Trump is also taking credit for the economy which Obama created.
Trump is also taking credit for so many programs that Obama created that it is not funny.
He is a clown and a loser without any ability to come up with any program of his own.
So he signed something. Big deal.
He is responsible for dismantling everything decent that Obama did. He is now trying to pardon...NOT PEOPLE who are suffering and deserve it, but rather people that belong in jail or charged with a crime that deserve the punishment.
What a guy. No one will have a better life because of this criminal's intent.
I don't trust anything this rat does. It is not his doing if there is anything good about it. I know zero about stem cell. I know ten times more than TRUMP does about it.
And speaking of STUCK. Are you KIDDING ME? This guy is an evil racist pig who doesn't care about anything and he proves it every day and I AM STUCK????
What you need to know about right-to-try legislation
By Jacqueline Howard, CNN
Updated 1:50 PM ET, Tue May 29, 2018 Story highlights
Supporters say the legislation could give patients faster access to investigational drugs Critics warn it could put seriously ill patients at even more risk
(CNN)The US House of Representatives passed a federal "right-to-try" bill Wednesday night, leaving many Americans wondering what the move could mean for their health and that of their loved ones. The bill, backed by President Donald Trump, would give terminally ill patients the right to seek drug treatments that remain in clinical trials and "have passed Phase 1 of the Food and Drug Administration's approval process" but have not been fully approved by the FDA. The bill passed the House 267 to 149, after failing to pass last week. Now the legislation needs approval from the Senate.
Explaining "Right to Try" legislation
Explaining "Right to Try" legislation 02:56 Right-to-try laws exist in 38 states -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington and Wyoming -- but this federal bill would introduce legislation across state lines. The central question, however, remains: Would a federal right-to-try bill help or hurt some of the country's most fragile patients? Here's what you need to know, according to experts on both sides of the legislation. Who would be impacted by the bill, and how? "This is really a law for people who are very sick, who have exhausted all treatment options and who cannot enroll in a clinical trial," said Starlee Coleman, senior policy adviser at the Goldwater Institute, a conservative public policy think tank based in Phoenix that supports right-to-try legislation. "For people living in a state where right-to-try is already on the books, they already have the ability today to work with their doctors directly to approach a drug company with a drug in clinical trials and ask for the option to try that drug outside of the clinical trial," she said. "For people living in the 12 states without a right-to-try law, today they don't have this option, but if the federal law passes, they will have the option." 'Right to Try' bill for terminally ill patients fails in the House 'Right to Try' bill for terminally ill patients fails in the House Some opponents argue that the bill won't change much but could have a detrimental effect on how the FDA safeguards the health of the public. Dr. Steven Joffe, professor in medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine, co-authored a perspective paper about such concerns, published in the New England Journal of Medicine last month. The paper notes that the FDA already has expanded-access policies, sometimes called compassionate use, to give terminally ill patients without other options access to investigational medical products outside of clinical trials. About 99% of submitted applications for expanded access to almost 9,000 investigational drugs were allowed to proceed over a 10-year period between January 2005 and December 2014, according to a study by FDA researchers, published in the journal Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science in 2016. "Emergency requests for individual patients are usually granted immediately over the phone and non-emergency requests are generally processed within a few days," FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb said in a statement last year. What are the arguments of both sides? Right-to-try advocates argue that by bypassing FDA permission, patients can save even more time. The right-to-try bill would be different from the FDA's current expanded-access policies, as the current policies require patients to apply for access, Coleman said. "This law eliminates the application requirements to the FDA," she said. Want to become a human guinea pig? Here's what you need to know Want to become a human guinea pig? Here's what you need to know Joffe said that often when drugs are very early in their development and few studies have been done on them, only the companies, the FDA and the doctors involved in the development of those drugs know what little data are available on how to administer them. "The rest of us doctors are kind of flying blind with respect to things like how much of the drug to give, how to give it, what kind of side effects to look for. ... So by cutting the FDA out of the loop, you are failing to take advantage of the knowledge that it has about how to use the drug," Joffe said. "About 10% of the time, the FDA, when it gets requests for expanded access, will say 'Yes, but here's the way you can do it more safely' or 'here's the side effects to look out for,' " he said, referencing an agency document about patient access to investigational drugs. Could right-to-try be harmful or helpful? Supporters of right-to-try argue that the legislation is needed because most terminal patients are too sick to be selected to participate in clinical trials and it takes too long for promising treatments to be approved. Joffe argued that the right-to-try approach to providing access to unapproved drugs early in their development could put patients in harm's way, as patients receiving the drug are often in very fragile health, doctors often lack the information needed to administer the drugs safely, and little may be known about their risks and benefits, he said. Joffe pointed to certain stem cell therapies as treatment approaches that appear promising but have turned dangerous when unregulated. FDA sets path for stem cell therapies FDA sets path for stem cell therapies "Another thing I'm worried about is that there's going to be a bunch of shady actors that are going to pop up that are going to start to try to take advantage of the right-to-try law to say 'we can provide these sort of experimental therapies, if you want to call them that, to patients without needing to go through the FDA,'" Joffe said. "We've already seen some of that in the stem cell clinics popping up around the country that try to provide stem cell treatments for a host of problems: eye problems, heart problems," he said. "While there are legitimate efforts to develop effective stem cell therapies, a lot of these clinics that are popping up around the country that are poorly regulated are taking people's money and they are hurting people." On the other hand, the treatments available under right-to-try laws are already in clinical trials, Coleman said, adding that "this law isn't replacing the existing FDA expanded access program; it's just opening up another avenue." Follow CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter
See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter. "No person is going to be forced to take an investigational drug. No doctor is going to be forced to request an investigational drug, and no drug company is forced to provide an investigational drug, if they don't think it's the right fit for a patient," she said. "It's only for people who say, 'I understand the risk. I know this drug is not fully approved. It may not help me, but my doctor and the drug company think it could, and I want to try,'" she said. "Basically, if the FDA says that a drug is safe enough to be used in trials on humans, then it's safe enough for a dying person to make their own choice about whether or not they would like to try it when they can't get into a clinical trial."
