interview with author of new book 'Side Effects' | Arthritis Information

Share
 

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/paxil-and-a-drugmaker-on-trial-alison-bass-explains/

From the article/interview:
"Drug companies know the side-effect profiles of their drugs and hide something. In the case of antidepressants, these drugs do a lot of good for a lot of people, but for a small population, doctors didn’t know these drugs had (suicidal) side effects and, as a result, didn’t monitor patients as closely as they should have. But they didn’t have the information, because Glaxo didn’t publish its negative findings." Not publishing negative side effects is not good.

 
Jan
I'm not downplaying the role that pharma co's have played in not publishing ALL of their negative findings when doing studies but I truly believe that the main problem is:
 
"Which brings us to the FDA, which I don’t think has provided suffiicent oversight. Again, the drugs can help some people, but hurt others, and the oversight hasn’t been working".
 
The FDA has become a skeleton organization  and isn't reliable, honest or  trustworthy.  The pharma co's withhold info and the FDA does an insufficient job of oversite .  It's a deadly combination of fraud and apathy and the general public suffers.  I'd like to read  the reasons why the FDA isn't more demanding and cautious.  There seems to be a great rush to put drugs on the market.  It appears to be driven by the pharma co's greed and a lack of oversite and apathy by the FDA.  Lindy

FDA Is Broken, Endangers American Lives

Report Blames Congress for Cutting FDA's Budget

 By JOHN McKENZIE
Dec. 3, 2007
var addthis_pub = 'abcnews'; < ="http://s9.add.com/js/widget.php?v=10" =text/>

The report is scathing. An expert panel has told the Food and Drug Administration that the organization is so understaffed and underfunded, it puts American lives at risk.

Gail Cassel, co-author of a 56-page report titled "FDA Science and Mission at Risk," said, "The wheels are coming off. In fact, I would say they're off. They're already off."

The report uncovered failures at every turn. The most glaring is that the FDA lost 600 inspectors in the past four years, making the agency unable to protect the country's food supply. And the FDA's responsibilities have grown, rendering the agency ineffecitve.

Bill Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner, said, "When I came to the FDA in the early 1970s, we were doing 35,000 food inspections a year. This year, the agency will be doing 6,000."

"Crisis management in FDA's two food safety centers ... has drawn attention and resources away from FDA's ability to develop the science base and infrastructure needed to efficiently support innovation in the food industry," the report said.

adsonar_placementId=1280609;adsonar_pid=59750;adsonar_ps=-1;adsonar_zw=165;adsonar_zh=220;adsonar_jv='ads.adsonar.com'; < = ="http://js.adsonar.com/js/adsonar.js"> The pet food industry, with billion a year in sales, is regulated by only two people at the agency.

The report found the agency's computer system, which tracks hazardous foods and drugs, is so antiquated, it's constantly breaking down.

"Imagine having an e-mail system so old, they have to bring technicians out of retirement because current technicians have never seen equipment that old," said Hubbard.

Many front-line employees don't even have a computer. Inspectors must write urgent reports by hand, which often end up lost in huge warehouses.

The report does not blame the FDA but rather Congress, for continually cutting the agency's budget while asking it to assume more and more responsibility.

Overall, the FDA staff has shrunk 14 percent over the last 14 years.

A leading FDA critic in Congress, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, said, "The essence is, send me a plan, .ask for money, and we'll consider it. But they never ask for more money or authority."

While the squabbling in Washington continues, the agency charged with protecting our food and drug supplies is, tonight, according to the report, so broken, it cannot do the job.

I realize this article is 19 months old.  I don't think much has changed at the FDA or if it has it's minimal.  Washington doesn't move to quickly.  Lindy 
Well -
 
"As I wrote in my blog recently, Marty Keller, the principal Paxil investigator at Brown University for the 329 study, acknowledged receiving consulting fees from Glaxo, but never reported them on his tax return"
 
- this answers the question of if they pay their taxes.  What does Pharma do, pay them in cash?  I thought the govt was notified whenever anybody placed more than 5K in the bank.
 
Also - Lin - it's not just that (and what you posted was HUGE) its the fact that what budget they do get comes from Pharma fees.  So, if they kill a drug, there go the fees.  Last I saw, the FDA gets 2/3 of their operating budget from Pharma fees.
 
Pip
Oh good grief, no wonder its all just rat poisonPip, I've been searching on where the FDAs funding comes from.  Do you have any paper showing the 2/3 of funding comes from Pharma fees?  I'd like to read the articles.  LindyAnother big problem is the fact that scientists circulate back and forth between the FDA and industry.  It's one big incestuous mess.  Such close ties make it that much harder to raise issues about products - you might be ratting out your friends, or ruining future employment possibilities.
Jas - I'd like to see a time lag between moving to the FDA from private practice.  Did you see that Medicare program where they did the bill at 3AM and it was written by 1000 lobbyists.  Look where all these Senators and Representatives went - to Pharma.  It's the same thing with the FDA. 
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60minutes/main2625305.shtml
 
Lin -
 
I had it, I swear, but I can't find it.  I'm looking.  This should hold you a bit.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/washington/20fda.html
 
Pip
It was an indepth article in the NY Times and was in the latter part of last year.
 
Here's something similar -
 
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/07/13/drug_makers_lobby_us_to_hike_fda_funds/
 
Pip
http://www.fda.gov/oc/factsheets/budget2009.html
 
based on the 2009 projected 2.8 billion dollar budget for the FDA the 638 million dollars   provided in user fees constitues 26% of the total budget...a far cry from 2/3's or 66%
No Buckeye - 3 of the last articles I've read, on the right and the left - said the fees were at 54% or over.
 
I'll come back to this - but no way those fees dropped that percentage in 2 years.
 
Pip

For the FDA to be effective it needs to be restructured.  My father used to work for the NTSB.  The airline industry has the FAA to play a more friendly role with airlines, and the NTSB to investigate.  Something similar would benefit the pharm industry.

[QUOTE=KatieG]

For the FDA to be effective it needs to be restructured.  My father used to work for the NTSB.  The airline industry has the FAA to play a more friendly role with airlines, and the NTSB to investigate.  Something similar would benefit the pharm industry.

[/QUOTE]

That sounds like a great idea!
Pip..the numbers are in black and white.  Maybe you saw an article saying the fees were increased 54% but it really doesn't matter what your articles say when the budget says something else entirely.  but even if it were 54% that still isn't 2/3's of the budegt is it?
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com