We’re On the Cusp of a Historic Epoch of Discovery

 Scientists are undeterrable optimists, always on the cusp of game-changing discoveries that often prove elusive. But that hope is turning into a cavalcade of breakthroughs as revolutionary advances in both technology and ways to make those resources available to researchers to finally crack the code on a wide range of deadly and debilitating illnesses. News reports that long focused on promising new research are giving way to stories about effective new treatments for obesity, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and Alzheimer’s disease. Then, of course, there was the use of mRNA technology to produce a COVID-19 vaccine, saving untold millions of lives around the world.

We are just at the start of a historic new epoch of discovery. Today, HIV, Hepatitis C, and various forms of cancer are no longer death sentences. I am confident that in the near future we will finally tame scourges – such as malaria, tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis, optic neuritis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease), and many illnesses that contribute to heart disease – that have long plagued humanity.

Our present moment feels different because while the velocity of consequential achievements can seem as sudden as they are stunning, they are rooted in decades of foundational research that are starting to pay off in wondrous ways.

The last few decades have witnessed the explosion in the knowledge of “omics” ‒ genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, metagenomics, phenomics, and transcriptomics ‒ that have enabled us, for the first time, to view biology from a sweepingly comprehensive standpoint. Two new technological approaches are especially critical to this effort:  1) Advanced imaging techniques including cryo-electron microscopy and light sheet microscopy, which are helping us understand how proteins and other structures interact in cells and 2) High-powered artificial intelligence and machine learning that are enabling scientists to create and analyze vast amounts of data and to develop new molecular entities to disrupt targeted diseases.

These tools are opening the window to interactions of proteins and other molecules in living cells and tissues. Although cryo-electron microscopy was first developed during the 1970s, its rapid improvement in recent years now allows scientists to understand the 3D structure of biomacromolecules in their native state in cells (without the need for crystallization). Light sheet microscopy, a complementary technology, illuminates molecules within cells and tissues without requiring perturbation with dyes or fixation. In one sense these two technologies allow discovery scientists who only had photographs to now watch motion pictures.

Advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) are vastly increasing the pace of discovery research and the development of new treatments. Consider that just three decades ago, it took months or even years for advanced medicinal chemists to identify a small number of compounds they could modify and test. The emergence of in silico computer modeling a decade later allowed scientists to model hundreds of potential compounds in order to identify the most promising ones for testing. Just within the last year, AI/ML algorithms have been developed that can generate many millions of new structures in days or weeks. Using modeled interactions within cells, AI/ML algorithms can modify chemical structures to gain optimal properties such as high-life, toxicity, and on-target effect. None of this would be possible without the enormous advances in cloud-based computing and data storage.

Bringing together this computational power, new imaging technologies and top researchers will allow us to dramatically accelerate the identification of a new generation of potent and safe therapeutic targets. This approach will also empower us to facilitate the rapid discovery of approaches (chemical structures, humanized antibodies, RNA-derived therapies) that should enable us to target immunological contributions to neurologic diseases and do so while minimizing the risk of adverse risks to patients.

The possibilities are endless. Going forward, biomedical researchers will use these technologies to:

• Develop therapeutic advances that transform lethal diseases to treatable conditions. While this work will include the discovery of new drugs, it is also allowing researchers to find ways to direct the body’s immune system to combat disease and to overcome the evolutionary imperative of viruses to evade immunocompetent vaccines.
• Refine new gene editing techniques using CRISPR/Cas to correct genetic diseases in embryos and, at the bone marrow level, to correct genetic diseases in adults.
• Explore the nature/nurture feedback loop to understand how environmental factors spur or diminish the expression of genes that can lead to illness, under the rubric of epigenetics.
• Define the mechanisms/association of mental degeneration and aging that lead to Alzheimer’s, dementia.
• Identify root causes that underlie many health equities/inequities.
• Truly exciting innovation is also occurring in engineering, computer sciences, and many other disciplines.
• Expand the usefulness and reduce the cost of wearable and at-home technology to improve patient care and reduce the demand on hospital resources.

The impact of scientific breakthroughs is limited, however, if they can’t move swiftly from the lab to health care providers. Fortunately, another significant development is taking place that addresses this challenge: innovation hubs – pioneered by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and now being embraced by engineers, the medical community, and other researchers across the country.

Instead of siloing investigators to their labs, innovation hubs make them part of a collaborative community where they have access to a vast network of resources – including access to a wide-range of expensive technologies and data sets – in close-knit communities that provide avenues for sharing and testing ideas with their colleagues, galvanizing creativity.

Innovation hubs are also designed to be entrepreneurial. They not only provide the facilities to make remarkable discoveries, but the guidance researchers need to usher their breakthroughs from the lab to the market. A number of universities and academic medical centers are working to create the same synergies. Each of us, including the University of Michigan which is now seriously considering an innovation hub, have unique ideas and challenges.

We enter a truly exciting era in medical research. We are not just on the cusp of a new era in human health, but we see how to get there.

Marschall S. Runge, former Executive Dean of the UNC School of Medicine, is Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs and Dean of the Medical School for the University of Michigan. His new techno-medical thriller is titled “Coded to Kill.”

https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2023/07/10/were_on_the_cusp_of_a_historic_epoch_of_discovery_111528.html

Becerra’s Blunder: Did the Administration Allow Fauci and Other Officials to Operate Illegally?

 Dr. Anthony Fauci has faced intense scrutiny in the past over his testimony denying any funding of "gain-of-function" research at the Wuhan lab in China. However, the most serious question now may be whether Fauci was who he said he was in those hearings: the then-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

On Friday, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce issued a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra that raises the disturbing question of whether Fauci and 13 other National Institutes of Health (NIH) institute and center directors were unlawfully holding their offices for some period. Not only did these directors make sweeping policy changes for the nation but, in 2022 alone, they awarded more than $25 billion in federal biomedical grants.

The problem is the 21st Century Cures Act, passed in 2016. Section 2033 of that act is titled "Increasing Accountability at the National Institutes of Health,” and it seeks to achieve greater accountability by requiring the HHS secretary to personally appoint those directors. For reasons the Biden administration has yet to explain, it appears to have ignored the law, according to the House committee. Under the five-year terms granted in 2016, these directors had to be reappointed by Becerra by December 2021. It is not clear if this task was delegated to the NIH director, but the law appears to be clear: There is no delegation; it must be Becerra who renewed such appointments.

CNN's senior medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen, once gushed that when "Dr. Fauci talks, he's just like a regular guy." It turns out she might have been more accurate than she thought -- because Fauci legally may have been just a "regular guy" giving out billions without authority.

What is equally baffling is that the House informed the administration that it was presumptively in violation of federal law. What followed were convoluted and confusing statements from the administration on a very simple question: Did Becerra appoint these directors?

It got even stranger on June 19 when HHS sent Congress documents titled “Ratification of Prior Selection and Prospective Appointment: Appointment Affidavit.” While signed by Becerra, the documents were dated on June 8 and June 15. They were specifically "prospective appointments" but seemed to suggest some form of retroactive ratification. That, too, is not allowed under federal law. In the case of Fauci and another director, according to the House committee, there is not even a retroactive affidavit to that effect.

Given the seemingly evasive response from HHS, it does appear that more than a dozen officials, including Fauci, may have been operating under a type of assumed official identity. If that turns out to be the case, Fauci may have had no legal authority after Dec. 12, 2021, to do even the most mundane tasks as a director.

It would be easy to dismiss this violation as a matter of no harm, no foul. After all, this appears simple (albeit shocking) negligence by the Biden administration as opposed to some nefarious effort. Yet, if true, billions of dollars in grants and thousands of personnel and policy changes could be questioned.

Last September, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected claims that appointment violations were mere technical concerns. It stressed in Cody v. Kijikazi that such a "violation is thus no mere technicality or quaint formality — it weakens our constitutional design. An appointment too far removed from the President or the head of an executive agency may, for example, erode political accountability.”

In addition, there is the question of the legal status of myriad decisions made by these directors, including exercising their authority over the approval of grants. If the administration failed to satisfy federal law, directors like Fauci would have had no more authority than his chief antagonist, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), to issue NIAID grants. Billions were awarded, policies changed, and personnel managed by individuals who potentially had lost their legal authority to direct these offices.

