Injecting premature babies with chemotherapy to "prevent blindness"

[Que]

I may have to scroll back to the top of the page to make sure, but wasn't he talking about the second link you posted titled "Side Effects of Avastin?"

I'm guessing it's that same article(I didn't bother to read it, probably like you) that said those side effects were from IV use over a period of time.

Thanks, Benny, I didn't see the second link. So, the choice the hurting parents will need to make are between almost guaranteed blindness verses the minute possibility of contracting cancer?

 

[Benny]

Thanks, Benny, I didn't see the second link. So, the choice the hurting parents will need to make are between almost guaranteed blindness verses the minute possibility of contracting cancer?

Yep.

As a parent, I would have taken those odds any day of the week and I would have wanted my parents to do the same for me.

 

[rambone]

I may have to scroll back to the top of the page to make sure, but wasn't he talking about the second link you posted titled "Side Effects of Avastin?"

I'm guessing it's that same article(I didn't bother to read it, probably like you) that said those side effects were from IV use over a period of time.

Wrong, the Avastin website did not differentiate between the treatments on its side effects page.

You are absolutely right. Side effects should definitely be taken into consideration. So, what are the side effects?

I have been looking for a resource to give you a fair answer to that question, specifically aimed at the eye-treatment, and finally realized that Avastin hasn't even been studied by the FDA as an eye treatment and data is limited.

Known risks of intravitreal eye injections are allergic reactions, internal eye bleeding, infections, cataract, glaucoma, retinal detachment, and blindness.

Infection in a premature baby can easily result in death.

The article clearly articulates the availability of a drug that could prevent a premature baby from being blind throughout his life. I understand if no other option is available, the result of not using the drug is blindness.

The other options are laser surgery, or perhaps doing nothing and seeing if the child has any vision problems at all. Not all premature babies are blind. Yet in true medical fashion, they want them all to get an eye injection.

So, what would you suggest?

Read everything you can get your hands on. Look for legitimate testing and studies. Scrutinize everything. Don't go along with every single thing that doctors recommend without due research.

So, the choice the hurting parents will need to make are between almost guaranteed blindness verses the minute possibility of contracting cancer?

Cancer hasn't been mentioned in this thread, other than Avastin is a re-branded cancer drug.

 

[rambone]

Another alternative I just found is freeze-treatment. Not saying I endorse it, but its another alternative to drugs.

Freeze Treatment Reduces Blindness in Premature Infants [NEI News and Events]

 

[rambone]

So, the choice the hurting parents will need to make are between almost guaranteed blindness verses the minute possibility of contracting cancer?

As a parent, I would have taken those odds any day of the week and I would have wanted my parents to do the same for me.

I have to emphasize again that not all premature babies end up blind. It sucks that everyone immediately jumps all over me, calling me a liar, negative repping me, supporting some unstudied treatment, and don't even know the real risks of Retinopathy of Prematurity.

Some degree of ROP occurs in 50 percent of all premature births, and 10 percent of these infants need treatment. Each year in the US, between 1,100 and 1,500 children experience the complications of ROP. There are five stages of ROP, from a mild Stage 1 to severe Stage 5 when the retina detaches in the eye. Babies with Stage 1 and 2 ROP are called prethreshold, and those with Stages 3 through 5 are called threshold. About 90 percent of babies with Stage 1 and 2 ROP show improvement without treatment. However, about half of babies with Stage 3 and most of those with Stage 4 may develop serious eye damage. Each year, approximately 400 to 600 children are blinded by ROP.

50% of all premature births have some degree of ROP.

5% of all premature births "need treatment" for ROP.

100% of all premature births will be recommended to get treatment of some kind.

 

[Benny]

I have to emphasize again that not all premature babies end up blind. It sucks that everyone immediately jumps all over me, calling me a liar, negative repping me, supporting some unstudied treatment, and don't even know the real risks of Retinopathy of Prematurity.

This is breaking news and a great argument for your thread! I'm sure doctors never use discretion when administering certain treatments.

50% of all premature births have some degree of ROP.

5% of all premature births "need treatment" for ROP.

