What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
22 Comments
- CloakandSwagger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13And all the Enzyte in the world couldn't put a smile back on Bob's face again.
- wibblewibble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Same with the patent system.
The drug approval process is as corrupted by big corps as the government. I dont trust the FDA. - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8A drug approval process within the government shouldn't even exist; and the part of the system that is most broken is the legal system. Drug manufacturers have every reason to try to earn the trust of their customers. But drugs are complex and people do differ. It is *impossible* to be certain that a drug is perfectly safe. Lawyers do more to raise the cost of drugs than any other factor. Shakespeare's character had it right.
- baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5off topic but needs to be said
several US Government adminstrations have been bloated & worthless being nothing but a burden on US Taxpayers for years...
especially the FDA & IRS http://www.fairtax.org/ - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I don't get how the FDA is 'broken' or 'seriously flawed.' It exists to maintain the monopoly of drug companies, protects them from law suits, and generally represent their interests without causing any health problems that would undermine it's legitimacy. It's fulfilling this role exquisitely and the drug companies bottom lines prove it. It's government protected profiteering, that's the American way, if you don't like it then go vote for a 3rd party candidate, protest or emigrate, or, do what we do now a days instead, suck it up and ignore it.
- raz3000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This is just more fear mongering by the pharmaceutical industry and their well-paid pawns in academia to make it more difficult for Congress to approve drug imports, which is sorely needed by so many who can't afford medicines even when their lives depend on it (if they could sell a kidney they would).
- asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The FDA has been broken for at least a century. I'm surprised they're actually going to fix it.
Take this for example: http://www.digg.com/health/Cigarettes_vs_Marijuana
I can accept politicians accepting bribes but the FDA? Come on.. the FDA is directly affecting millions of lives possibly worldwide. Why can't people who have no insurance afford foreign medicine? It's cheaper and the quality is pretty damn good, if not better than our home-synthesized meds. - steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@fyngyrz-Actually, lawyers NOT are the number one reason drug prices are going up. Believe it or not it's advertising.
- Wongeroo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The issue isn't whether or not the FDA has done an acceptable job in the past. What needs to be addressed is the level of corruption between the FDA and Big Pharms. Given that the number of drugs that have been haphazardly approved over the past ten or so years (e.g. FenFen & Vioxx), and the prohibition of natural herbs that the consumer can grow in their own home, raises the question as to the legitimacy of the FDA's authority and the quality of their governance over our lives.
The educated libertarian response would be that size and scope of government should remain as minimal as possible to ensure administrative efficiency without eroding innovation and civil liberties. The smartest resolution, I believe, is making all drug studies open source and subject to public scrutiny. That way WebMD, Wikipedia, or something community driven would be the source of objective critiques on the substance and any possible or known negative side effects. No FDA, no corrupt bureaucrats, no unnecessary and outdated governmental mechanism screwing Average-Joe over. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Then where should the drug approval process exist? While most of the players in the drug industry have every reason to try to earn the trust of their customers, do you really want them policing those who want to take advantage of the system as well as honest newcomers, over the government doing it?"
Why not let a private organization do it? Think about a FDA-type version of Underwriter's Laboratories. This is something I've been throwing around for a while. - heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That what he's called in the movie script. In the book he's just the unnamed narrator.
- thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2indeed, though his name is not jack.. or at least it probably isn't, since it is not ever mentioned.
- heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You know what's funny is that the Libertarian solution to this problem is to get rid of the FDA altogether, with the logic that corporations will be too afraid of lawsuits to put dangerous drugs on the market.
Of course, that ignores the logic of Jack's airplane speech in fight club. If the cost of the settlements and hurt reputation is less than the profit they'll make by putting the drug on the market anyway, that's exactly what they'll do. - ThatNateGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That's a rather dubious claim. I'm not saying you aren't right, but I'd still like some hard evidence to support it.
- martalli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Another issue for high drug costs is disease-mongering, where the pharm industry tries to promote things such as restless legs at night as an illness. Restless legs certainly trouble folks, but should society be spending $100-200/month for partially effective or simply ineffective treatments for it?
Pharma wants to push the limit until everyone is 'ill', and they are all on newer, brand-name drugs. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Then where should the drug approval process exist? While most of the players in the drug industry have every reason to try to earn the trust of their customers, do you really want them policing those who want to take advantage of the system as well as honest newcomers, over the government doing it?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not to metion ~ 50% of the employee's that work for the FDA are actuallyed payrolled by the big drug corporations... hmmm...
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I can accept politicians accepting bribes but the FDA? Come on.. the FDA is directly affecting millions of lives possibly worldwide."
I know what you're getting at but that is still FUBAR. And what's worse, this isn't really a rare opinion, many people have that attitude "Yeah, of course they're corrupt and taking bribes, but whatever, get me a burger, and super size it this time. Wait, the bureaucrats are taking bribes too, OK now I'm indignant, or I will be after the USC game."
Not a very good time to have faith in the good old American Spirit. Sometimes lack of Patriotism is just common sense. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The market regulates itself, so private regulators could allow drug companies to use their seal of approval. The regulators would base their reputation on ensuring the drugs were safe while keeping the costs of regulation down. If one regulator or company did something wrong they would simply loose customers and others would take its place.
Insurance companies and customers etc would be watching these regulators and pharm companies for corruption etc. So ,at the very least, it could not be worse than the FDA and it would not have to be funded by taxes. - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The FDA cannot truly regulate the pharmaceutical industry until it is actually separated from the pharmaceutical industry. Many of the expert panels involve doctors with ties to the pharmaceutical companies, although there has been some movement away from these ties. Aftermarket surveillance of drugs is directly paid for by the pharma companies.
To be a true regulator, payment should be entirely through the government. Let that be through a tax on prescriptions, but not on any direct checks from the pharma companies...That allows too much coziness between the FDA and companies.
For the libertarians, relying on the courts is an essentially reactive process. The creation of the FDA as it is today was to be proactive about the drugs allowed in the US. Disbanding the current FDA may even be necessary, but we would still be better off having some similar regulatory body, to allow proactive regulation of new medicines. - spiff21, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@texpundit
Private companies already have too much control over the drug approval process in the federal government. Imagine what they would do with a private entity that they could throw money at and have nearly complete behind the scenes control over. - spiff21, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@fyngyrz
Your level of ignorance of this issue is amazing. Go back and look at the history of pharmaceuticals in this country and you'll see the amazing job that the federal government has done in regulating drug safety during the last 50 years or so of the 20th century. Of course it's impossible to ensure a perfectly safe drug, but for a long time the FDA has done a good job of regulating the safety of pharmaceuticals. Compare he danger of drugs that were available to the public before and and after federal regulation. Yes, these regulations have made it more expensive to develop a drug, but would you rather take a drug that has undergone extensive testing or one that the company releases to the public after doing a few safety studies in animals?
As this study points out, the FDA has been beset with internal problems over the past 15 years or so. They've allowed private companies to have too much of an influence on the running of the FDA and the drug approval process. However, you can still take a drug today and be fairly confident that it has undergone extensive safety testing and that your doctor is aware of its risks and benefits. Without federal regulation, I doubt that the public would have such confidence in the drugs they take.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is