In one case involving challenged administrative law judges in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Lucia v. Securities & Exchange Commission that past litigants were entitled to decisions from properly appointed judges.

Biden officials may have dismissed such obligations, but Congress clearly supported this requirement as an effort to gain greater accountability for these appointments. Executive officials do not have the authority to dismiss federal law any more than they have the authority to act without meeting the conditions to hold their positions under federal law.

This could not come at a worse time for the administration. This month, the Supreme Court ruled that President Biden had unconstitutionally ordered up to a half-trillion dollars in college loan forgiveness; previously, it found that the administration violated the Constitution with its national eviction moratorium and some vaccine mandates. Now some of the same officials involved in those mandates potentially acted without legal authority after 2021, if their appointments were not properly carried out.

It is not clear where we go from here, if the allegation proves to be true. It could mean that Fauci and others were a type of "undead" directors who were statutorily expired but still walking the halls of HHS. If so, the Biden Administration could be looking at a legal zombie apocalypse, as those directors' decisions are challenged in courts as having been invalid.

While claiming that it has complied with the law, the Biden administration reportedly hopes that retroactive appointments can blunt any possible challenges to past decisions. 

The size of the error on appointments would appear to be unprecedented. What is clear is that such a violation would constitute a shocking level of administrative incompetence. It also is clear that the House committee can now demand — and, if necessary, compel — answers from Becerra on whether federal law was knowingly flaunted and whether Congress was actively misled.

Fauci, now retired from the federal government, is a professor at Georgetown University and collecting $350,000 per year in government pensions. He left public service with the highest salary in the federal government, at $480,654. Ironically, near the end of his career, those may have been financial gains from a function that he did not legally possess.

Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.

https://themessenger.com/opinion/fauci-and-others-may-have-lacked-legal-authority-because-biden-failed-to-reappoint-them

Russian Pranksters Posing As Zelensky Dupe Kissinger

 The notorious Russian prankster duo Vovan and Lexus have duped veteran US statesman Henry Kissinger in their latest stunt. In a phone call, the now 100-year old former Secretary of State believed he was speaking directly to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. 

The fake "Zelensky" at one point in the call began saying revealing things about the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, which initially was widely blamed on Russia, but increasingly evidence points to either Kiev or Western intelligence being behind the Sept. 26, 2022 explosion. And then Kissinger revealed his views on who was behind the Nord Stream blasts...

Vovan and Lexus later revealed the key clip on their show. They press Kissinger on whether he believes Moscow really did blow up their own pipelines. After he hesitates, they then press him on who really did it. 

That's when Kissinger finally said, "I, frankly, have thought it was you," based on the dubbed over translation of the exchange. 

The fake Zelensky then insisted it wasn't Ukraine behind the sabotage. Kissinger then sought to assure that he "didn't blame" Kiev even if it was the case that the Ukrainians did it.

One obvious conclusion is that Washington insiders have understood all along that it wasn't the Russians that took out their own vital Russia-to-Germany pipelines which are to supply Europe.

And legendary journalist Seymour Hersh has stood by his bombshell investigative report saying based on high-level sources that the CIA conducted the sabotage in a major covert operation: How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline. But it seems Kissinger has understood and held to the 'alternative' views himself: i.e.: Ukraine or the West did it.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/watch-russian-pranksters-posing-zelensky-dupe-kissinger

Blinken: Ukraine Will Be "Defenseless" Without US Cluster Bombs

 Secretary of State Antony Blinken while at the NATO summit in Lithuania is promoting a message that Washington essentially had no choice but to arm Ukraine with cluster munitions because the country would have been "defenseless" with them. 

He gave an interview to MSNBC’s "Andrea Mitchell Reports" and asserted that Ukraine's own stockpile of cluster bombs and artillery is running out, even merely exhausted.

"The stockpiles around the world and in Ukraine of the unitary munitions, not the cluster munitions, were running out, about to be depleted," Blinken began.

