For those who think the FDA is a bad thing

[auditor0007]

Firm Pushed Drug It Knew Didn't WorkAOL
posted: 21 HOURS 30 MINUTES AGOcomments:
AP

Health insurers and states are suing Eli Lilly Co. over the way it marketed Zyprexa, an antipsychotic medication. Zyprexa was the firm's best-selling drug in 2008.
(June 15) -- Phamaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Co. urged doctors to prescribe its drug Zyprexa for elderly patients with dementia, even though the company had evidence the drug didn't work in such cases, Bloomberg News reported.

Eli Lilly Pushed Drug It Knew Didn't Work

Without any government oversight, I'm sure we would see much more of this nonsense.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah??....When is the FDA going to get sued for approving Vioxx and Fren-phen??

 

[auditor0007]

Yeah??....When is the FDA going to get sued for approving Vioxx and Fren-phen??

Those drugs were approved based on clinical trials that showed them to be effective. The FDA can be duped also, but the fault lies with the manufacturer, not the FDA. Without the FDA, we would have hundreds of Vioxx's on the market.

While I agree that at times, FDA approval takes too long, there is good reason it exists.

 

[Oddball]

Big deal.

That you can find one instance where the FDA actually ended up doing its purported job doesn't outweigh all the multitude of times that they've screwed up, and ended up killing people with their dithering and incompetence.

 

[auditor0007]

Big deal.

That you can find one instance where the FDA actually ended up doing its purported job doesn't outweigh all the multitude of times that they've screwed up, and ended up killing people with their dithering and incompetence.

So you believe without the FDA, we would have less deaths and illnesses in the open market from drugs manufactured by the drug comapanies why? Because they will monitor themselves?

 

[KittenKoder]

Yeah??....When is the FDA going to get sued for approving Vioxx and Fren-phen??

Those drugs were approved based on clinical trials that showed them to be effective. The FDA can be duped also, but the fault lies with the manufacturer, not the FDA. Without the FDA, we would have hundreds of Vioxx's on the market.

While I agree that at times, FDA approval takes too long, there is good reason it exists.

Sorry, but you are naive. The FDA like all regulatory commissions can be bribed and is, to allow only the highest bribers product pass when there is competition. If you think the FDA is not bribed and is not corrupt as hell, you need to learn more about them.

 

[auditor0007]

Yeah??....When is the FDA going to get sued for approving Vioxx and Fren-phen??

Those drugs were approved based on clinical trials that showed them to be effective. The FDA can be duped also, but the fault lies with the manufacturer, not the FDA. Without the FDA, we would have hundreds of Vioxx's on the market.

While I agree that at times, FDA approval takes too long, there is good reason it exists.

Sorry, but you are naive. The FDA like all regulatory commissions can be bribed and is, to allow only the highest bribers product pass when there is competition. If you think the FDA is not bribed and is not corrupt as hell, you need to learn more about them.

I never said it was perfect, but I take it you would have no problem with any quack out there prescribing anything they want as treatment? The problem is that the arguments here tend to be completely for or against. There never is an inbetween. Some people here think we should have zero government intervention and just let the free market dictate everything. It would be a disaster, but keep believing.

 

[KittenKoder]

Those drugs were approved based on clinical trials that showed them to be effective. The FDA can be duped also, but the fault lies with the manufacturer, not the FDA. Without the FDA, we would have hundreds of Vioxx's on the market.

While I agree that at times, FDA approval takes too long, there is good reason it exists.

Sorry, but you are naive. The FDA like all regulatory commissions can be bribed and is, to allow only the highest bribers product pass when there is competition. If you think the FDA is not bribed and is not corrupt as hell, you need to learn more about them.

I never said it was perfect, but I take it you would have no problem with any quack out there prescribing anything they want as treatment? The problem is that the arguments here tend to be completely for or against. There never is an inbetween. Some people here think we should have zero government intervention and just let the free market dictate everything. It would be a disaster, but keep believing.

*rae* You really think this isn't already happening and that medical costs are high just because it costs a lot?

Canada has almost no regulation, theirs does just fine, even great, so great the government can even afford to pay everyone's medical bills.

 

[Oddball]

So you believe without the FDA, we would have less deaths and illnesses in the open market from drugs manufactured by the drug comapanies why? Because they will monitor themselves?

