Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

[Siggie]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

Neither does being approved by the FDA!!

FDA requires efficacy.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

FDA requires efficacy.

FDA boasts efficacy. 2 different things.

Wait, I suppose I should back that up.

This is the kind of money involved in approval/disapproval of a drug

An FDA chemist and his son were charged yesterday with using inside info to reap $2.27 million profit in illegal trades based on drug approvals.

Cheng Yi Liang and his son Andrew used several brokerage accounts for the swindle, including $1 million off the FDA's OK of Vanda Pharmaceutical's Fanapt, the DOJ said.

Also yesterday, the SEC accused the two of grabbing $3.6 million via illegal trading in advance of at least 27 public reports.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz1LII1pizj


What the FDA doesn't tell you is that you're a guinea pig


FDA Says Drug Firms Didn't Finish Follow-Ups

Federal officials Tuesday questioned companies that make six cancer drugs about their failure to complete follow-up studies they promised to conduct in exchange for accelerated approval.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...915752074.html

[Siggie]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

I don't understand... you'd rather have untested "treatment"?

I'll still take the ones trying to do science than the ones that use some of the language to confuse, but don't do any science.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

I don't understand... you'd rather have untested "treatment"?

I'll still take the ones trying to do science than the ones that use some of the language to confuse, but don't do any science.

There is a difference between science and mad science. The FDA, being the morally responsible entity that they claim to be shouldn't allow drug producers to push some experimental drug that hasn't been tested into the market. If people wish to donate their bodies to science that's one thing but they are going about it dishonestly and it's not for the sake of science, it's to make a buck.

[Siggie]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

There is a difference between science and mad science. The FDA, being the morally responsible entity that they claim to be shouldn't allow drug producers to push some experimental drug that hasn't been tested into the market. If people wish to donate their bodies to science that's one thing but they are going about it dishonestly and it's not for the sake of science, it's to make a buck.

I agree with you. I'm going to comment on the two stories separately...

#2 (WSJ)
Here it seems like the drug companies are the ones that didn't comply. Understandably, people who are DYING of cancer, when they've exhausted their other options, turn to newer drugs or experimental drugs. They try to join clinical trials, etc just to get treatment. The alternative to them is doing nothing or going with the treatments they've already tried that aren't working, and just basically waiting to die. To try to get life-saving treatments approved faster (approval necessary for insurance to pay) they're making some exceptions. They're not approving them without any examination at all... they're just doing it with part of the data they'd normally require with the agreement that the rest of the data will be forthcoming. Here it seems to me, FDA is trying to do right by the public and not delay this subclass of drugs that are potentially life saving treatments for people who don't have much time left. Now, if for whatever reason, the drug companies fail to meet their end of the agreement, that's on them. FDA can deal with them however they decide. Pull the approval, not allow them to do same in future, etc.
In implementing this accelerated process for special cases, they're arguably acting in the public's interest. The FDA doesn't stand to gain from this. Now, big pharma does stand to gain and I'm sure they pushed for this big time and for them, it's probably motivated to a substantial degree by their bottom line and to be fair, they are businesses.

#1 (NYPost)
Do you operate under the assumption that in the sample of public employees, there are fewer dishonest people than in the pool of private employees? I wouldn't assume that.
In this story we have 2 FDA employees who had access to information and knew what drugs were going to be approved before that information was released publicly. They used that insider information to make money by buying the stock of the company before the approval of a new drug was announced and the stock prices increased. This is an SEC issue. This doesn't mean the FDA is doing anything unethical with their approval process. It's not about that really.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

I operate under the assumption that anyone out to make huge sums of profit is most likely dishonest, private or public.

Take the salmonella "outbreak" for instance

It's rather easy for the FDA to sway public opinion since they are the governing source that claims to know what you should and shouldn't be putting in your mouth. An agency that regulates food and drugs has far too much power. A big time operation of farms where food gets handled in plants has more of a chance of coming in contact with salmonella than the local farm operated by ma and pa. However, ma and pa can't operate without the approval of the FDA (even though they have been running their family farm for generations without a single case of contamination) The hysteria over salmonella over a few cases of outbreaks was beyond ridiculous. Not to mention that they literally forced tons of product to be thrown out without any proof of contamination. The reason the FDA wants to create hysteria is so they can further pursue their goals of enforcing increasingly risky methods of food sterilization. In the eyes of a profiteer, it's much easier and more profitable to sterilize foods to be sure that there is no contamination than to enforce policies which include safe handling methods. Not only do they profit from their dealings with chemical companies but they decrease their need for a workforce. The end result is food that you shouldn't even be putting in your mouth.

With regards to the newer vaccines that are marketed, that is the complaint among many people. They aren't anti-vax, they are against the use of preservatives in the vaccines which the vaccine producers claim to be safe. The reason for the preservatives is for a longer shelf life which allows plants to control their production with batch builds eliminating the need for ramping up/down for supply/demand.