What question? What has Trump done on a minute by minute basis?
What have you done? Can you say? I really don't have time to print 400 plus days of his Presidency that you won't read or get anyway.
Let's see. Just today? He broke the law by announcing to the world what the stock prices would be before it was announced.
That is big.
He's a total idiot.
It is huge news. This is a big deal, but it will be buried by this afternoon after he fires Sessions or some other country pisses him off and he can fight with that leader.
So, Trump announced that he was responsible for stock numbers and they had not been announced yet. I think this is what he is pardoning Martha Stewart for. You know. Illegal stock crimes? If you are so worried about my feelings towards Trump's stem cell stand, consider he pardons Martha Stewart who already served her time, so she can VOTE for him. He pardons racist Joe Arpaio so he can run for AZ senator.
BUT? Then he lets people who are so unfairly treated as to spend years in jail for crimes they did not commit rot. He lets the state of Puerto Rico rot and throws paper towels at them. And could care less because his base doesn't care. His base lives in jail. I'm sure you know many people who are jail birds and pro-Trump. I know I do.
Well pretty soon, I hope he gets to meet his constituency face-to-face. Scum and people who band with scum should not lead this country. They are the terrorists. Not anyone who is Islamic. Not anyone who follows The Prophet. Only those who are as insane as HE IS in the name of something they know nothing about. Trump knows zero about God or Evangelicals but he prays with them every day because they give him adoration only allowed to GOD.
He is the blind leading the blinder. They pay him to agree.
It's a great thing for the wealthy people in the 12 states who already didn't have this on the books.
Tens of thousands of Americans (actual American citizens!) die every year because they cannot afford to go to the doctor for preventative care and routine screenings, or get treatment for potentially fatal conditions early enough to save them.
In Trump's America, your value is judged by your bank balance. Sadly, millions of poor people aren't even bright enough to realize they voted against their own interests.
When he first started talking about right to try he made it sound like no one was granted the right to try but the fact is lots of the people were granted the right to try new drugs so he isn't making any big changes. Cheers and happy weekend!
Yes they were granted the right to try, but only after many years of waiting . Now, the wait has ended, and the alternate treatments are available right away. No more waiting for approval.
Well that's good. What I am also wondering about is will these new drugs be free - or will the only people that have the right to try be the people with lots of money. Cheers and happy weekend!
Can you please explain to me how the same people who are dead set against "socialized medicine"/universal healthcare/single-payer Medicare for All think that the leader of their party is suddenly going to provide FREE, non-FDA approved treatments for terminally-ill patients??
Bingo, Nanoose! This law only applies those who can afford to pay out of their very deep pockets. In the good ole USA, your chances of surviving a serious illness is directly influenced by your bank balance. Even middle-class folks with decent health insurance aren't going to be helped by this measure. Which is the real reason Trump signed the bill; it only really applies to him and his rich friends.
“The law gives the right to pay, not the right to try,” says Arthur Caplan, head of medical ethics at New York University’s School of Medicine, who also studies compassionate access to medication. The law, he explains, doesn’t come with a budget, leaving patients paying out-of-pocket for unproven treatments. Insurance companies are unlikely to help out; they’re not even required to cover all the drugs that are approved by the FDA"
I think it would make more sense if it was free because they would get a better understanding if the new drug works on the general population. Cheers and happy weekend!
WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH 