Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2015 12:58:45 GMT -5
If Sam and Brian do interview, *their "off label" impact will be tremendous*. You cannot pay enough to have honest and true testimonials such as theirs, This is how they sell snake oil, not an important pharmaceutical. The Doctors will ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on May 9, 2015 14:01:43 GMT -5
My understanding is the the goal for Sam's and Brian's interview is not to convince the doctors, though their interview may help to some extent. The main goal will be to increase the general awareness of the diabetic community and the public of the existence of Afrezza and Afrezza's possibilities. At this stage, it's just to get the word out. Once the diabetic community has some basic knowledge of Afrezza, each patient can do his own research to see if this is the option to go for himself.
|
|
|
Post by jpg on May 9, 2015 14:45:22 GMT -5
If Sam and Brian do interview, *their "off label" impact will be tremendous*. You cannot pay enough to have honest and true testimonials such as theirs, This is how they sell snake oil, not an important pharmaceutical. The Doctors will ignore it. Complex topic but I personally disagree that off label equals snake oil. If this was true medicine would barely evolve. It's not that simple and the vast majority of what we do is refined by art and then (sometimes) proven or disproven by science. Discovery is as much art as science. Doctors are first and foremost humans moved by human stories. Nothing is more powerful in medicine than personal experience with one patient. We are trained to practice using guidelines, standard of care and 'best practice' but are highly influenced by one on one experiences. Again the science and art thing. News stories might not count as one on one care but it at least conditions you to being open as to possibilities of a new drug.
|
|
|
Post by EveningOfTheDay on May 9, 2015 17:12:07 GMT -5
At this point in time, it would seem to me, the most important point of emphasis Sam and Brian can provide is the fact that Afrezza does not work in the same fashion as traditional RAA. I could be misreading the current situation, but it would seem to me that there is still a great deal of fear and misconception on the fact that the 4u and 8u dosage it too limiting for most diabetics to even consider trying Afrezza. This is right now a big hurdle that need to be overcome before you see troves of diabetic patients moving to use Afrezza, and one that current happy users can provide the best advice on.
Regarding changing doctors minds, I tend to think that some doctors curiosities will get tickled enough by users success stories and some other won't even consider them unless they have hard science to back them up.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on May 9, 2015 18:25:18 GMT -5
This is how they sell snake oil, not an important pharmaceutical. The Doctors will ignore it. Complex topic but I personally disagree that off label equals snake oil. If this was true medicine would barely evolve. It's not that simple and the vast majority of what we do is refined by art and then (sometimes) proven or disproven by science. Discovery is as much art as science. Doctors are first and foremost humans moved by human stories. Nothing is more powerful in medicine than personal experience with one patient. We are trained to practice using guidelines, standard of care and 'best practice' but are highly influenced by one on one experiences. Again the science and art thing. News stories might not count as one on one care but it at least conditions you to being open as to possibilities of a new drug. Off label has nothing to do with snake oil. Based on my reading, off label is totally legitimate and commonplace. For example, a drug is approved for the adults, but not the youth. If the youth market for the drug is relatively small, the drug may just forgo conduct additional studies to get the FDA approval for the youth market. If there is no completing or substitute drug in the market, then off-label use of such drug in the youth market will be expected.
|
|
|
Post by jpg on May 9, 2015 19:18:25 GMT -5
Complex topic but I personally disagree that off label equals snake oil. If this was true medicine would barely evolve. It's not that simple and the vast majority of what we do is refined by art and then (sometimes) proven or disproven by science. Discovery is as much art as science. Doctors are first and foremost humans moved by human stories. Nothing is more powerful in medicine than personal experience with one patient. We are trained to practice using guidelines, standard of care and 'best practice' but are highly influenced by one on one experiences. Again the science and art thing. News stories might not count as one on one care but it at least conditions you to being open as to possibilities of a new drug. Off label has nothing to do with snake oil. Based on my reading, off label is totally legitimate and commonplace. For example, a drug is approved for the adults, but not the youth. If the youth market for the drug is relatively small, the drug may just forgo conduct additional studies to get the FDA approval for the youth market. If there is no completing or substitute drug in the market, then off-label use of such drug in the youth market will be expected. Completely agree that off label has nothing to do with snake oil. Easily half of the medication I use is off label. A very large part of medications for kids is off label. Off label is standard because labels are often very restrictive and have intrinsic flaws in the way studies are set up. I would even state that a large part of patients taking medication 'on label' were not necessarily originally included in the studies because the studies are designed to exclude complex patients. The reality of it is that patients are more heterogeneous than those studied.
|
|