Profit over safety - Is the FDA on our side ?

uscitizen

Villified User
Doctor Tells Congress Drug Company Threatened Legal Action Over Diabetes Drug Concerns

Wednesday, June 06, 2007



WASHINGTON — The controversy surrounding GlaxoSmithKline's diabetes drug Avandia mounted Wednesday as a medical expert prepared to tell lawmakers executives threatened him with legal action when he first raised questions about the treatment's safety.

Dr. John Buse was contacted by SmithKline Beecham in 1999 after drawing attention to a trend in heart problems among patients using Avandia, according to testimony he was prepared to give a House committee. Buse says the representatives from SmithKline, which combined with GlaxoWellcome in 2000, mentioned that some in the company wanted to hold him accountable for hurting sales of the drug.

Buse, soon to become president of the American Diabetes Association, said he eventually signed a clarifying statement with the company that was used to ease concerns from investors.

One year later, Buse sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration raising the same concerns.

Glaxo's head of research, Moncef Slaoui, and the head of the FDA will also testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., a frequent critic of FDA and the chair of the oversight committee, announced the hearing after an analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded Avandia could raise patients' risk of heart attack by more than 40 percent.

In his opening statement, Waxman said FDA officials failed to act on warnings from Buse and others in the eight years since Avandia was approved.

"Despite additional warnings from outside experts, despite the millions of patients who rely on Avandia to control their blood sugar, and despite the potential risks involved, FDA never required the manufacturer to conduct a thorough post-market study of its heart risks," Waxman said.

Waxman is among a group of House Democrats who want to give FDA more powers to regulate drug companies. The Senate recently passed a version of a bill that makes major changes to FDA's drug safety system, though companion legislation has not yet appeared in the House.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278576,00.html
 
Profit over safety - Is the FDA on our side ?


The FDA is just a tool. It can either be used for the public interest, or it can be neutered and left to wither on the vine.


Republicans hate government. Their not likely to see agencies like the FDA as serving the public interest, and Bush especially is not bloody likely to appoint competent public servants to run the agency.
 
Profit over safety - Is the FDA on our side ?


The FDA is just a tool. It can either be used for the public interest, or it can be neutered and left to wither on the vine.


Republicans hate government. Their not likely to see agencies like the FDA as serving the public interest, and Bush especially is not bloody likely to appoint competent public servants to run the agency.
I tend toward libertarian values, but unlike many, I support a fully functioning FDA.
 
I tend toward libertarian values, but unlike many, I support a fully functioning FDA.
Bad food/drugs or even environmental issues have direct victims. The FDA is consistent with libertarian trends. Many big L libertarians wouldn't agree, but heck there are always "puritans"....
 
Bad food/drugs or even environmental issues have direct victims. The FDA is consistent with libertarian trends. Many big L libertarians wouldn't agree, but heck there are always "puritans"....

What is the difference between a "big L" Libertarian, and a "little l" libertarian, I have not been able to catch onto that?
 
What is the difference between a "big L" Libertarian, and a "little l" libertarian, I have not been able to catch onto that?


Near as I can tell, the big L libertarians are the Ayn Rand-types: they've always identified themselves as actual libertarian party members, and they profess love for robber-baron lassaize faire capitalism and wholesale privitization.

The little L libertarians are embarrased republicans who dropped their (R) party label in the last couple years


;)
 
Near as I can tell, the big L libertarians are the Ayn Rand-types: they've always identified themselves as actual libertarian party members, and they profess love for robber-baron lassaize faire capitalism and wholesale privitization.

The little L libertarians are embarrased republicans who dropped their (R) party label in the last couple years


;)

Ah! Got it, thanks.
 
Near as I can tell, the big L libertarians are the Ayn Rand-types: they've always identified themselves as actual libertarian party members, and they profess love for robber-baron lassaize faire capitalism and wholesale privitization.

The little L libertarians are embarrased republicans who dropped their (R) party label in the last couple years


;)
Not quite. Big L are members of the party, they often will take odd positions such as removing the EPA, or the FDA. Both of which actually protect actual victims and would easily fit into the libertarian ideology.

Small l libertarians are ones more like me. We are in either the R or D party and work to protect the Constitution. I am not solely libertarian though and do lean more conservative than most, especially in my own life.
 
Near as I can tell, the big L libertarians are the Ayn Rand-types: they've always identified themselves as actual libertarian party members, and they profess love for robber-baron lassaize faire capitalism and wholesale privitization.

The little L libertarians are embarrased republicans who dropped their (R) party label in the last couple years


;)

LOL man.

I was a socialist. IHG was a fascist. Adam grew up being a marxist also.

The only one of us I can think of that was EVER a Republican was RS. He's also, coincidentally, the only person still registered as a Libertarian.
 
Not quite. Big L are members of the party, they often will take odd positions such as removing the EPA, or the FDA. Both of which actually protect actual victims and would easily fit into the libertarian ideology.

Small l libertarians are ones more like me. We are in either the R or D party and work to protect the Constitution. I am not solely libertarian though and do lean more conservative than most, especially in my own life.

Yeah, you're also a conservative.

I've always leaned liberal, personally. I mean, seriously, if you just took me at a few random issues you'd say I was every bit as liberal as Cypress.

Universal healthcare
Guaranteed minimum income
Gay Marriage
Progressive taxation

I'm a fucking commie.
 
LOL man.

I was a socialist. IHG was a fascist. Adam grew up being a marxist also.

The only one of us I can think of that was EVER a Republican was RS. He's also, coincidentally, the only person still registered as a Libertarian.


IHG and MBL have both admitted to voting for bush.

Like I said, the small L's are embarrased republicans. Or, pseudo-republicans at least. ;)
 
LOL man.

I was a socialist. IHG was a fascist. Adam grew up being a marxist also.

The only one of us I can think of that was EVER a Republican was RS. He's also, coincidentally, the only person still registered as a Libertarian.

I am a Republican :)
At least my voter registration card says so.
 
IHG and MBL have both admitted to voting for bush.

Like I said, the small L's are embarrased republicans. Or, pseudo-republicans at least. ;)

I supported Gore and then Kerry. Adam was a registered Democrat in the era, so I suppose the same.

But I didn't know about IHG's voting for Bush. He IS embarrased about that, let me tell you.

MBL's always leaned conservative, though, so that wasn't unexpected.
 
I am a Republican :)
At least my voter registration card says so.

LOL

I know that feeling - in Mississippi, every Democrat on the ticket is usually elected in local elections, so you have little voice if you don't register Democrat.

Of course, Mississippi doesn't have voter registration, so you can vote in any primary you want to. Also, local elections are on odd years, and national elections are on even years. Which means I can run into the Democrat primary in '07 to get my voice heard there, and then slip into the Republican presidential primary in 2008 to waste my vote on Ron Paul.

Mississippi does everything better, except race relations, economy, tolerance, the people, and social issues. Not like that matters :( .
 
I supported Gore and then Kerry. Adam was a registered Democrat in the era, so I suppose the same.

But I didn't know about IHG's voting for Bush. He IS embarrased about that, let me tell you.

MBL's always leaned conservative, though, so that wasn't unexpected.


But I didn't know about IHG's voting for Bush. He IS embarrased about that, let me tell you.


If I'm not mistaken, I invited IHG to assert that, knowing what he knows now, if he would change his vote in 2000 to Gore. And I think he declined to state affirmatively. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can say now, that Gore wouldn't have been the better choice.

But, I could be wrong. Maybe it was someone else.
 
Back
Top