100% of all premature births will be recommended to get treatment of some kind.

67.29% of all stats can be made to favor an agenda 98.32% of the time.

So 100% of all premature births will be recommended "treatment"...Have you ever looked up the definition of "treatment?"

For my kid(s), it's not about the odds, it's about the stakes(If you feel like breaking this statement down, I'll elaborate later, but I can't right now).

 

[rambone]

I'm sure doctors never use discretion when administering certain treatments.

Discretion? lol. They'll just put an eye chart in front of the babies and see if they can read it back to them. That way they can treat only the blind ones.

I'd like to see some parental discretion being exercised.

67.29% of all stats can be made to favor an agenda 98.32% of the time.

Witty comments deflect attention from lost arguments only 18% of the time. Sorry.

So 100% of all premature births will be recommended "treatment"...Have you ever looked up the definition of "treatment?"

LOL. Give me whatever definition suits your agenda. It won't change the fact that only 5% actually need any treatment whatsoever.

For my kid(s), it's not about the odds, it's about the stakes(If you feel like breaking this statement down, I'll elaborate later, but I can't right now).

So you really spare your kids from hard drugs unless its really a high stakes scenario. Good man. No need to explain.

 

[Love the 1911]

Despite efforts to turn this story negative from the start, I really thought that personal experiences with this procedure was going to make it positive. The efforts of the OP have made sure there is debate going on about science and medicine though.

Rambone, a question for you. Would you like the government to regulate the treatment of people even more than they do now? Standing against a doctor that does not exercise discretion does not seem like something you would care about, unless the doctor is using JBT's to force their treatment on unwilling patients so they can become rich and famous.

If you wish to inform people about their right and the benefit to seeking 2nd and 3rd opinions on things, a post about modern medicine and potential side effects that I haven't even seen actually occur is a reach. Telling parents that you wish to see them exercise discretion shows an obvious lack of discretion being exercised by you. I hate seeing parents placed in this situation but trying to place parents against doctors (oh crap, another us vs them scenario) does not get the best care for anyone involved. When you have kids (you may already or you may never) you can make decisions on their medical care and perhaps people will show you respect that you have failed to show them.

 

[LPMan59]

i wish this were 1776, back when the lifespan of a male was 45 and most women died in childbirth. But we had freedom.

 

[Que]

I have to emphasize again that not all premature babies end up blind. It sucks that everyone immediately jumps all over me, calling me a liar, negative repping me, supporting some unstudied treatment, and don't even know the real risks of Retinopathy of Prematurity.


50% of all premature births have some degree of ROP.

5% of all premature births "need treatment" for ROP.

100% of all premature births will be recommended to get treatment of some kind.

Rambone, I hope you don't think I'm jumping all over you on this issue. I try not to read many of these threads because immunization information isn't what I come to INGO to read. I definitely wouldn't trust anything anyone has to say on a medical forum about M&P versus Glock, but that's just me.

I'm not suggesting that only gun information found on INGO should be considered to be credible. All I'm saying is, in order to even be considered as credible, especially with such contentious subjects, one must completely present both sides of an argument and then intelligently present a thesis as to which choice he considers the best option. I see a great deal of information that immunizations/treatments are bad, but that's just about it. That leaves me to wonder if you had a bad experience and because you are jaded, you are unable to present this kind of information, unadulterated and unbiased.

You suggested that a family choose to wait for this particular treatment. Is there a moment of no return on this treatment? What I mean is, can this treatment be administered 30, 60, or even 90 days later? Can it be administered as a later time with the same prognosis for cure as it would if administered earlier? If I'm to accept your information as a resource -- if that is your intent -- a lot more information is needed; a link to one side of the argument is not enough.

 

[rambone]

Despite efforts to turn this story negative from the start, I really thought that personal experiences with this procedure was going to make it positive. The efforts of the OP have made sure there is debate going on about science and medicine though.

I don't intend to rain on anyone's positive experiences. If this helps the 5% of kids who actually need treatment, then I think that is a good thing.

