Yet another Scilon with cancer asking for donations on GoFundMe..

[Smurf]

Gary has a carrier in music as a drummer & vocalist.

"Gary Wattman is battling his way through blood cancer (multiple myeloma), and is making it. But his finances have been depleted in the effort. When his cancer was discovered, Gary's blood was so severely anemic that his doctor ordered him in to the hospital for an immediate transfusion. This actually saved his life! He had to get 4 of these just to be able to start treatment.

Gary and his wife, Kathy, were living in Clearwater when his cancer was discovered. The quality of medical care under Gary's insurance in Florida was just not up to snuff and a move back to Los Angeles was necessary. Gary has Motion Picture Industry coverage, which is outstanding, but not well accepted in Florida for odd and senseless reasons. But even this insurance does not cover one of the drugs he needs to take which runs $4000 a month (Thalidomide). The move was made. Gary and Kathy were able to rent a house in Stevenson Ranch, about 5 minutes from the best possible medical center for his treatments."

http://www.gofundme.com/2rr5k4

http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/g/gary-wattman.html

http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/k/kathy-wattman.html

https://www.facebook.com/gary.wattman

Karen posted on Facebook.. "Just for the record Gary Wattman and Marty Kassowitz have been long term *trusted* OSA Operatives. Gary even pretended he was out by posting on the South African blog a few months ago. Both in the Cherch 40+ years."

 

[DeeAnna]

Thalidomide?? As in the drug that caused horrendous birth defects to develop in unborn babies back in the early 1060s? I think it was a sleep aid. Popular in the UK at the time. It had not been approved for use in the U.S. so we did not have very many cases of deformed children here, but it was used a lot in the U.K.

If in fact the drug is Thalidomide, I cannot imagine a sleeping pill that has been around for 50 years costing $4,000/month. It is usually new drugs that cost a lot.

----------------

I checked. It is the same drug.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

 

[Udarnik]

Thalidomide?? As in the drug that caused horrendous birth defects to develop in unborn babies back in the early 1060s? I think it was a sleep aid. Popular in the UK at the time. It had not been approved for use in the U.S. so we did not have very many cases of deformed children here, but it was used a lot in the U.K.

If in fact the drug is Thalidomide, I cannot imagine a sleeping pill that has been around for 50 years costing $4,000/month. It is usually new drugs that cost a lot.

----------------

I checked. It is the same drug.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

Thalidomide was used for morning sickness, hence the huge number of deformed babies - any other indication and only a small fraction of the patients would have gotten pregnant and they might never have made the connection with the crude observational methods of the day.

It has applications in leprosy and a variety of cancers:

Thalidomide—removed from widespread clinical use by 1962 because of severe teratogenicity—has antiangiogenic and immunomodulatory effects, including the inhibition of tumor necrosis alpha factor. It has now returned to practice as an effective oral agent in the management of various disease states including erythema nodosum leprosum, for which it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1998, and more recently certain malignancies, including multiple myeloma. Although thalidomide's mechanism of action remains incompletely understood, considerable insight has been generated by extensive preclinical studies in multiple myeloma. Moreover, clinical trials have confirmed benefit in relapsed disease, and the role of thalidomide in treating newly diagnosed patients is currently under study. Its use in other tumors is under evaluation, with promise in renal cell carcinoma, prostate cancer, glioma, and Kaposi's sarcoma. Activity has also been demonstrated in chronic graft-versus-host disease and in symptom relief as part of palliative care.

It was pulled completely in the US (or rather, never approved at all), and in order to get on the US market, Celgene had to run an entire clinical program, Phase I to Phase III, in several indications. What you pay for when you buy a drug is not the pill, that usually costs less than $2 to make, sometimes a lot less. What you are really paying for is the little piece of paper called the package inset that you probably never read and just throw away. But that's what separates a drug from a mere chemical - because it's the summary of all the testing that was done to make sure that the stuff won't kill you right off, and tells you all the potential ways it might kill you in the long run, and what to look out for. It also tells you how much you should expect it to help you, and why you should take all the risks attendant with ingesting it - in other words, it outlines the risk/ benefit proposition.

All that testing nows costs on average $1.8 billion per drug. That's a shitload of dough. The company has to make that back, plus pay operating expenses. If you're marketing an NSAID that 20 million people are eligible to take, no biggie. A couple of dollars a pill, and then the docs and patients decide if that's worth more than over-the-counter ibuprofen. Some do, some don't, but you still have millions of consumers.

