Ah, but there are very few legislators

who don't have some stock in big pharmaceutical companies in their portfolios.

Of course they don't know what's in their portfolios, because they are in escrow or behind a firewall, like Dick Cheney's Halliburton profits, so they don't actually have a conflict of interest.

So when they don't overhaul the FDA it will just be a coincidence, see?

And if they pretend to try to overhaul the FDA, and Bush vetoes their efforts, it won't be because they refused to impeach him, it will be Ralph Nader's fault. If he and his damned consumer-safety anti-corporate agenda hadn't been on the ballot in 2000 and 2004, the Democrats could have put their efforts into opposing Bush, instead of having to spend millions to oppose Nader. Not that they would have, but theoretically they could have.

The FDA isn't feeling any heat. Only an arrogant, selfish, airhead like Nader would try to prevent them from approving drugs that kill people. The Democrats and their Republican colleagues are much too bipartisan to do anything like that.

--Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 28 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 907 comments) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 7:15:13 AM
 

FDA Feeling the Heat

Maybe the FDA isn't feeling the heat and legislators' financial portfolios are always going to be more important to them than public safety. But if the legislators are aware of the public demand that the FDA be reformed or dismantled, this public dissatisfaction is not going to go away. If such dissatisfaction is not enough heat then maybe the discontent has to be larger and more in the face of the legislators through stepped up alternative media exposure. It seems only logical to be cynical about this but increasingly broad public dissatisfaction with the FDA cannot be ignored indefinitely and legislators will at some point be called to account because they will finally come to find out they have been on the wrong side of the issue all along. If something is extremely oppressive to the public, it cannot remain in place forever. That is just a basic of human existence.

by larrybone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 10:45:54 AM
 

Conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest are always a problem, and the first step in dealing with them is to declare conflcts openly. Ms. Pringle, do you have any interests or associations with law firms that handle litigation in the area of drugs, vaccines, etc.?

by Heraldblog (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 7:20:09 AM
 

Conflicts of interest

I have no hidden conflicts of interest. I clearly state at the bottom of the article that a law firm sponsored a series of litigation articles.

If the insinuation is that I somehow have the ability to instigate or influence investigations of the FDA its ridiculous. But I do have the ability to follow up on the investigations and report on their findings.

I have nothing but praise for any law firm that will take on cases from American citizens who would not stand a chance of going up against the corrupt pharmaceuticl industry if left on their own.

If the mainstream press was not bought off by industry advertising dollars, which amounts to the same as bribes or blackmail to not publish studies, reports or warnings on pharmaceutical industry, and was doing its job of adequately warning the public about dangerous products and our corrupt regulatory agencies, a journalist like me would not have to find alternative ways to educate the public.

Cheers,

Evie

by Evelyn Pringle (188 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 10:40:39 AM