Wait and see GT2, I left one too and it seems to take quite a while to be moderated.

subscriber only link, can’t see it.

Re the Pharmac proposal talked about on this, I made a submission on that and today I got back the response to submitters report.
It sounds good for genotype 1 but not until after October at least while they train doctors and pharmacists. serious cases referred through clinics until then and no details about numbers or thresholds.
I am going to ask some more questions, but I am fairly pleased that my easily recognisable submission, which was a four page rant, has been nicely summarised as:
“One respondent was unsupportive of
the Gilead (Harvoni) proposal for
clinical, ethical and fiscal reasons.
The respondent considered the supplier’s behaviour has been
profiteering and that, in letting
patients become cirrhotic before
treatment, they create incurring
ongoing costs to the health system
” Pharmac response: Noted.

So that gets spread around nicely in the public document. Doesn’t achieve anything but I like Gilead, behaviour and profiteering appearing together for submitters to read.

New plan with comments sections on stories I come across. Instead of just stories that focus on hepc , hit the big popular ones on any health or corporate greed topic. Left one today on a John Oliver story, tenuous connection but has attracted more likes quicker than any other. As the saying goes, everyone knows someone and the bigger the audience the more likely it is someone will see it.

Precisely Paul. There is no discretion and there is good public reasons for that. The law can’t envisage all the situations it will be applied to. We know ourselves what an unusual situation this is, what an unusually good doctor James is, and what an unusual health peer support and advice forum this is. That the TGA regs captures that is unfortunate, not incompetent or sinister. Complainants are a different matter.
The reason they have strict liability is to avoid any wrangling and to create a situation that is clear to everyone in it- no defence. Sounds terrible, but think in terms of workplace safety: too bad if the boss wasn’t there, if they told their worker not to do something- if something happens, it is still the bosses fault because something has happened so they must not have done enough. No argument, no buck passing.
In other scenarios it is what we mostly want the law to achieve. No High Court Judge can get off drink driving any more by saying they were called to an emergency, because it is strict liability – alcohol in breath, driving- there is no more to the story no matter who you are.
In fact, the TGA are exercising the only discretion they have, which is to give a warning/time period for compliance.