This article discusses the issues surrounding allowing patients with horrific prognoses to take unproven, or weakly proven, drugs. It makes me think we need to move from a black-and-white system where a drug is either approved or not to something more complex. For example, one tier for solidly proven treatments, and another for treatments with limited evidence, but no better substitutes. I support the right of people with horrific prognoses, such as Alzheimer's disease, ALS, or ME, to try experimental treatments as long as they're informed of the risks. And yes, ME has a horrific prognosis. Some would consider being imprisoned in your home for half a centry, sometimes in pain or unable to leave your bed, while the whole world refuses to even recognize you're sick, to be just as bad dying of cancer.
You bring up a good point I missed. If we give early access more liberally, drug companies may never bother proving their treatments actually work, which will hold back medicine in the long run.
I'm personally uncomfortable with Aduhelm and Relyvrio receiving approval in the way they did. Full FDA approval is seen as an endorsement, and these drugs don't deserve that. I followed Aduhelm more closely, and the evidence for that one is weak as wet cardboard. These decisions have costs. Here in the US, the government takes some money out of your disability or retirement check to pay for your healthcare, and it's higher this year because they expected to have to pay for Aduhelm.
No, these drugs aren't ME-related. One is for Alzheimer's and another is for ALS.Your check personally? I'm sorry I don't know what these drugs are, are they ME-related and so they just took it out assuming you might ask for it?