It irritates me when treatments turn into one-size-fits-all solutions; where every kid should get dozens of vaccines, every time you are sick you should get on antibiotics, every energetic child should get be on ADHD medicine, every fever should knocked out with tylenol, every premie should get their eyes injected, ... etc. Assembly-line, cookie-cutter medicine is hurting patients and hurting the health of the nation.

Rambone, a question for you. Would you like the government to regulate the treatment of people even more than they do now? Standing against a doctor that does not exercise discretion does not seem like something you would care about, unless the doctor is using JBT's to force their treatment on unwilling patients so they can become rich and famous.

No, I would resist more government meddling in our health care. The current government regulators that supposedly keep people safe regularly approve dangerous drugs and foods that the people take en masse. I'd just as soon remove the illusion that FDA-approval stands for safety in any way. The only way people's illusions will be removed is if we talk about these things and stop believing every lie that drug companies feed them.

As for this subject not being something I care about; well sure it is. I post about health all the time. I don't want to see people getting worked over by the system the hard way. Regarding forced treatment on unwilling patients; it is already happening, and there are people who want more of it. The collectivist mindset of "Public good before self-interest" stretches across many subjects, even health care.

Telling parents that you wish to see them exercise discretion shows an obvious lack of discretion being exercised by you. I hate seeing parents placed in this situation but trying to place parents against doctors (oh crap, another us vs them scenario) does not get the best care for anyone involved.

Parents NEED to exercise discretion. Otherwise what is the point of getting multiple opinions about treatments from these practitioners? The fact is that there are side-effects to all of these drugs that they push, and if a child gets messed up or killed, it is going to be the parent's problem to deal with, not the doctor. Side-effects happen... more than we are led to believe.

When you have kids (you may already or you may never) you can make decisions on their medical care and perhaps people will show you respect that you have failed to show them.

People should learn to take the internet less personally. I saw an interesting headline in the news and I wanted to post it. Some forums respond "wow that is sick" and others respond "OMG I love drugs om nom nom." Its just news. If people are that excited about it, then just pretend my threads are TV Pharma ads and go ask their doctor about how they can get their families on these wonder drugs. They can just do the exact opposite of everything I do. Its a free country.

Rambone, I hope you don't think I'm jumping all over you on this issue.

No worries. I didn't.

All I'm saying is, in order to even be considered as credible, especially with such contentious subjects, one must completely present both sides of an argument and then intelligently present a thesis as to which choice he considers the best option. I see a great deal of information that immunizations/treatments are bad, but that's just about it. That leaves me to wonder if you had a bad experience and because you are jaded, you are unable to present this kind of information, unadulterated and unbiased.

I am just a commentator, jaded and biased. People don't generally start off like this, it comes from watching friends and family members getting pushed into bad treatments and watching the "rare" side-effects happen to them. Then doctors make excuses and propose more medicine to fix the side effects of the bad medicines. Finally you realize that doctors are experts on precisely one thing.

But something that you can count on, is that I am not out to make money off of you, sell you drugs, or bully you into treatments. People harp on my "agenda" and then swallow every line of BS coming from those who view you as nothing more than a dollar sign. Who has the worse agenda?

You suggested that a family choose to wait for this particular treatment. Is there a moment of no return on this treatment? What I mean is, can this treatment be administered 30, 60, or even 90 days later? Can it be administered as a later time with the same prognosis for cure as it would if administered earlier?

From what the article said, "timing is critical" for the 5% of premies who actually need a treatment. For the other 95%, treatment can do more harm than good.

If I'm to accept your information as a resource -- if that is your intent -- a lot more information is needed; a link to one side of the argument is not enough.

My intent is not to construct a medical care plan for anyone. I just want people to think twice about subjecting themselves to treatments that could result in more harm than good. It could be any treatment. Take that fine-print on the package seriously.

 

[Benny]

Discretion? lol. They'll just put an eye chart in front of the babies and see if they can read it back to them. That way they can treat only the blind ones.

I'd like to see some parental discretion being exercised.



Witty comments deflect attention from lost arguments only 18% of the time. Sorry.


LOL. Give me whatever definition suits your agenda. It won't change the fact that only 5% actually need any treatment whatsoever.


So you really spare your kids from hard drugs unless its really a high stakes scenario. Good man. No need to explain.

