Doctors are experts in doctoring. NICE are experts in assessing the effectiveness of drugs. If you don’t trust the latters’ judgement over the former, then you are unwise.

Tim adds: No, NICE are experts in the cost effectiveness of drugs for taxpayer’s money. As the above post shows, that’s not the same as the cost effectiveness of my money spent on treating me.

- She publicly declares and promises that in the event of her being told that she has a disease that will kill her within three months, but newer unapproved treatments can extend her life to many more MONTHS (not weeks) she will ONLY request the use of existing NICE-approved treatments.

Toynbee states that,

“Desperate patients are easily beguiled by doctors who are cavalier with the research in recommending a drug Nice has refused. ”

This is a pretty full-on attack on the professionalism and expertise of doctors. She better have verifiable examples of where this has happened, otherwise she whacks another nail in her credibility’s coffin.

- She publicly declares and promises that in the event of her being told that she has a disease that will kill her within three months, she will ONLY request the use of existing NICE-approved treatments.

- She will not ask for medicines that might be available in Scotland but not England.

- If she is told at initial diagnosis that *without treatment* she probably has only six weeks to live so the doctor needs to have her scanned in order to properly plan her treatment, but the waiting time for NHS scanners is… six weeks, she will NOT book a private scan on the SAME scanner

- She will not travel abroad for treatment.

With these provisos I am happy to respect her opinion.

NICE is supposed to take that into account in its B/CA, though.

Not.

I’ve just been diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis. The best medical evidence is that early and aggressive combination therapy of a a DMARD such as Methotrexate plus an anti-TNF alpha drug is preferred.

My consultant has admitted this is the case.

NICE only allows payment for Methotrexate to begin with and, if that proves ineffective, another DMARD and, if that proves ineffective, then and anti TNF-alpha.

My consultant agreed when I mentioned the combination therapy, but asked me if I had an extra £10,000 per year to spend.

I understand why the decision’s made – although there’s an argument that I’ll ber less of a burden on the State in future years if an early effective treatment is followed now – but I can’t stand Polly’s downright lies.

Best regards