I remember this video being shown years ago Why I was so high on Avi at the time. No doubt the dog knows nothing about trying extra hard or other dogs not receiving the drug.
You're right. I think it is a unique situation and conditional approval is the best option. Also it is not just the patients that think the drug is useful.
Three abstained because there was a conflict in the question. Well conducted controlled trial versus what was heard during the meeting. Based on the former, you vote no, (FDA's contention all along
) But based on all the testimony and the risk associated in option 2, you have to approve the drug.
Absolutely Had the question asked, based on what you heard today should this drug be approved. There would have been a positive vote.
Absolutely. The way the questions were worded the FDA couldn't lose the argument
These people never step out of character There egos will not permit it. They want to show that they are scientists elitists in their own mind Always by the book
What you don't understand is the kids nd parents say it works. That is all you need to know
BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE Hear that anywhere before?
You noticed I said a Doctor decides. There were at least 36 who were in favor. There is no connection in any way between this drug and thalidomide
You should be in the bathroom with your customary magazine
Based on all the testimony the decision to use Sarepta should be a patient /doctor one. Denying access to this drug is a violation of human rights The FDA should be giving Sarepta credit for pioneering this drug not penalizing them. What gods reside at the FDA that can tell a mother what she can or can not do for her dying son, especially when some many experts in the field say the drug works. Time for congress to clean house at the FDA .....These peoples egos are obstructing justice.
I know they shouldn't be swayed by the public, but every kid taking that drug and their parents all said the same thing about its effectiveness.