been wiped out. Now it looks as though it is the case that such behavior is rewarded and encouraged by the complexity of regulation and legal liability protections.
Goodness. Well, at least they are consistent.