Skip to comments.Charity offers to pay for 7-year-old's lifesaving treatment; drug maker still refuses
Posted on 03/11/2014 5:22:52 PM PDT by workerbee
A pediatric cancer charity is offering to pay for 7-year-old cancer survivor Josh Hardy to receive lifesaving medication that could cure him of a potentially deadly virus.
But Chimerix, the pharmaceutical company that produces the medication, is still refusing to give Josh the treatment he so desperately needs. In fact, a representative for the charity said he tried speaking with Chimerix CEO Kenneth Moch about Josh's case - but Moch hung up on him.
Joshs mother, Aimee Hardy, has appealed to Moch to grant Josh emergency access to the medication, but the company is refusing to make an exception. According to Fox News Peter Johnson Jr., Chimerix has given hundreds of patients emergency access to Brincidofovir in the past, but Moch said the company has since stopped this practice because they cannot afford it.
I spoke to Mr. Moch yesterday by phone. I told him that we had the $50,000 that I thought he was claiming he needed to supply the drug, Richard Plotkin, vice chair of the Max Cure Foundation, told Johnson Jr. on Fox and Friends. He then told me it isnt about money. He told me its all about ethics. I said, Fine, tell me why you will not give [it to] this little boy. If he does not get the drug, he will die this week, Im told. He said he cannot make an exception.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Lay this on the foot dragging by the FDA.
If he was black, we'd have his back."
Not, the pharma should not do it. If done, where do you draw the line? The “victims” will create a line miles long.
And this big pharma company doesn’t even have to consider or worry that it might be boycotted. When a person is handed a prescription and takes it to be filled, they have no idea what company makes the drug they’re getting. Pretty good racket. They can afford to be heartless!
If the boy dies anyway the pharma company will probably be sued for millions. Its bad enough that drugs that are approved by the FDA still open up the companies to massive class action suits.
No wonder some drugs cost more than a car payment - there is no telling when a company might be sued.
I’m sorry the child is ill, but this isn’t the fault of the company that makes the drug - it is the fault of our legal system, the FDA, class action troll lawyers, and never ending liability.
I agree with the CEO - he probably should not have agreed to the interview in the first place. His responsibility is to improve his company and exposing them to lawsuits, or violations of FDA regulations is the right thing to do.
WHoops! Exposing them to liability is NOT the right thing to do.
The drug company will be paid, why won’t the drug be supplied?
I think we can all agree these are difficult dilemmas. ObeyMeCare (and whatever socialized scheme takes its place) will only bring us more of them.
A charity is willing to pay for the drug, so what the hell is his problem?!
Ok, so now the drug is made available to not only those that can pay, but in an extended hypo, the highest bidder.
If something goes wrong, the lawyers will line up to sue (they will be circling anyway, in this scenario). With all the frivolous litigation in this country, it is a no brainer to not even provide one miniscule avenue of being sued, especially a big “mean, power hungry, rich, big company”. The jury would hang em. It’s a bad situation, but I agree with the CEO.
Actually this is a small start up company. They are trying to get through clinical trials to get their drug on the market. If they give the drug to this kid and he dies anyway (which is unfortunately likely) the drug company will have to stop its clinical trials and prove to the FDA the drug did not kill him. This could take many months and be very expensive. Possibly preventing the company from ever getting its product on the market.
The problem is not the bad drug company but the FDA regs...
And if it were your child?
(playing devil’s advocate)...
Don’t you think those lawyers are lining up to sue this company anyway? Some sort of “they should’ve known”? How can ANY company protect against “one miniscule avenue of being sued”?
But apparently Moch already claimed it was a money issue. If it’s not the money but the regs, doesn’t he have a moral obligation to say that publicly?
They did it for HIV drugs,AZT et al.Oops! So sorry,that was for the Democrats sacred cows.
IMO, Moch isn’t sure the drug works and doesn’t want to take any chances of public exposure.
Just posted on Fox:
UPDATE: After intense public scrutiny, pharmaceutical company Chimerix will provide potentially life-saving medication for 7-year-old Josh Hardy, who has been suffering from a bone marrow disorder as a result of cancer treatments.
It's hard to think of in human terms, how someone could be so evil; but she has Stalin's excuse: "You cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs." In this case, to her, Obamacare is the omelet, and children must die for it to be made.
And she does not care how many millions of children die, or how horribly, for the eventual goal of Obamacare.
Almost needless to say, Stalin proved that you could break millions of eggs and still not make an omelet. But he didn't care, either.