|
|
,
Add to My Group(s)
Add to My Group(s)
By Evelyn Pringle (about the author)
Become a Fan -- Page 6 of 9 page(s)
Acting FDA commissioner, Dr Lester Crawford, accused Dr Graham of evading the agency's "long-established peer review and clearance process," and another agency official made calls to a Senate staffer, disparaging Dr Graham personally and professionally.
Before the testimony even began at the November 18 hearing, Senator Grassley responded to comments issued the night before by Dr Crawford against Dr Graham.
"News reports today," Senator Grassley noted, "say the FDA is calling Dr. Graham a "a maverick who did not follow Agency protocols. "
Dr. Graham, he explained, completed an FDA sponsored three-year study under FDA guidance and with Drs. Campen, Levy, Shoor, Ray, Cheetham, Spence and Hui. Dr. Graham 's immediate supervisor said the paper that formed the basis of the study was " ... an excellent study and analysis of a complex topic. "
"So the clarifications provided last night by Dr. Crawford," Senator Grassley said, "appear intended to intimidate a witness on the eve of hearing."
Dr Crawford knows there 's a problem, he told the audience, "and would better serve the FDA by spending time on the problem rather than going after congressional witnesses who helped identify the problem in the first place."
Earlier in the year, on March 10, 2005, Senator Grassley gave a speech to the Consumer Federation of America and praised the FDA whistleblower and described how the FDA stonewalled concerns raised by Dr Graham after a study found an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes with Vioxx and said:
"Dr. Graham warned the FDA of the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx, the FDA approved the use of Vioxx for children. The director of FDA 's office of new drugs suggested that Dr. Graham water down his Vioxx conclusions. Dr. Graham replied that in good conscience he could not. When Dr. Graham was asked to present his findings at my committee 's Vioxx hearing, he was also undermined.
"Dr. Graham did testify before the advisory committee and his science was subjected to public scrutiny from his peers. ... In the end, the scientific process prevailed. But again, not before Dr. Graham 's supervisors attempted to intercede."
In the speech, Senator Grassley said FDA whistleblowers are patriots.
"Think about the guts it takes to undermine your career," he said, "and to go against your supervisors at a huge federal agency, and in this case, the multi-billion-dollar drug companies."
"Whistleblowers are the rare birds who refuse to go along to get along," he told the audience. "The only thing they 're guilty of is "committing truth, " he said.
"Unfortunately, " Grassley told the audience, "it appears that some drug companies are placing greed ahead of drug safety. In this fraudulent environment, the FDA 's mission is more important than ever before. The FDA absolutely has to do a top-notch job on ensuring drug safety, " he said.
The FDA "needs to demonstrate that it is unequivocally committed to the scientific process and those who speak up on its behalf -- when it comes to drug safety and that nothing gets in the way of that, whether it 's pressure from profit-oriented drug makers or institutional ego that doesn 't want to admit a mistake, " Grassley warned.
"The one and only client of the FDA must be John Q. Public, " he declared.
Four months later, on July 18, 2005, Senator Grassley took to the floor of the Senate to explain why he would vote against the nomination of Dr Crawford to head the FDA, and gave a caustic speech about the FDA 's relationship with drug companies as a whole, and Dr Crawford 's conduct in the position of a temporary commissioner, and said in part:
Become a Fan -- Page 6 of 9 page(s)
Before the testimony even began at the November 18 hearing, Senator Grassley responded to comments issued the night before by Dr Crawford against Dr Graham.
"News reports today," Senator Grassley noted, "say the FDA is calling Dr. Graham a "a maverick who did not follow Agency protocols. "
Dr. Graham, he explained, completed an FDA sponsored three-year study under FDA guidance and with Drs. Campen, Levy, Shoor, Ray, Cheetham, Spence and Hui. Dr. Graham 's immediate supervisor said the paper that formed the basis of the study was " ... an excellent study and analysis of a complex topic. "
"So the clarifications provided last night by Dr. Crawford," Senator Grassley said, "appear intended to intimidate a witness on the eve of hearing."
Dr Crawford knows there 's a problem, he told the audience, "and would better serve the FDA by spending time on the problem rather than going after congressional witnesses who helped identify the problem in the first place."
Earlier in the year, on March 10, 2005, Senator Grassley gave a speech to the Consumer Federation of America and praised the FDA whistleblower and described how the FDA stonewalled concerns raised by Dr Graham after a study found an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes with Vioxx and said:
"Dr. Graham warned the FDA of the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx, the FDA approved the use of Vioxx for children. The director of FDA 's office of new drugs suggested that Dr. Graham water down his Vioxx conclusions. Dr. Graham replied that in good conscience he could not. When Dr. Graham was asked to present his findings at my committee 's Vioxx hearing, he was also undermined.
"Dr. Graham did testify before the advisory committee and his science was subjected to public scrutiny from his peers. ... In the end, the scientific process prevailed. But again, not before Dr. Graham 's supervisors attempted to intercede."
In the speech, Senator Grassley said FDA whistleblowers are patriots.
"Think about the guts it takes to undermine your career," he said, "and to go against your supervisors at a huge federal agency, and in this case, the multi-billion-dollar drug companies."
"Whistleblowers are the rare birds who refuse to go along to get along," he told the audience. "The only thing they 're guilty of is "committing truth, " he said.
"Unfortunately, " Grassley told the audience, "it appears that some drug companies are placing greed ahead of drug safety. In this fraudulent environment, the FDA 's mission is more important than ever before. The FDA absolutely has to do a top-notch job on ensuring drug safety, " he said.
The FDA "needs to demonstrate that it is unequivocally committed to the scientific process and those who speak up on its behalf -- when it comes to drug safety and that nothing gets in the way of that, whether it 's pressure from profit-oriented drug makers or institutional ego that doesn 't want to admit a mistake, " Grassley warned.
"The one and only client of the FDA must be John Q. Public, " he declared.
Four months later, on July 18, 2005, Senator Grassley took to the floor of the Senate to explain why he would vote against the nomination of Dr Crawford to head the FDA, and gave a caustic speech about the FDA 's relationship with drug companies as a whole, and Dr Crawford 's conduct in the position of a temporary commissioner, and said in part:
Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for OpEd News and investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
Comments
The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.
This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.
| No comments |