"And so, the hard but necessary choice to give them the cluster munitions amounted to this: If we didn’t do it, we don’t do it, then they will run out of ammunition," he explained to Mitchell. "If they run out of ammunition, then they will be defenseless."

He also when pressed by the MSNBC host continued to advance the White House talking point that Russia is already doing worse, so cluster bombs are permissible despite the well-known human rights and war crimes issues.

Mitchell asked whether the US is ceding the moral high ground in delivering bombs which are banned by over 120 nations. "Every ally I’ve talked to has said they understand why we’re doing this when we’re doing it," Blinken claimed.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has relied on the same logic. "We are facing a brutal war, and we have to remember this brutality is reflected, that every day we see casualties, and that cluster munitions are used by both sides," Stoltenberg said days ago. "And Russia used cluster munitions to invade another country. Ukraine is using cluster munitions to defend itself."

Meanwhile, a number of European allies have broken from the US on the issue, condemning the move - most notably Germany. Ukraine has long accused Berlin of being weak and hesitate in the face of the Russian invasion.

But Blinken's method of arguing makes clear, Washington has framed each new escalation decision as matter of life & death, despite billions in arms already shipped. Every moment is somehow "facing down Hitler"... we are told.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/blinken-ukraine-will-be-defenseless-without-us-cluster-munitions

Achieve Cytisinicline Shows Efficacy for Smoking Cessation

 Cytisinicline safely and effectively helped people quit smoking when used at a higher concentration than is traditional in Europe, the placebo-controlled ORCA-2 trial

opens in a new tab or window found.

Administered as a 3-mg tablet taken orally three times daily for 6 weeks, cytisinicline resulted in higher continuous abstinence rates for smoking during weeks 3 to 6 (25.3% vs 4.4% for placebo, OR 8.0, 95% CI 3.9-16.3, P<0.001), and weeks 3 to 24 (8.9% vs 2.6%, OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.5-10.2, P=0.002) reported Nancy Rigotti, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and co-authors.

Similar results were seen among patients taking cytisinicline for 12 weeks, with continuous abstinence rates of 32.6% vs 7.0% in the placebo group for weeks 9 to 12 (OR 6.3, 95% CI 3.7-11.6, P<0.001) and 21.1% vs 4.8% in weeks 9 to 24 (OR 5.3, 95% CI 2.8-11.1, P<0.001), according to the double-blind clinical trial published in JAMA

opens in a new tab or window.

All three groups in ORCA-2 reported high percentages of behavioral support compliance, with 92.8% of sessions finished in the 12-week group, 89.5% in the 6-week group, and 86.8% in the placebo cohort.

Nausea, abnormal dreams, and insomnia occurred in less than 10% of each group. Ultimately withdrawing from the trial due to adverse events were 2.9% of cytisinicline recipients and 1.5% of patients in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were seen in 3.3% vs 1.1%, respectively, but were deemed to not be related to the treatment.

"Cytisinicline reduced nicotine craving and was well tolerated by participants, who adhered to the treatment schedule at a high rate, even though the trial was conducted during the early phases of the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic," Rigotti and colleagues reported.

Their results would help build the case for FDA approval for cytisinicline, which already has a long history of use as an over-the-counter smoking cessation product in Central and Eastern Europe.

Already announced, topline results of the second large cytisinicline study, ORCA-3 trialopens in a new tab or window, reportedly support better smoking cessation during the last 4 weeks of cytisinicline treatment. A similar e-cigarette cessation benefit was also recently reported out of ORCA-V1opens in a new tab or window.

Rigotti's group noted that in the U.S., existing therapies for smoking cessation -- namely nicotine replacement, bupropion, and varenicline -- have modest long-term abstinence success and are associated with adverse events. "No smoking cessation pharmacotherapy has received FDA approval since 2006. New options are needed," study authors stressed.

The CDC estimatesopens in a new tab or window that smokers in the U.S. have three times the mortality rate compared with never-smokers. Excess mortality is attributed to cancer and respiratory and vascular disease.