Rare diseases like cancer (yes, cancer is rare, because a patient doesn't have "cancer", they have "prostate cancer" or "estrogen receptor positive breast cancer" or "triple negative breast cancer" or whatnot, and each of those diseases is treated with different drugs...), you have a MUCH smaller patient pool. That means, in order to recoup that cost, the price per patient is going to have to be huge. That's why cancer drugs cost so much. It's like books. Mass market paperbacks are dirt cheap relative to specialized technical books that only a handful of people read.

The cancer trials were completed less than 10 years ago, that's why Thalidomide is still on patent:

In 2006 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for thalidomide in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients.[25] The FDA approval came seven years after the first reports of efficacy in the medical literature[26]

It doesn't matter that the chemical was invented that long ago, what matters is when the trials were done. And none of the trials done in the 60s were up to snuff for anything today, so Celgene had to start from scratch, there.

Much earlier, when it was marketed for leprosy, the FDA put huge restrictions on its prescription to ensure that we didn't copy Brazil with hundreds of deformed babies:

In 1998 the FDA approved the drug's use in the treatment of ENL.[15] Because of thalidomide's potential for causing birth defects, the drug may be distributed only under tightly controlled conditions. The FDA required that Celgene Corporation, which planned to market thalidomide under the brand name Thalomid, establish a system for thalidomide education and prescribing safety (STEPS) oversight program. The conditions required under the program include limiting prescription and dispensing rights to authorized prescribers and pharmacies only, keeping a registry of all patients prescribed thalidomide, providing extensive patient education about the risks associated with the drug, and providing periodic pregnancy tests for women who take the drug.[15]

That system severely curtailed the drug's commercial potential, even beyond the limits of the tiny leprosy patient population in the US. Those restrictions are still in place for cancer, meaning that its use is small even among cancer drugs. The drug and the price are legit, here, even if everything else about the impoverished $cilon neglecting his health isn't.

 

[MrNobody]

Grünenthal, creator of that drug still has to re-compensate their victims, which they've never done not even after all these years.

Business people who have no honor and no conscience is one thing - but still making money off a drug which harmed so many children, without paying a single dime to re-compensate any of their victims, is an insult for humanity. OK, in that sense, it's a suitable drug for a cultist.

 

[Udarnik]

Grünenthal, creator of that drug still has to re-compensate their victims, which they've never done not even after all these years.

Business people who have no honor and no conscience is one thing - but still making money off a drug which harmed so many children, without paying a single dime to re-compensate any of their victims, is an insult for humanity. OK, in that sense, it's a suitable drug for a cultist.

Grunenthal's chemical (composition of matter) patent is long expired. AFAIK, Grunenthal does not have a stake in Celgene's clinical trials or use patent, and I don't think they get a dime from its current market:

The main pharmaceutical company involved with thalidomide was Celgene Corporation, headquartered in New Jersey, which received patent approval to manufacture it in December 1995. While negotiations between the FDA and Celgene continued, there were other striking developments in the research on thalidomide.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Is anyone here up for a discussion about how health care should be funded? It's not that I want to stir up s*** on here (no really) but every time I see a thread like this - and I seem to see a lot of them lately - I'm reminded that I live in a country where health care for the populace is funded out of general taxation, and that most of us in the UK like it that way.

Most Americans here, on the other hand, seem happy with the status quo in their country too where health care is concerned (or at least they aren't saying anything to the contrary), and that's a divide which puzzles me. Maybe most of us think our country and the way it does things is the best.

 

[MrNobody]

Is anyone here up for a discussion about how health care should be funded? It's not that I want to stir up s*** on here (no really) but every time I see a thread like this - and I seem to see a lot of them lately - I'm reminded that I live in a country where health care for the populace is funded out of general taxation, and that most of us in the UK like it that way.

Most Americans here, on the other hand, seem happy with the status quo in their country too where health care is concerned (or at least they aren't saying anything to the contrary), and that's a divide which puzzles me. Maybe most of us think our country and the way it does things is the best.

Here in Germany, basically everybody below a certain threshold, has to have health-insurance. When someone is to poor to pay for that, the welfare system pays for that. Children and stay-at-home parents get their insurance via their money-making parent/spouse. Wealthy and high-income people can opt out of that system and decide to pay cash.

A lot can be said about the German health- and welfare-system and I just gave you a short layman's synopsis, but IMO, the German system is more human and social than the American one.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Here in Germany, basically everybody below a certain threshold, has to have health-insurance. When someone is to poor to pay for that, the welfare system pays for that. Children and stay-at-home parents get their insurance via their money-making parent/spouse. Wealthy and high-income people can opt out of that system and decide to pay cash.

A lot can be said about the German health- and welfare-system and I just gave you a short layman's synopsis, but IMO, the German system is more human and social than the American one.