Because drug manufacturers and their insurers would want to protect themselves from lawsuits...Which they aren't right now, despite the fact that it costs more than $500 million to get a new medication approved via the FDA protection racket.

Seems you're in favor of medications that cost too much, "orphan drugs" gathering dust on the shelves, and total lack of accountability for approval of bad medications, so you can have the illusion of Big Daddy Big Gubmint keeping you safe.

 

[9 Volt]

So you believe without the FDA, we would have less deaths and illnesses in the open market from drugs manufactured by the drug comapanies why? Because they will monitor themselves?

Because drug manufacturers and their insurers would want to protect themselves from lawsuits...Which they aren't right now, despite the fact that it costs more than $500 million to get a new medication approved via the FDA protection racket.

Seems you're in favor of medications that cost too much, "orphan drugs" gathering dust on the shelves, and total lack of accountability for approval of bad medications, so you can have the illusion of Big Daddy Big Gubmint keeping you safe.

The FDA's model is theoretically sound, but buerocracy has rendered it impotent. The FDA is one of the many reasons American's DON'T have access to the most advanced technologies and treatments without traveling abroad and paying cash for them.

 

[KittenKoder]

So you believe without the FDA, we would have less deaths and illnesses in the open market from drugs manufactured by the drug comapanies why? Because they will monitor themselves?

Because drug manufacturers and their insurers would want to protect themselves from lawsuits...Which they aren't right now, despite the fact that it costs more than $500 million to get a new medication approved via the FDA protection racket.

Seems you're in favor of medications that cost too much, "orphan drugs" gathering dust on the shelves, and total lack of accountability for approval of bad medications, so you can have the illusion of Big Daddy Big Gubmint keeping you safe.

The FDA's model is theoretically sound, but buerocracy has rendered it impotent. The FDA is one of the many reasons American's DON'T have access to the most advanced technologies and treatments without traveling abroad and paying cash for them.

Duh, that's because the ones they don't allow are made by companies who won't bribe them.

 

[Oddball]

The theory behind the FDA isn't even sound, as they hide behind sovereign immunity when they screw up, but still leave the pharmaceutical companies -who pay the protection racket loot to get their medications approved- exposed to the risk.

 

[9 Volt]

Because drug manufacturers and their insurers would want to protect themselves from lawsuits...Which they aren't right now, despite the fact that it costs more than $500 million to get a new medication approved via the FDA protection racket.

Seems you're in favor of medications that cost too much, "orphan drugs" gathering dust on the shelves, and total lack of accountability for approval of bad medications, so you can have the illusion of Big Daddy Big Gubmint keeping you safe.

The FDA's model is theoretically sound, but buerocracy has rendered it impotent. The FDA is one of the many reasons American's DON'T have access to the most advanced technologies and treatments without traveling abroad and paying cash for them.

Duh, that's because the ones they don't allow are made by companies who won't bribe them.

That's simply not true. There's nobody to bribe. Just an algorithm that must be followed perfectly. I've worked directly with the FDA and they do dis-approve many technologies and devices that could be beneficial for some of the most ridiculous reasons, but they don't take bribes.

 

[auditor0007]

Sorry, but you are naive. The FDA like all regulatory commissions can be bribed and is, to allow only the highest bribers product pass when there is competition. If you think the FDA is not bribed and is not corrupt as hell, you need to learn more about them.

I never said it was perfect, but I take it you would have no problem with any quack out there prescribing anything they want as treatment? The problem is that the arguments here tend to be completely for or against. There never is an inbetween. Some people here think we should have zero government intervention and just let the free market dictate everything. It would be a disaster, but keep believing.

*rae* You really think this isn't already happening and that medical costs are high just because it costs a lot?

Canada has almost no regulation, theirs does just fine, even great, so great the government can even afford to pay everyone's medical bills.

What are you talking about? Canada tells the pharmaceutical companies how much they can charge for most drugs. And Canada does have an agency similar to our FDA.

How Drugs are Reviewed in Canada

 

[9 Volt]

I never said it was perfect, but I take it you would have no problem with any quack out there prescribing anything they want as treatment? The problem is that the arguments here tend to be completely for or against. There never is an inbetween. Some people here think we should have zero government intervention and just let the free market dictate everything. It would be a disaster, but keep believing.

*rae* You really think this isn't already happening and that medical costs are high just because it costs a lot?

Canada has almost no regulation, theirs does just fine, even great, so great the government can even afford to pay everyone's medical bills.