I didn't have a chance to read that article(and obviously, neither did you) you linked with your agenda-fitting stats, but I had a chance to just now and this paragraph caught my eye:

Some degree of ROP occurs in 50 percent of all premature births, and 10 percent of these infants need treatment. Each year in the US, between 1,100 and 1,500 children experience the complications of ROP. There are five stages of ROP, from a mild Stage 1 to severe Stage 5 when the retina detaches in the eye. Babies with Stage 1 and 2 ROP are called prethreshold, and those with Stages 3 through 5 are called threshold. About 90 percent of babies with Stage 1 and 2 ROP show improvement without treatment. However, about half of babies with Stage 3 and most of those with Stage 4 may develop serious eye damage. Each year, approximately 400 to 600 children are blinded by ROP.

You're telling me that if their are 5 distinct stages of ROP, doctors can't and won't use discretion?

Where in that article does it say that treatment is recommended 100% of the time? I didn't see that part in the article, all I saw was another LIE of yours(bolded part).







(Sorry if I offended you by calling you out on your LIES again)

 

[rjstew317]

It irritates me when treatments turn into one-size-fits-all solutions; where every kid should get dozens of vaccines, every time you are sick you should get on antibiotics, every energetic child should get be on ADHD medicine, every fever should knocked out with tylenol, every premie should get their eyes injected, ... etc. Assembly-line, cookie-cutter medicine is hurting patients and hurting the health of the nation.

it irritates me that you continually spew this tripe. for one, the use of antibiotics is defiantly not dished out every time you get sick, in fact, it requires a positive culture to detect specific bacteria before they will consider prescribing them. as far a vaccines are concerned, there is a little thing in medicine we use called "evidence based practice" and "risk vs. benefit analysis" in which treatments are evaluated and scrutinized, those that work for the majority and provide a significant benefit will continue to be used. but yet you continually want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[turnandshoot4]

As an RN I can tell you this:

1. You always have a choice.
2. You have the right to refuse.
3. Getting ANY medical information from one of rambone's threads is a mistake.

Great posts in this thread everyone. Great example Kirk.

 

[Benny]

Some degree of ROP occurs in 50 percent of all premature births, and 10 percent of these infants need treatment. Each year in the US, between 1,100 and 1,500 children experience the complications of ROP. There are five stages of ROP, from a mild Stage 1 to severe Stage 5 when the retina detaches in the eye. Babies with Stage 1 and 2 ROP are called prethreshold, and those with Stages 3 through 5 are called threshold. About 90 percent of babies with Stage 1 and 2 ROP show improvement without treatment. However, about half of babies with Stage 3 and most of those with Stage 4 may develop serious eye damage. Each year, approximately 400 to 600 children are blinded by ROP.

50% of all premature births have some degree of ROP.

5% of all premature births "need treatment" for ROP.

100% of all premature births will be recommended to get treatment of some kind.

I just noticed rambone quoted the same paragraph I did saying 10% of babies need treatment, yet two sentences later he said only 5% do. LMAO.

What a joke.


Oh and I also looked for this quote again:

100% of all premature births will be recommended to get treatment of some kind.

And couldn't find it.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

I have to emphasize again that not all premature babies end up blind. It sucks that everyone immediately jumps all over me, calling me a liar, negative repping me, supporting some unstudied treatment, and don't even know the real risks of Retinopathy of Prematurity.

rambone, just to be clear, I had no intention of jumping all over you. I just wanted to offer an alternative perspective based on known use for the drug to treat eye disease.

And I'd like to expand a little on my previous post in reaction to your reference to an "unstudied use" of the drug. The use of Avastin for the past couple of years has done an amazing job preserving what little vision my 95 year old father-in-law has. I did a lot of research on this before we agreed to the treatments. Avastin is hardly unstudied.

It is not FDA approved for this use, but that is because Genentech, the maker of Avastin, also markets a drug called Lucentis which is marketed for the same use and costs $2,000. per injection as opposed to Avastin's cost of about $40. per injection. Studies (yes, it has been studied, just not in clinical trials paid for by Genentech since they want everyone to spend more for their more expensive drug) have shown little difference in the efficacy of the two drugs.

