Guest guest Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 Tracey, Just a point, from my perspective, no one here is saying anything about Gleevec being EVIL - quite the contrary. The use of the word Magical is semantics, but no one can draw conclusions that because someone questions the use of the word then they must think the drug or the article was evil or not good. It was a comment on the use of a word. I did read the series on the cost of drugs and it was well written, but I personally do not believe that you can look at any drug without looking at cost, access and outcomes. If people can't afford it or access it then it doesn't realy matter how well it works, just ask all the dying AIDS patients. It isn't easy, but sometimes it helps to put our emotions aside and look at this from a different perspective. It certainly allows us to be more critical - without being cynical. But I really do not think anyone here should have taken any offense to the objection of the use of the word magical. Cheers! Cheryl-Anne --- In , " Tracey " <traceyincanada@...> wrote: > > May I suggest that Rita (and anyone else) who thinks that Gleevec is > so evil, go spend some time with cancer patients who are in stage 4 > of any number of cancers, and are getting a combination of chemo, > surgery and radiation with the end result of getting a 6 month > extension to their lives. Then ask these patients if they could > hypothetically take a pill like Gleevec that would allow them to > continue to live for a few more years (possibly even 20 years), ask > them if they would consider that pill to be 'magical'. > > As for the cost of the drug, no one will disagree that it's crazy to > charge this kind of money for a drug but this wasn't the point of > the article and it certainly doesn't negate what the drug has done > for us. The issue of the cost of cancer treatments was brought up > in another article in the series that the newspaper had so it wasn't > ignored by any means. The purpose of this particular article was to > show that there are better ways to treat cancer other than the near > embalming that is used for most cancers and I think it did a great > job of getting that message across. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 Hi Cheryl! Best of luck with your new treatment regime. I had no idea you had gone off gleevec. You had mentioned to me some time ago that gleevec may be damaging your kidneys so I am not completely surprised. There are so many other drug options now. As you know I don't frequent the boards like I used to but this seems like a pleasant, fact orientated group. I don't think it was that Rita appeared offended by the word " Magic " that caused a lot of people to post. I am not aware of her situation but she came across as someone who wanted you to knock the chip off her shoulder. If she is not well that is very understandable. As a marketing person, you know that the word Magic was just used as a catch phrase to get people to read the article. You and I both agree there was a lot of meat in the article and it was balanced. That's all that counts. All sweeping generalities and/or needless nitpicking about gleevec denigrate the work Dr. Druker and his team have done for the majority of us with CML. I totally agree with you about the cost of all these new life saving drugs be they for Cancer or AIDS. The fact that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Bill Clinton have joined the fight is some comfort at least. With the molecular breakthrough I don't see how any health care system could handle the costs if gleevec type drugs worked on all cancers. They would collapse. Things are moving so fast we can't really predict anything. One thing is for sure, the health care systems can't sustain these kinds of prices as they expand to other drugs on a daily basis. Take Care, Wayne -- In , " cher111376 " <cheryl.simoneau@...> wrote: > > Tracey, > > Just a point, from my perspective, no one here is saying anything > about Gleevec being EVIL - quite the contrary. > > The use of the word Magical is semantics, but no one can draw > conclusions that because someone questions the use of the word then > they must think the drug or the article was evil or not good. It > was a comment on the use of a word. > > I did read the series on the cost of drugs and it was well written, > but I personally do not believe that you can look at any drug > without looking at cost, access and outcomes. If people can't > afford it or access it then it doesn't realy matter how well it > works, just ask all the dying AIDS patients. > > It isn't easy, but sometimes it helps to put our emotions aside and > look at this from a different perspective. It certainly allows us > to be more critical - without being cynical. > > But I really do not think anyone here should have taken any offense > to the objection of the use of the word magical. > > Cheers! > Cheryl-Anne > > > > > > > > May I suggest that Rita (and anyone else) who thinks that Gleevec > is > > so evil, go spend some time with cancer patients who are in stage > 4 > > of any number of cancers, and are getting a combination of chemo, > > surgery and radiation with the end result of getting a 6 month > > extension to their lives. Then ask these patients if they could > > hypothetically take a pill like Gleevec that would allow them to > > continue to live for a few more years (possibly even 20 years), > ask > > them if they would consider that pill to be 'magical'. > > > > As for the cost of the drug, no one will disagree that it's crazy > to > > charge this kind of money for a drug but this wasn't the point of > > the article and it certainly doesn't negate what the drug has done > > for us. The issue of the cost of cancer treatments was brought up > > in another article in the series that the newspaper had so it > wasn't > > ignored by any means. The purpose of this particular article was > to > > show that there are better ways to treat cancer other than the > near > > embalming that is used for most cancers and I think it did a great > > job of getting that message across. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 Hi Wayne, Good to hear from you. Actually I know Rita quite well and she isn't the sort of person who has a chip on her shoulder at all. She is a happy cheerful person who is quite fun to be around - like most of us CMLers are. Rita is quite well and healthy on Dasatinib, and I am very certain she wouldn't use the word " magic " to describe that drug either ;-) You are right about the " marketing " aspect. Having worked in marketing in healthcare for over 16 years I am more careful about the use of words and the play on emotions that is very tempting from time to time. With the high cost of these drugs, we need to put our emotions to the side or we lose our ability to negotiate. Now that there are more choices, we can be more informed consumers. I am not sure that it is directly Gleevec that caused problems for me, so I wouldn't want people to think that. But so far I am doing just fine on IFN. Hope you are keeping well. Cheers, Cheryl-Anne > > Hi Cheryl! > > Best of luck with your new treatment regime. I had no idea you had > gone off gleevec. You had mentioned to me some time ago that gleevec > may be damaging your kidneys so I am not completely surprised. There > are so many other drug options now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.