Company denies drug to dying 7 yr old child

Do you agree with the Drug Company

  • yes, even though it is heart breaking and against life itself.

    Votes: 9 75.0%
  • NO! This is against all beliefs--religious and against the preservation of life.

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • Total voters
    12

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
That is ridiculous. The drug is not green-lighted for distribution and those parents, not to mention the idiot Twitterverse, are morons. So the company relents and gives him this drug, which makes him much worse or causes some other problem....and then what happens? It's the EVIL DRUG COMPANIES trying to kill our children, that's what.

The explanation provided by the drug company sounds reasonable to me. They are right to not perform experiments on 7 year old children, no matter how badly their parents want them to.
 

mudpuddle

Active Member
He is dying, and if he gets the drug it is possible it could save his life, no matter how small the chances may be...
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
He is dying, and if he gets the drug it is possible it could save his life, no matter how small the chances may be...

And it's possible that it will cause some horrible side effect that will hasten his death and cause the FDA to tighten down, hampering other testing and delaying the release so that other dying people won't be able to get it. This kid isn't the only person in the world.

The company isn't withholding the drug just to be mean; they have valid reasons that they have explained plainly.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
This chick got her drug based on compassionate use.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cancer-drug-makes-pleading-video-YouTube.html

How about this chick?
http://www.patriottalon.com/news/campus/article_137cec52-2fb3-11e3-9131-001a4bcf6878.html

Matter of fact, the FDA approved 974 compassionate use arrangements last year.

Chimerix just doesn't want a death while on their drug. Plus, I'm sure they are focused on their FDA fast-tracked drug CMX001.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just a moron. :rolleyes:
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
And it's possible that it will cause some horrible side effect that will hasten his death and cause the FDA to tighten down, hampering other testing and delaying the release so that other dying people won't be able to get it. This kid isn't the only person in the world.

The company isn't withholding the drug just to be mean; they have valid reasons that they have explained plainly.

No they don't.

First, they've been working on the drug for years, and it's just about done.

Second, they mention paying $50k. Since their company went public, they are sitting on about $117 Million in cash. Why no mention of the customer picking up the tab. At this point, a fundraiser would make enough money, plus some.

Third, they did give out the drug under compassionate use to 451 patients between '09-'12. Only because it helped their study. It simply doesn't help them make money, so why give it to them? They didn't mind diverting manpower (of the 50 people that work there) for those 451 patients. they didn;t mind shelling out money to those 451 patients.

They have investors. Spending $50,000 a pop is bad for their business. Having a death while on this drug they want to mass-market looks bad for business.
 

PJumper

New Member
How? Because pharmaceutical companies are not charities. They have investors that they are responsible for. Plus, like they said, once you said yes to one, it would open the floodgates for people asking the same. If you said yes to one and not the other, you could be sued for discrimination if the other person was of different color/ethnic background (that never happens).
 

mudpuddle

Active Member
this is what is at the heart of the matter. Life is not worth as much as money. Clearly the facts (above) support this abomination...

I just wrote a letter to Kenneth Moch, the president of the company...

I stated the following:

Dear Kenneth Moch,

Your life is no greater than Josh’s. God has given you the knowledge that can help save lives...but you are playing God, for the sake of the Company...
How can you choose a death sentence for innocent people, who have the right to live as much as you do?
If you were dying, would you deny yourself this life-saving drug???? I know you wouldn’t., If you died, how would this benefit the company and with research?
You would put your life value beneath the benefits, image, and reputation of the company?
Please think with your heart and not your head. The heart knows truths...the mind merely questions...


I hope you will join me...
 
Last edited:

mudpuddle

Active Member
How? Because pharmaceutical companies are not charities. They have investors that they are responsible for. Plus, like they said, once you said yes to one, it would open the floodgates for people asking the same. If you said yes to one and not the other, you could be sued for discrimination if the other person was of different color/ethnic background (that never happens).

Pharmaceutical companies are not charities....but aren't they in the business to help heal and save a person's life if it possibly can? If not, then what business are they in?
So, you are saying that the investors are more important than a person's life--even just one person?
You can't save everyone--but you should try to save as many as you can...and I think children should come first. What if Josh was your son? Would you think he should give his life for the investors?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Pharmaceutical companies are not charities....but aren't they in the business to help heal and save a person's life if it possibly can? If not, then what business are they in?
So, you are saying that the investors are more important than a person's life--even just one person?
You can't save everyone--but you should try to save as many as you can...and I think children should come first. What if Josh was your son? Would you think he should give his life for the investors?

And you understand that without investors there are no new drug developments, right?
 

Pete

Repete
The Public Agenda is a strong thing. I understand where this CEO is coming from. Untested drug that speeds along the death of the kid his company is branded kid killers. If he gives in this time the line of hard cases would be 15 miles long and he would get roasted.
 

LibertyBeacon

Unto dust we shall return

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
The Public Agenda is a strong thing. I understand where this CEO is coming from. Untested drug that speeds along the death of the kid his company is branded kid killers. If he gives in this time the line of hard cases would be 15 miles long and he would get roasted.

Unless they die; then he'll be sitting in a courtroom for the rest of his life.
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
This chick got her drug based on compassionate use.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cancer-drug-makes-pleading-video-YouTube.html This one stopped posting to her promotional Facebook page January 2013 eight months later.

How about this chick?
http://www.patriottalon.com/news/campus/article_137cec52-2fb3-11e3-9131-001a4bcf6878.html This one died three months later

Matter of fact, the FDA approved 974 compassionate use arrangements last year.

Chimerix just doesn't want a death while on their drug. Plus, I'm sure they are focused on their FDA fast-tracked drug CMX001.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just a moron. :rolleyes:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/statesman/obituary.aspx?n=andrea-sloan&pid=169342221&

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Darlene-Gant-cancer-warrior/132530660204023
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
so you guys would be able to look this child in the face and tell him " you are going to die, because it is the right thing to do for the company"?
How can you think it is the right thing?

How many children die every single day from preventable causes? Let's start with traffic accidents, then let's talk about gunshot wounds. How about those who are murdered by their parents or bebe's momma's current boyfriend?
 
Top