As long as profits are skyrocketing, pharma should pay for these studies, and all protocols and supplements should be open accessible for rechecking the results. Vice versa, if the studies are to be paid by taxpayers, the price of the drug should be set by them, too…
Has anyone studied what percentage of cancer patients simply decline chemotherapy? I am wondering if it is similar to the vaccines, where increasing numbers of people see no benefit to themselves. Thank you.
This is xactly what taxpayers should pay for. It should answer definitively the question of whether pembro is effective in prolonging survival. Will not game the system the way the pharmaceutical companies do. Everybody will get pembro on relapse.
What is your rationale for this being publicly funded research? From a financial perspective, there is no upside for taxpayers; NCI will not recoup any of that money. Merck, however, can gain a new patient population which equates to higher sales of their product. If Merck stands to profit from the research, shouldn't they fund the research? And NCI focus their support on new, innovative therapeutics that may not have other funding routes?
As long as profits are skyrocketing, pharma should pay for these studies, and all protocols and supplements should be open accessible for rechecking the results. Vice versa, if the studies are to be paid by taxpayers, the price of the drug should be set by them, too…
Has anyone studied what percentage of cancer patients simply decline chemotherapy? I am wondering if it is similar to the vaccines, where increasing numbers of people see no benefit to themselves. Thank you.
The drug should have been donated free of charge by the drug company, who stood to make huge financial gains if the results were positive
This is xactly what taxpayers should pay for. It should answer definitively the question of whether pembro is effective in prolonging survival. Will not game the system the way the pharmaceutical companies do. Everybody will get pembro on relapse.
What is your rationale for this being publicly funded research? From a financial perspective, there is no upside for taxpayers; NCI will not recoup any of that money. Merck, however, can gain a new patient population which equates to higher sales of their product. If Merck stands to profit from the research, shouldn't they fund the research? And NCI focus their support on new, innovative therapeutics that may not have other funding routes?