Members of the ‘Squad’ made a secret trip to Cuba
https://www.aol.com/news/were-members-u-congressional-progressive-200304728.html
Excerpt:
A delegation of the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus traveled to Cuba last week in a trip that has not previously been disclosed by the legislators nor reported in Cuban state media.
The group of about a dozen people was led by Democratic U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal of the state of Washington and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. It included a congressional staffer from the office of California Rep. Barbara Lee’s office, sources with knowledge of the trip told the Miami Herald.
Jayapal and Omar, members of the informal left-wing group of lawmakers known as “the squad,” did not reply to emails and messages seeking comment. Lee’s office also did not reply to a request for comment.
After the Herald published this story, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, comprising more than 100 lawmakers and chaired by Jayapal, confirmed the trip.
“Representatives Jayapal and Omar traveled to Cuba last week, where they met with people from across Cuban civil society and government officials to discuss human rights and the U.S.-Cuba bilateral relationship,” said a Caucus spokesperson.
Jayapal and Omar have been vocal critics of the U.S. embargo against Cuba and have supported bills to normalize relations with the island’s communist government. They were among the 40 Democrats who voted against a symbolic resolution supporting peaceful demonstrators who protested against the Cuban government in July 2021 and “calling for the immediate release of arbitrarily detained Cuban citizens.”
************************
While the purpose of the trip and the secrecy surrounding it remains a mystery, we do know the Squad and the communist Castro dictatorship share socialist ideology and the same affinity for Hamas terrorists. Therefore, their claims that they discussed human rights while in Cuba are an obvious cover and laughable.
Significant proportion of cancer drugs lack proof of added benefit, finds study
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-02-significant-proportion-cancer-drugs-lack.html
Excerpt:
Many cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 1995 and 2020 lack proof of added benefit, particularly those approved through expedited (”fast track”) pathways, finds a study published by The BMJ.
Despite pharmaceutical industry claims that high drug prices are needed to offset research and development (R&D) costs, the results show that more than half of these drugs, including those with minimal or no added benefit, recover R&D expenses within three years. As such, the researchers call for better alignment between regulatory and reimbursement processes, particularly for drugs approved through expedited pathways, to promote development of the most effective drugs for patients with the greatest needs.
Global spending for oncology drugs is projected to rise from $167 billion in 2020 to $269 billion in 2025. What’s more, an increasing number of oncology drugs are approved on less robust evidence, raising concerns about misalignment of incentives in the pharmaceutical market with patient interests.
To explore this further, researchers based in the Netherlands used ratings from four health technology assessment agencies, two medical oncology societies, and a drug bulletin to assess the added benefit of oncology drugs approved by the EMA between 1995 and 2020. They also compared global drug revenues from publicly available financial reports from pharmaceutical companies with previously published estimates of R&D expenses.
Differences in added benefit and/or revenues were analyzed across various EMA approval pathways—standard marketing authorization (SMA), conditional marketing authorization (CMA), and authorization under exceptional circumstances (AEC).
Of the 458 added benefit ratings identified, 59 (13%) were classified as major added benefit, 107 (23%) as substantial added benefit, 103 (23%) as minor added benefit, and 189 (41%) as negative or non-quantifiable added benefit.
Compared with drugs approved under the standard pathway (SMAs), both CMAs alone and in combination with AECs were more likely to receive a negative or non-quantifiable added benefit rating.
Drug revenues generally increased in line with added benefit, and although CMAs generated lower revenues and took longer to offset R&D expenses than SMAs, more than half of these drugs, even those lacking proof of added benefits, managed to recover the median R&D costs of $684 million within three years.
Almost all (91%) of the included drugs had recovered R&D costs within eight years......