Thanks. I think the German system was the one Bill Clinton modelled his attempt at healthcare reform on in the early 90's, when he first got elected, but it was defeated. I agree with you that it is more humane than the current US healthcare model.

 

[EriksAngel15]

I think that the healthcare system in America is a flat out money making scheme,comparable to $cientology. People should not have to do crowd funding just to be able to get the health care that they need, especially in times like being diagnosed with cancer. A friend of mine is going through a 2nd round with cancer, and has a crowd funding campaign going just to be able to pay all her medical bills, since she is considered disabled, and unable to work, therefore unable to get much in the way of insurance. I don't understand why it should cost so much when one is disabled or is facing a major health crisis, which is stressful enough w/o having to worry about where the funding to pay for nessecary treatment.

Christopher Reeve (known as Superman to many) did a reboot of an Alfred Hitchcock movie "Rear Window", after his horse riding accident. At one point in the movie, he makes a statement about how expensive it is being disabled. It is a horrible thing that companies feel OK to profit from this sham.

 

[Enthetan]

Here in Germany, basically everybody below a certain threshold, has to have health-insurance. When someone is to poor to pay for that, the welfare system pays for that. Children and stay-at-home parents get their insurance via their money-making parent/spouse. Wealthy and high-income people can opt out of that system and decide to pay cash.

A lot can be said about the German health- and welfare-system and I just gave you a short layman's synopsis, but IMO, the German system is more human and social than the American one.

I think the divide comes from people seeing how government-run health care is in the US (example, the Veterans Administration hospital system) and not wanting that low quality of care. Government-run health insurance systems like Medicare (for the elderly) and Medicaid (for the poor) exist here in the US, but many of the better doctors don't like the low reimbursement rates of the programs.

 

[Enthetan]

All that testing nows costs on average $1.8 billion per drug. That's a shitload of dough. The company has to make that back, plus pay operating expenses.

Plus many drugs don't pass testing, or don't work out as being effective, and the costs of all that testing must be made up for by the drugs which DO pass testing. And there's a lot of testing which must be done by any pharmaceutical company that wants to minimize the risk of future ruinous lawsuits.

If we want to reduce the cost of drug research, perhaps some of the testing costs may need to be taken over by the government.

Alternately (and I realize this would never fly, politically) we can do a large portion of the clinical trials in poor countries, with the deal being: "You get affordable early access to a drug which may save your life, but if you experience bad side effects, tough shit".

 

[Udarnik]

I think the divide comes from people seeing how government-run health care is in the US (example, the Veterans Administration hospital system) and not wanting that low quality of care. Government-run health insurance systems like Medicare (for the elderly) and Medicaid (for the poor) exist here in the US, but many of the better doctors don't like the low reimbursement rates of the programs.

That's exactly the issue. The US Government tends to lowball everything. I'd love to have a European system, but I don't trust the US Government to execute well on that. Lowest bidder healthcare is not what I am looking for.

I'd like to see a Federal insurance for everyone (that would free small businesses from the healthcare burden and increase entrepreneurship) with the option to purchase additional insurance privately. But the reimbursement rates would have to be set so we don't hemorrhage docs from the system.

 

[AngeloV]

Dear Lurkers / Guests,

What is happening to the man is the 'End Phenomena' of a lifetime in scientology. "End Phenomena" is something that occurs (usually some sort of purported 'gain') at the end of a scientological procedure or study course.

Scientology will not give one dime to this parishioner who as extolled the greatness of Dr. Hubbard over the years. His wife is an OT VI which means they have given 10s of thousands of dollars to the cult. Why won't the cult give them a few thousand dollars to cover his immediate health care costs? Wouldn't that be the humanitarian thing to do? Because to do so would be an implicit declaration that the 'tek' doesn't work. Remember, people get sick because they are 'PTS'...not for any other reason. This man has done something so wrong somewhere in his past that he has 'pulled in' his cancer. From the Homo Novus point of view: Too bad about that.

He will be quickly forgotten by the cult...another victim of the cult and he despicable 'Dr.' Hubbard.

 

[WildKat]

Is anyone here up for a discussion about how health care should be funded? It's not that I want to stir up s*** on here (no really) but every time I see a thread like this - and I seem to see a lot of them lately - I'm reminded that I live in a country where health care for the populace is funded out of general taxation, and that most of us in the UK like it that way.

Most Americans here, on the other hand, seem happy with the status quo in their country too where health care is concerned (or at least they aren't saying anything to the contrary), and that's a divide which puzzles me. Maybe most of us think our country and the way it does things is the best.

