[slr555]

Beating up pharma seems to be easy sport but consider this.

Have you ever had serious case of bronchitis, or a high fever, or needed any kind of surgery?

Guess what? No anesthesia (yes it's a drug not just a machine), no antibiotics, very likely no you.

Now take a look at the recent articles on the UK's much hyped NHS and how they are laggards in cancer survival because they do not take advantage of pharma innovations.

Know anyone anyone with hypertension or diabetes? Ask them whether they were well controlled and side effect free on the first drug they were prescribed . That's the big reason there are a lot of "me too" drugs that sell. (and while you're asking see if they fully compiled with their doctor's diet and exercise advice)

One size does not fit all.

[DanBC]

> Now take a look at the recent articles on the UK's much hyped NHS and how they are laggards in cancer survival because they do not take advantage of pharma innovations.

That's definitely not the reason why the NHS has poor cancer outcomes.

Those very expensive new cancer meds add a month or so of low quality life (and are used within the NHS).

The problem is at the diagnosis end.

[slr555]

Sure about that?

Look at the five year survival rates for innovative treatments. Granted not all of them and not every time, but to generalize to "months" is a gross mis-characterization not borne out by a thorough review of the literature.

[DanBC]

Show me one of those treatments not offered on the NHS.

(Edit: yes, I am sure about this).

EDIT2: for one example where the UK NHS gets things wrong in diagnosis: patient finds a lump, visits GP. That GP then gives a rapid referal to a specialist, who then gives rapid screening requests.

What should happen is the GP asks for the rapid screening, and simultaneously makes the rapid referal to specialists. This would reduce time to diagnosis, and time to start treatment, and both of those are important in outcomes.

[slr555]

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33772892

Note: They suggest some of the reasons behind this could include cancers being diagnosed later, poorer access to treatment and less investment in health systems.

PS Rapid referral to a specialist is an oxymoron in the NHS.

[DanBC]

You started by saying the NHS has poor outcomes for cancer (I agree) and that the reason was because the NHS does not use modern meds.

I counter - pointing out that the problems are at the diagnosis end.

You respond with a comment about the five year survival rate of innovative med.

I tell you that those meds are used within the NHS, and ask for an example med that is not used within the NHS. I give an example of how there are inefficiencies in the diagnosis end.

You post a link that doesn't mention meds; does mention delays in diagnosis and treatment. You still haven't posted an example of a cancer medication that provides good outcomes that is not used in the NHS.

Your little dig about referal times is weird. What do you think the referal times are? There is a legally enforced maximum 2 week time from GP referral to see a cancer specialist.

http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/Waitingtim...

> Patients with urgent conditions such as cancer and heart disease will be able to see a specialist more quickly. For example, you have the right to be seen by a specialist within a maximum of two weeks from GP referral for urgent referrals where cancer is suspected.

You appear to have a political ax to grind. That would be okay if you weren't spreading lies and misinformation.

EDIT: you made an antiNUS documentary? You don't think that's the kind of thing you should mention? I'd be interested in fact checking it because, looking at this thread, you probably made a right fucking mess of it.

[slr555]

PS I don't know what documentary you are talking about? I have never created a documentary on the NHS. Certainly not any documentary that was "Anti-NHS" That is a patently falsehood.

I did work a documentary on Rheumatoid Arthritis patients across Europe, not just the UK and not focused on health systems. The patients experiences with their respective health service were out of scope and not on screen. I did however speak with them at length on the subject. Before you go casting about accusations please have some rudimentary idea of what you are talking about.

The NHS patients we met with each mentioned that in order to see a specialist on a timely basis they had to get private insurance after which their months longs waits dissolved to days. A close friend who was a staunch defender of the NHS after being diagnosed with MS has soured on the program and has also secured private insurance for specialist access. In another instance a young woman with a bowel perforation secondary to Crohn Disease has been waiting for at least two months to have surgery scheduled. Yes, yes I know anecdotal experience and all that but I guess it's just a poisson distribution that everyone I've ever known met or heard of that has needed specialty care from the NHS has gone the route of private insurance for access to specialists.

Take a close look at the quote from the article I posted with the prefix "Note:" and then sound it out. Use your vowels and note that it VERY CLEARLY states that one of the problems is "poorer access to treatment".

If you want to go on a formulary hunt to see which drugs are not paid for by the NHS that are recommended under NCCN guidelines or spend your night frothing over pubmed searches be my guest.

PS I have no axe to grind. I'm not the one bringing profanity and personal accusations into this. You don't know me. You clearly have no clue about my politics but are clearly incensed that someone deigns to take issue with the NHS. The bottom line is that patients are dying sooner in the UK than elsewhere. If that is okay with you then great, I'm just saying as a personal opinion informed by my reading and personal experiences that it is not a system I would choose to live under or advocate the adoption of in my country.

If you are happy with the health care system in your country that's great.