 |  |
 |  |  | |||||||
|
--- Good Riddance to a Bad Drug
"Roman Bystrianyk" news:4f28e591.0410041627.52c1ebc2@posting.google.com... > http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=300 > > Eric J. Topol, "Good Riddance to a Bad Drug", New York Times, October > 2, 2004, > Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/opinion/02topol.html?oref=login > > As the Vioxx debacle shows, we have a long way to go in this country > to get on track with prescription medications. Most important, we need > a stronger regulatory agency to compel pharmaceutical companies to do > the proper studies and force these companies to stop > direct-to-consumer advertising unless a drug has major benefits for > patients and negligible increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. Oh boy, good luck getting *that* out of the Bush administration.... Katherine
"Katherine Wolfe" news:ckbrrj0n1q@enews1.newsguy.com... > > "Roman Bystrianyk" > news:4f28e591.0410041627.52c1ebc2@posting.google.com... >> http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=300 >> >> Eric J. Topol, "Good Riddance to a Bad Drug", New York Times, October >> 2, 2004, >> Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/opinion/02topol.html?oref=login >> >> As the Vioxx debacle shows, we have a long way to go in this country >> to get on track with prescription medications. Most important, we need >> a stronger regulatory agency to compel pharmaceutical companies to do >> the proper studies and force these companies to stop >> direct-to-consumer advertising unless a drug has major benefits for >> patients and negligible increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. > > Oh boy, good luck getting *that* out of the Bush administration.... > > Katherine Shallow ideas as a response to a gov. agency that has bogged down with protecting itself. Its not about administration. It is about what happens to a gov. agency with time and layer upon layer of bureaucrats. The same thing has taken place with NASA. The same thing has taken place with the court system and judges that are not about existing laws but try to make their own laws with their court. Vioxx had high hopes for people who could not use a sulfa based drug but needed a NSAID that did not eat holes in their stomach. It did that but it also had its own side effects and had to be stopped. Blame the present administration???? Too easy a reply and not one that will improve the FDA. Harv
"Harvey R. Stone" news:THhad.3995$q%7.1952@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > > "Katherine Wolfe" > news:ckbrrj0n1q@enews1.newsguy.com... > > > > "Roman Bystrianyk" > > news:4f28e591.0410041627.52c1ebc2@posting.google.com... > >> http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=300 > >> > >> Eric J. Topol, "Good Riddance to a Bad Drug", New York Times, October > >> 2, 2004, > >> Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/opinion/02topol.html?oref=login > >> > >> As the Vioxx debacle shows, we have a long way to go in this country > >> to get on track with prescription medications. Most important, we need > >> a stronger regulatory agency to compel pharmaceutical companies to do > >> the proper studies and force these companies to stop > >> direct-to-consumer advertising unless a drug has major benefits for > >> patients and negligible increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. > > > > Oh boy, good luck getting *that* out of the Bush administration.... > > > > Katherine > > Shallow ideas as a response to a gov. agency that has bogged down with > protecting itself. Its not about administration. It is about what > happens to a gov. agency with time and layer upon layer of bureaucrats. > The same thing has taken place with NASA. The same thing has taken place > with the court system and judges that are not about existing laws but try to > make their own laws with their court. > Vioxx had high hopes for people who could not use a sulfa based drug > but needed a NSAID that did not eat holes in their stomach. It did that > but it also had its own side effects and had to be stopped. Blame the > present administration???? Too easy a reply and not one that will improve > the FDA. Well, Republicans generally and the Bush administration in particular doesn't have much of a history of strengthening regulatory agencies. For ex ample, the USDA had geared up to require stricter Listeria testing at meat packing plants, but the executive order that required it was put on hold by the Bush administration. OHSA was completing regulations requiring testing of people who were regularly in contact with TB patients for TB, but the Bush administration cancelled them. The EPA was investigating dozens of coal-fired power plants for pollution that was illegal under regulations at the time, but the Bush administration eased the regulation, and cancelled the investigation. These actions are a reflection of the philosophy of the administration toward federal regulation in general. John D. Graham, who oversees federal regulation for the Bush White House, said regulations are "a form of unfunded mandate that the federal government imposes on the private sector or on state or local governments." It seems to me to be unlikely that any appreciable action will be taken to stiffen regulations at the FDA by an administration that holds a philosophy that is fundamentally inimical to regulatory interest, and that holds a history of reducing regulations on industry in every agency. I'm not blaming the Bush administration for the Vioxx debacle, however, I am saying that we shouldn't expect to see much action to improve the FDA, if that means they're going to actually increase regulation of drug companies. Katherine
I'm not > blaming the Bush administration for the Vioxx debacle, however, I am > saying > that we shouldn't expect to see much action to improve the FDA, if that > means they're going to actually increase regulation of drug companies. > > Katherine > Well said but changes nothing in what I said. I do not expect change from either party until major changes are made in how things are done. I really think that finding blame in this situation solves nothing. You say it is not Bushes fault about Vioxx but you just did that. Nothing is proven,,, nothing is changed,,,, no more to say. Harv
"Harvey R. Stone" news:npkad.2719$Lk3.2015@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > Well said but changes nothing in what I said. I do not expect change from > either party until major changes are made in how things are done. What kind of changes do you think would help things? The article suggested more regulation on consumer ads on prescription drugs, my understanding is the AMA wants that too, but I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on the subject. > I really think that finding blame in this situation solves nothing. You say > it is not Bushes fault about Vioxx but you just did that. Well, no, I really don't think it's Bush's fault - how do you know that insufficient testing has been done until sufficient testing has been done? I was saying that, if more regulation is the answer, don't hold your breath, because that really isn't something that the Bush administration believes in. My comment wasn't isn't so much about what has happened as it was about how to prevent similar things from happening in the future. Katherine 1 2 Next » Related Discussion: Meat / rheumatoid arthritis (12 posts) Health & Nutrition (1 posts) Health Information and Administration (1 posts) Three-Drug Plan for Glycemic Control (1 posts) Top Discussions From Our Archives =?Big5?B?W62rrW646rBUXaZwpvO5QqXOqsW2oq7JtqGxTqhNqXexeqq6pbyo0w==?= Saving Room For Dessert May Help Dieters Other Discussion Categories Diabetes Symptoms Health Care Policy Health Care Providers HMO Arthritis Symptoms
|
| ||||||||
 |  |
