big pharmacy

[Jerome Scuggs]

politics aside, this is pretty fucked up.

http://www.rd.com/national-interest/...icle55513.html

this article i came across a few days ago. it basically details the monumental shitbox that the FDA actually is.

"A popular diabetes drug can sharply increase the risk of heart attack, a finding the agency knew but took two years to reveal. An FDA-approved antibiotic can destroy your liver in just five days. And despite mounting concerns about the safety of Chinese-made drugs, the agency had only enough field inspectors last year to check a mere 13 of the 714 Chinese factories that produce medicines for U.S. consumers.

Many of the nation's leading doctors, scientists and lawmakers now agree that the FDA is in crisis. Lurching from one disaster to another, the 102-year-old agency learns of dangers too late and then moves too slowly to remedy them. Insiders say it's woefully underfunded, dangerously understaffed and fractured by bitter internal tensions. Instead of depending on the FDA, Americans are doubting it -- and for good reason."

sounds pretty crazy, and then today i stumble across this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/wa...=1&oref=slogin

apparently, pharmaceutical industries have been getting away with selling alot of these dangerous drugs because they hide behind the FDA - using the logic that if the FDA approved it, why blame the companies? after all, the FDA is supposed to catch these sort of errors.

i know i'm treading thin ice, but i think this incident is a very good example of the nature of government: good in theory, but now the people who were supposed to serve us, have sold us out to the guys with deep pockets.

it's fucked up. it's fucked up that big business as well as government is profiteering at the expense of people. it's fucked up that the State, founded to protect the citizen and preserve his rights, would then deny those rights to him.

america's beautiful legal system, which upholds justice and liberty. and now, victims of careless business practice are facing the loss of their only means of recourse. when they blame the pharmaceutical companies (and rightfully so), they are apparently told that it's not their fault - the FDA approved it, so blame the FDA. but when the supreme court convenes for its next term... then we might face the possibility of even losing that, because the FDA can simply say "oh, well.. you're not allowed to second-guess us."

i was recently banned for going a little overboard with the ad hominem in the last political thread, so i need to stress here that i'm not trying to start a massive socialism/capitalism thing, which should be obvious by the fact that this post isn't 30 pages long - and i'd do it too, but i think that getting into that debate would massively derail the many other things that need to be said about this issue.

[MirrorriM]

Did you know that scientists can patent parts of genes that they discover? This way no other scientist can do anything with your gene or make advancements in medicine with it without first paying the original discoverer. Only the patent-holder is allowed to do research and work with it. wtf! So messed up.

This comes from my angry "New Technologies" professor of a couple years ago.

[H.M.S. Stargazer]

Did you know that scientists can patent parts of genes that they discover? This way no other scientist can do anything with your gene or make advancements in medicine with it without first paying the original discoverer. Only the patent-holder is allowed to do research and work with it. wtf! So messed up.

This comes from my angry "New Technologies" professor of a couple years ago.

So they are literally able to patent part of my body. Great. At least when I call someone a whore. I can be honest.

[Kolar]

it's fucked up. it's fucked up that big business as well as government is profiteering at the expense of people. it's fucked up that the State, founded to protect the citizen and preserve his rights, would then deny those rights to him.

What do you think should be done about it? If we scrape the FDA we give up the opportunity under another (and hopefully better) President and Administration to fix the problem. Is internal quality assurance enough? Why should we trust big business over elected officials?
I think this is very similar to giving Telecoms retroactive immunity for allowing Bush Co. to sift through Internet and phone records, I wouldn't be surprised if they came out claiming its unpatriotic to question the FDA if their legal arguments don't win out.

[Squeezer]

The FDA approved and continues to approve McDonalds meat.

I'm definitely going to trust their opinion when it comes to drugs!

[genocidal]

Here's how I roll:

Don't put shit in your body unless you have to.

(Yes, I do have to drink and smoke drugs - otherwise I might kill people.)

[D1st0rt]

It's partially Clinton's fault for largely crippling the FDA. I have a friend whose dad is in the meat industry and he was talking about how now wouldn't be a bad time to be a vegetarian. Apparently it would be really easy for some sort of meat-related epidemic to happen thanks to good ol' Bubba.

[Jerome Scuggs]

What do you think should be done about it?

actually, canada has a pretty cool model: they just ban direct-to-consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals, which in effect prevents alot of potential problems, since consumers don't rush to buy under-evaluated products. combined with a regulatory agency, i think the approach minimizes beauracritization, since there are less overall situations that create problems and back up courts.

edit: this also goes back to the initial point, i suppose - the reason the companies advertise in the first place is due to the FDA approving the drugs. i think here is a chance to address your question about actual FDA reform: perhaps the approval method should require more requirements for testing, or even some sort of "delay period" where anyone is free to research the drug themselves. the problem with that, though, is that alot of actually safe drugs would wind up falling victim to the rule, and bureaucracy may not dissapear but just shift to the research area.

perhaps a 2-tier system, "approved but new" and "approved". "approved but new" would be a sort of pseudo-approval, indicating that initial research says this drug works BUT should something happen, the company (and not the FDA) is held liable. this would provide a monetary incentive (in the form of potential lawsuits) for the companies to either do more thorough research or be more careful about the drugs they release into the market... or ideally, both. [/edit]

i'm reading up on State relationships with business and industry and apparently alot of this has to do with the concept of a "limited liability" firm and even the legal nature of a 'corporation'... i think both models create paths for businessmen to evade responsibility and encourages this sort of profit-maximizing behavior.

and yesterday another pharmaceutical company got off the hook... glaxo-smith won against an appeal over their paxil/zoloft causing suicide.

bush's rapid de-federalization of the government (strengthening National government at the expense of Local government) that he used to legally do all the shit he's done - the side-effect is, pharma can now argue that the FDA supercedes most other laws - which is what they're doing.

i think that post-bush, people might strengthen the federal seperation of powers and re-delegate alot of it back down to the state level, which will at least make the companies more culpable.