"It is unfortunate that there has never been an 'Operation Warp Speed' to prevent the more than 480,000 deaths each year caused by smoking. It is, however, a very positive development that another new and effective drug may be added to the limited list that clinicians and individuals who smoke can choose from to help end their deadly addiction to cigarettes," wrote Jonathan Foulds, PhD, of Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, and co-authors in an accompanying editorialopens in a new tab or window.

The editorialists highlighted that the adverse events seen with cytisinicline treatment were not dissimilar from those for varenicline, but were seemingly both less severe and less frequent.

"The fact that cytisinicline has been used for smoking cessation in some Eastern European countries for more than 50 years (including over the counter) without a serious problem with adverse events emerging is also reassuring regarding the safety profile of the drug," Foulds' group commented.

A total of 810 patients (54.6% women, average age 52.5 years) were included in the ORCA-2 trial. Across all three treatment groups, 80% or more of the patients were white. Patients smoked an average of 19.4 cigarettes per day.

Following randomization, 270 patients were given 3 mg of cytisinicline to take three times each day for 12 weeks, 269 patients were given the same dosage for 6 weeks, and 271 were given placebo for 12 weeks. Behavioral support, consisting of visits with a trained smoking cessation counselor for up to 15 visits following randomization for the first 12 weeks, followed by shorter visits at 16, 20, and 24 weeks, was provided to all patients.

Of the total cohort, 76.3% of patients ended up completing the trial.

Limitations to ORCA-2 include the predominantly white patient population. Researchers also noted that adverse events were not assessed beyond 24 weeks, and both the trial's size and duration hindered opportunities to detect uncommon adverse events. Moreover, the results may have limited generalizability as patients diagnosed with mental illness conditions, as well as those with a recent history of unstable cardiovascular disease, were excluded from the study.

Disclosures

Rigotti reported receiving grants and personal fees from Achieve Life Sciences during the conduct of the study; personal fees from UpToDate outside the submitted work; and funds from the National Cancer Institute, paid through contracts with Bizzell US and Strategix Management LLC, to co-chair the workshop, Current State of Tobacco Cessation Interventions and Tobacco Prevention Research.

ORCA-2 was funded by Achieve Life Sciences.

Primary Source

JAMA

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowRigotti NA, et al "Cytisinicline for smoking cessation: a randomized clinical trial" JAMA 2023; DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.10042.

Secondary Source

JAMA

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowFoulds J, et al "Cytisinicline to speed smoking cessation in the United States" JAMA 2023; DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.5939.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/pulmonology/smoking/105415

Embattled Better gets FDA okay for lead DTx product

 Digital health company Better Therapeutics has the FDA approval for lead digital therapeutic (DTx) AspyreRx for type 2 diabetes it was hoping for – but now it has to convert that into a sustainable business.

Back in March, the company was forced to slash its headcount by around a third and trim back other costs to conserve cash, as it held on for the FDA’s verdict on AspyreRx (formerly BT-001) - a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) designed to help patients with type 2 diabetes manage their blood sugar levels through better diet and exercise habits.

That decision came shortly after the demise of digital health pathfinder Pear Therapeutics, which was unable to keep going, despite three FDA-approved DTx, and added to concerns that the sector is still being undermined by a lack of defined routes to adoption and reimbursement of new products, despite clinical evidence for their benefits.

AspyreRx is backed by efficacy and safety data from a randomised controlled study in 668 adults with type 2 diabetes, which showed that, when added to standard therapy, the DTx helped patients improve their blood glucose control compared to a control app.

At 180 days, subjects using AspyreRx had greater reductions in haemoglobin A1c levels – a biomarker for blood glucose control – compared to the control group, with an average reduction of 0.4%.

Overall, half of the patients using the DTx had “clinically meaningful” A1c reductions of 1.3% at that time point, they were less likely to need additional drugs to control blood glucose, and had improvements in blood pressure, weight, quality of life scores, and fasting blood glucose levels.

Better Therapeutics’ chief executive, Frank Karbe, said the approval “signals a promising future where technology, psychology, and medicine converge to address for the first time the behavioural causes of disease for the 37 million patients living with [type 2 diabetes] in the US.”

The company said it intends to launch the DTx in the fourth quarter of the year and suggested that, with this approval in hand, it will expand its DTx platform to include “multiple related conditions” in the future.