I do admit that I know more about macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy than I do ROP, but I think that damage caused by ROP is irreversable, so I believe that prevention is a good thing. Whether this is the best approach I can't say, but it's certainly reasonable to investigate it.

 

[Love the 1911]

I don't intend to rain on anyone's positive experiences. If this helps the 5% of kids who actually need treatment, then I think that is a good thing.

It irritates me when treatments turn into one-size-fits-all solutions; where every kid should get dozens of vaccines, every time you are sick you should get on antibiotics, every energetic child should get be on ADHD medicine, every fever should knocked out with tylenol, every premie should get their eyes injected, ... etc. Assembly-line, cookie-cutter medicine is hurting patients and hurting the health of the nation.



No, I would resist more government meddling in our health care. The current government regulators that supposedly keep people safe regularly approve dangerous drugs and foods that the people take en masse. I'd just as soon remove the illusion that FDA-approval stands for safety in any way. The only way people's illusions will be removed is if we talk about these things and stop believing every lie that drug companies feed them.

As for this subject not being something I care about; well sure it is. I post about health all the time. I don't want to see people getting worked over by the system the hard way. Regarding forced treatment on unwilling patients; it is already happening, and there are people who want more of it. The collectivist mindset of "Public good before self-interest" stretches across many subjects, even health care.



Parents NEED to exercise discretion. Otherwise what is the point of getting multiple opinions about treatments from these practitioners? The fact is that there are side-effects to all of these drugs that they push, and if a child gets messed up or killed, it is going to be the parent's problem to deal with, not the doctor. Side-effects happen... more than we are led to believe.



People should learn to take the internet less personally. I saw an interesting headline in the news and I wanted to post it. Some forums respond "wow that is sick" and others respond "OMG I love drugs om nom nom." Its just news. If people are that excited about it, then just pretend my threads are TV Pharma ads and go ask their doctor about how they can get their families on these wonder drugs. They can just do the exact opposite of everything I do. Its a free country.

You make good points here. If you represent your interest in these articles this way to begin with instead of immediately jumping out and pointing out potential side effects, you would be taken more seriously.

I just recently had a very bad cold/flu and took OTC medication for the first time in 3-4 years. I am against overly medicating people but people have the choice to take anything they wish.

I'd also like to see changes to the FDA. Either (1) get rid of the FDA altogether or (2) with FDA approval, give drug companies protection against rediculous class-action lawsuits that only make attorneys rich off the rest of us needing to continue to buy pharmaceuticals from these companies.

I also feel that we should get rid of pharmaceutical ads on television, but that's not going to happen. If I was a doctor, I would be incredibly annoyed every time a patient came in and, because of some stupid commercial, knew what they should be prescribed before being examined. Good thing I'm not nearly smart enough to be a doctor.

Here's the bottom line on issues like this: Parents and doctors have the right to choose or deny any unproven treatment like this. Trying to order parents to exercise discretion is not your place, it is their doctor's/family members/other trusted people in their lives. Use a doctor that you trust, then talk to others to make sure your doctor is not way off.

 

[VUPDblue]

Does anyone in this thread have any direct experience with premature babies, ROP, or using Avastin to prevent blindness as the OP suggests? Maybe a combination of all three? I'm not looking for "I read such-n-such article" but rather first-hand experience.

 

[6birds]

VUPDblue-

Does anyone in this thread have any direct experience with premature babies, ROP, My twin boys, born early, were evaluated for ROP at Riley, soon after they were born. Also, my wife is an OR Nurse at Riley.

I did not, however, stay in a Holiday inn last night, nor do i play a doctor on the internet.

 

[Lock n Load]

Fortunately my son grew up with just a few minor issues from being 10 weeks premature and a birth weight of 2lbs 7 oz, he actually got down to 2lbs 3 oz due to a staff infection in the NICU.

He was only 4lbs when he came home 8 weeks later....

The infection left him with some problems in an ankle and an elbow which he had to have surgeries on in his mid teen years. His lungs, eyes etc... were all fine.