Good points. But whichever system is in use, someone won't like it. In the U.S. there are numerous factions that don't want to see any changes. There will be a lot of pain involved in any transition. Lots of vested interests. I don't know if we'll see a change in the U.S. in my lifetime, anyway.

I could probably put out an argument pro or con for either system. There are positives as well as inequity and problems rampant in either one.

 

[degraded being]

Plus many drugs don't pass testing, or don't work out as being effective, and the costs of all that testing must be made up for by the drugs which DO pass testing. And there's a lot of testing which must be done by any pharmaceutical company that wants to minimize the risk of future ruinous lawsuits.

If we want to reduce the cost of drug research, perhaps some of the testing costs may need to be taken over by the government.

Alternately (and I realize this would never fly, politically) we can do a large portion of the clinical trials in poor countries, with the deal being: "You get affordable early access to a drug which may save your life, but if you experience bad side effects, tough shit".

That might possibly be happening. I have taken one or two meds that are available in some asian countries and in Mexico - or somewhere - but not available in USA Brit NZ OZ etc. There could be other reasons than simply using less litigation-conscious and more obedient patients ----the govt regulations may be more relaxed, but I can't help wondering if there is an element of using other populations as the guinea pigs. The meds I am talking about are not totally untested. Actually there was a drug I took for sleep once. It really knocked me out. Checked it on internet and found it is widely thought of as a date rape drug and therefore very very restricted now in USA. And, FWIW, in the country I am in now amphetamines are banned I think, even though there has never been abig problem with them here AFAIK. In Thailand there were a few easy to get meds without prescriptions but now they are tightening up because of abusers.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

That might possibly be happening. I have taken one or two meds that are available in some asian countries and in Mexico - or somewhere - but not available in USA Brit NZ OZ etc. There could be other reasons than simply using less litigation-conscious and more obedient patients ----the govt regulations may be more relaxed, but I can't help wondering if there is an element of using other populations as the guinea pigs. The meds I am talking about are not totally untested. Actually there was a drug I took for sleep once. It really knocked me out. Checked it on internet and found it is widely thought of as a date rape drug and therefore very very restricted now in USA. And, FWIW, in the country I am in now amphetamines are banned I think, even though there has never been abig problem with them here AFAIK. In Thailand there were a few easy to get meds without prescriptions but now they are tightening up because of abusers.

The UKs FDA type body, NICE, does recommend thlalidamide for this problem. Here's what they say about it....
http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta228

 

[NonScio]

Plus many drugs don't pass testing, or don't work out as being effective, and the costs of all that testing must be made up for by the drugs which DO pass testing. And there's a lot of testing which must be done by any pharmaceutical company that wants to minimize the risk of future ruinous lawsuits.

If we want to reduce the cost of drug research, perhaps some of the testing costs may need to be taken over by the government.

Alternately (and I realize this would never fly, politically) we can do a large portion of the clinical trials in poor countries, with the deal being: "You get affordable early access to a drug which may save your life, but if you experience bad side effects, tough shit".

I've read they spend a lot more on advertising than on research and development/testing. Watch TV for a couple hours and you'll catch
a few ads for the latest "wonder drug"....urging you to rush to the doctor and insist on a prescription....An Oh, by the way...."Be sure
to call your physician for an erection lasting over 4 hours!"

 

[Enthetan]

I've read they spend a lot more on advertising than on research and development/testing. Watch TV for a couple hours and you'll catch
a few ads for the latest "wonder drug"....urging you to rush to the doctor and insist on a prescription....An Oh, by the way...."Be sure
to call your physician for an erection lasting over 4 hours!"

I miss my teen and college years....

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

I think the divide comes from people seeing how government-run health care is in the US (example, the Veterans Administration hospital system) and not wanting that low quality of care. Government-run health insurance systems like Medicare (for the elderly) and Medicaid (for the poor) exist here in the US, but many of the better doctors don't like the low reimbursement rates of the programs.

Sheila's not here to comment right now, but I recall her saying on here that her dad (who was ex-military) was treated at a veterans' hospital somewhere and loved the place.

 

[SPsince83]

Sheila's not here to comment right now, but I recall her saying on here that her dad (who was ex-military) was treated at a veterans' hospital somewhere and loved the place.

The VA saved my life. Period. I got nothing bad to say about them and I use them regularly. Everyone should have care that good. I have gone without insurance. I'll take the VA all day long. I come from a medical family and knew doctors all my life. I knew American health care when it WAS the best in the world. I don't give a rat's ass about bullshit anti VA stories. I know WAY too many people satisfied with the service.