Also in its pipeline is BT-002 for hypertension and BT-003 for high blood cholesterol, as well as a candidate for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) that recently showed encouraging results in the exploratory LivVita study in 22 patients, including changes in liver biomarkers.

Shares in Better Therapeutics were up nearly 49% in pre-market trading today to reach $1.34, though the stock is still at a fraction of its $10 peak when it went public in 2021.

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/embattled-better-gets-fda-okay-lead-dtx-product

Insane progressive push for ‘Medicare for All’

 Fifteen senators and more than 100 House members recently introduced legislation that would launch a federal takeover of the US health-insurance system and install “Medicare for All.”

“We live in a country where millions of people ration lifesaving medication or skip necessary trips to the doctor because of cost,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the lead sponsor in the House and a longtime advocate of single-payer health care.

“I’m so proud to fight for this legislation to finally ensure that all people can get the care they need and the care they deserve.”

People are understandably upset when an insurance company forces them to jump through hoops or pay thousands of dollars to gain access to a drug they need — or denies coverage outright.

Progressives capitalize on this outrage by promising a benevolent government will do better — and guarantee access to the therapies they need.

But that’s simply not true.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal claims “Medicare for all” legislation will “ensure that all people can get the care they need and the care they deserve.”

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

Government-run health-care systems the world over make far fewer drugs available to their denizens than does the comparatively free US market.

And in the United States, patients have recourse when a private insurer hands down a coverage decision they don’t like.

Under a government-run health-care system, there is no process to appeal.

When a company launches a new drug in the United States, it tries to set a price that will foster enough sales to recoup the millions or billions of dollars it spent bringing the drug to market, as well as a profit margin to reward its investors and fund future research and development efforts.

Private insurers negotiate fiercely with drug companies over those prices — and may be able to extract concessions based on the sales volume they can deliver or whether they’ll nudge their beneficiaries toward the drug over competing drugs.

This system isn’t perfect. But it generally ensures that American patients have access to just about every drug approved by regulators at some price.

In other countries, there is no negotiation.

To keep a lid on public health-care spending, government agencies — like Canada’s Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence — tell pharmaceutical companies what they’re willing to pay.

If drug companies balk, then the countries’ health-care systems refuse to make their products available to patients.

Protestors calling for universal healthcare in the United State at a rally on Capitol Hill.

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

This discrepancy in tactics explains why Americans had access to 89% of new drugs approved between 2011 and 2018, while Germans had access to 62% and French patients 48%.

Of the 98 cancer medicines released between 2011 and 2019, 96% were available in the United States.

Just 70% were available in the United Kingdom and 68% in Canada.

Sen. Bernie Sanders likes to ask what good a life-saving drug is if people can’t afford it.

Here’s a better question: What good are “free” drugs in government-run health-care systems if the drug a patient needs isn’t available?

In the United States, if an insurer won’t cover a particular treatment, patients can fight.

They can appeal an insurer’s decision, lobby a complaint with state regulators or enlist the help of their elected officials. They can apply for free or reduced-cost medication through patient-assistance programs that drug companies offer.

Patients trapped in government-run health-care systems can try to fight, too. But cost-conscious governments are unlikely to heed their pleas.

They tend to be far more interested in equity than quality.

Consider the case of a 43-year-old Vancouver man with a rare form of cancer.

His doctor prescribed a drug called entrectinib. But in August 2022, the British Columbia provincial government refused to cover the drug — with no explanation.

Officials later said they were awaiting a decision by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology and Health, which recommends whether and how provincial and federal drug plans and cancer agencies should pay for drugs.

In the meantime, the man and his family were left to fundraise and pay the drug’s $10,200 a month price on their own. So much for socialized medicine.

The drug has been approved in the United States since August 2019.

Americans have access to more innovative treatments than patients anywhere else in the world.

We may have to pay slightly more for them. But at least we have that option.

Our peers in other countries routinely do not.

Sally C. Pipes is president, CEO and the Thomas W. Smith fellow in health-care policy at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is “False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All.”

https://nypost.com/2023/07/10/the-insane-progressive-push-for-medicare-for-all/