What are you talking about? Canada tells the pharmaceutical companies how much they can charge for most drugs. And Canada does have an agency similar to our FDA.

How Drugs are Reviewed in Canada

You're right. Canada regulates their system heavily. In fact, it's mandated that all physicians accept the Government payment system, even though they are private physicians in private practices. I think that's bullshit.

 

[Oddball]

That's simply not true. There's nobody to bribe. Just an algorithm that must be followed perfectly. I've worked directly with the FDA and they do dis-approve many technologies and devices that could be beneficial for some of the most ridiculous reasons, but they don't take bribes.

The bureaucratic structure itself functions as a huge protection racket.

They've merely taken the bribes out from under the table and put them above it.

 

[Metternich]

So the FDA puts a gun to the pharma company's head, demands that they review everything they want to sale and has the final say on just about everything the company does. Then, when the company jumps through the countless hoops that the FDA puts for it, complies with every string of red-tape; it gets sued. What is the point, of the FDA again? Is it constitutional? Not at all. Does it prevent deaths? Not all. Does it increase medical costs? Oh yeah. So what exactly, are its benefits? It makes sure that snake oil is served off as a cancer cure? Sure, I'll give you that but as it is - moderation is out, regulation is in - there is going to be a large scale break down of Big Pharma. Then we will be really screwed.

I say relax FDA rules, cut back on their trial stage and let any Big Pharma drug that kills people and pass the FDA trias free and clear: let them be immune to tort law. At the very least, let the FDA open to tort law.

 

[9 Volt]

So the FDA puts a gun to the pharma company's head, demands that they review everything they want to sale and has the final say on just about everything the company does. Then, when the company jumps through the countless hoops that the FDA puts for it, complies with every string of red-tape; it gets sued. What is the point, of the FDA again? Is it constitutional? Not at all. Does it prevent deaths? Not all. Does it increase medical costs? Oh yeah. So what exactly, are its benefits? It makes sure that snake oil is served off as a cancer cure? Sure, I'll give you that but as it is - moderation is out, regulation is in - there is going to be a large scale break down of Big Pharma. Then we will be really screwed.

I say relax FDA rules, cut back on their trial stage and let any Big Pharma drug that kills people and pass the FDA trias free and clear: let them be immune to tort law. At the very least, let the FDA open to tort law.

Actually, we have Big Pharma to thank for the FDA being the Shithole, regulatory body that it is. A large-scale breakdown of big-pharma would be a good thing. There are numerous, smaller, bio-tech firms that have created bio-markers and drugs that are actually much more effective than what's available to the American public, but these companies don't have the resources to push through the FDAs "red tape". In fact there is an entire unseen landscape of useful medical devices, technologies and drugs that will never get to market because they can't match Big Pharma's lobbying power.

 

[Oddball]

Actually, we have Big Pharma to thank for the FDA being the Shithole, regulatory body that it is. A large-scale breakdown of big-pharma would be a good thing. There are numerous, smaller, bio-tech firms that have created bio-markers and drugs that are actually much more effective than what's available to the American public, but these companies don't have the resources to push through the FDAs "red tape". In fact there is an entire unseen landscape of useful medical devices, technologies and drugs that will never get to market because they can't match Big Pharma's lobbying power.

Yup.

"Protection racket" isn't mere hyperbole.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Actually, we have Big Pharma to thank for the FDA being the Shithole, regulatory body that it is. A large-scale breakdown of big-pharma would be a good thing. There are numerous, smaller, bio-tech firms that have created bio-markers and drugs that are actually much more effective than what's available to the American public, but these companies don't have the resources to push through the FDAs "red tape". In fact there is an entire unseen landscape of useful medical devices, technologies and drugs that will never get to market because they can't match Big Pharma's lobbying power.

Yup.

"Protection racket" isn't mere hyperbole.

this happened a while ago so i dont remember the name of the drug, the illness i believe was a form of cancer,but it relates here....once while watching some show talking about medications,a doctor on the show said there is a drug that is great in treating this cancer,but he said the FDA wont approve it,for a ridiculous reason like 9-volt said,THEY have to do the testing not Europe,even though it has been in use in Europe for 4-5 years with good results.....and the kicker the Doc. said, was that it was developed in the US.....so in the meantime the people with this Cancer have to suffer longer with the crap they have to give them.....because of the FDA's ego....