Flutterby™! : FDA harm

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

FDA harm

2007-06-11 14:26:17.937725+00 by Dan Lyke 2 comments

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2007-06-11 17:14:58.135971+00 by: petronius

The problem with this is that every time a problem like Vioxx comes along, people start demanding twice as much testing. Now, lack of Vioxx never killed anybody, but taking it might have. Then you hear people saying that the new drugs are unnecessary, even though a certain subset of patients claim it was far better than previous formulas. So, what shall we do? I hear calls to nationalize the phamra industry, or to make testing a government monopoly. Which would probably end up with fast-tracking of morning-after pills and forbidding of new treatments for prostate cancer.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-06-11 21:50:36.760743+00 by: topspin

While the FDA may be ridiculously slow and inept, the alternative of placing our trust in Merck, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, et al. to tell us the truth about the potential hazards of the drugs they produce is horrifying.

The FDA gets royally screwed and has less of a budget than the NIH or CDC, which regulate very little, but the FDA regulates everything from cat food to Cataflam. While the pharmaceutical industry has boomed, the FDA budget has doubled in the past 20 years. You'd think their budget would be huge, given the responsibilities, but it's about $2 billion.

In perspective, the govt has spent anywhere from 200-500 billion on a war in Iraq to liberate/protect a country the size of CA and with 25 million people or so and in the same timeframe spent about 10 billion to ensure the safety of the drugs and food of 400 million people across the entire United States.

I feel safer, don't you?