FDA Denies Experimental Drug to Cancer Patient

And you think that the FDA isn't aggressive enough. Well, elect Romney, and we will have no more FDA. No regulation, no more protecting us. We will have free-for-all science. If you believe that then I want you to eat thalidomide when u are pregnant, it is okay because there isn't enough 'evidence' to prove that thalidomide is harmful. And, of course, we can't obscure the valiant efforts of the drug 'big pharma' to convince us that thalidomid is harmless. The FDA stands between us and corporate greed. But, according to conservatives, that is contraindictative of "progress". Give me a break, am I stupid?

If I was rude, sorry.

Romney won't get rid of the FDA. "Free-for-all science" as you describe it is not science. Also, regulatory capture is a concern and everything the FDA does might not be good. Just a few points I wanted to put in response to your rant.

I was wondering, why would they deny that they hace the experimental drugs for cancer patients? It would give the patients a hope to be cured if really there is a drug.

myp said:

Romney won't get rid of the FDA. "Free-for-all science" as you describe it is not science. Also, regulatory capture is a concern and everything the FDA does might not be good. Just a few points I wanted to put in response to your rant.

Click to expand...

Grin, another of my more or less drunken rants, which even I can't understand the following morning. My concern is less with the FDA than the manufactured doubt industry.

It started with the big tobacco industry hiring the public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton, to combat the increasing scientific data suggesting a link between smoking and lung cancer in 1952. Hill and Knowlton successfully mounted a campaign to confuse and obfuscate the gathering consensus of scientists that there is a link between smoking and negative health consequences. This effort didn't stop the onslaught, but it did (very successfully) delay the eventual consensus. It gave big tobacco many decades of profit (and by consequence, their own profit) before the inevitable.

But that isn't the last we heard of from Hill and Knowlton. They were subsequently hired (as experts, via their tobacco success) by anyone who wanted to produce science favorable to the industry that needed defending. With corporate money, they repeatedly set up phony science to defend the asbestos, lead, vinyl chloride, beryllium, and dioxin products industries. Gee, what a profitable business, and gee, what lives were lost? Right now, scientists are being hired to provide a reasonable doubt about global warming. Now, I don't really care about how anyone feels about any of these issues, but let's let science be science, not bought by the highest bidder.

I agree, the FDA can be a pain in the ass, especially because it is politically influenced. But contrast that with science that can be economically influenced by the manufactured doubt industry.

And how are they different

mogur said:

Now, I don't really care about how anyone feels about any of these issues, but let's let science be science, not bought by the highest bidder.

I agree, the FDA can be a pain in the ass, especially because it is politically influenced. But contrast that with science that can be economically influenced by the manufactured doubt industry.

Click to expand...

So, just how is the FDA not bought by the highest bidder? I think you should take a look at how much it costs to be "evaluated" and just how many products there are on the market that have been evaluated as safe that are literally killing people. But hey, the idea that they protect us is pretty nice...

usobserver said:

So, just how is the FDA not bought by the highest bidder? I think you should take a look at how much it costs to be "evaluated" and just how many products there are on the market that have been evaluated as safe that are literally killing people. But hey, the idea that they protect us is pretty nice...

Click to expand...

Just because drugs have side-effects (which are usually well known) does not mean the FDA was paid off to get them approved. Taking mostly all drugs is a tradeoff.

The FDA is pretty much a stop-gap for drugs that would cause undo amount of harm to the people. Now as far as being politically lead in one direction or the other. That's a given with any branch/department of government. With the OP story about a terminally ill cancer patient, I don't see the reasoning in keeping the drugs from her. As so long as she takes care of any legal paperwork between her and the FDA it should be fine. I can also see the FDA's side of things. Her family could be quick to throw a lawsuit because of something that happened or didn't happen.

The FDA is just the necessary evil that we need to have in place.