The FDA
needs to show more concern for Americans and less
concern for drug company profits.
By Mick
Youther
A fast spreading
hepatitis attack has killed 3 and sickened more than
500, the biggest outbreak of food-borne hepatitis A in
the United States. Although this appears to be a local
public health failure, it highlights that certain
government agencies are failing in their mission to
protect the public.
Like so many things in
government, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
probably started out with good intentions. Now it acts
as though its primary function is to serve and protect
the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.
• "They've
lost their compass and they forget who it is that they
are ultimately serving. Unfortunately the public pays
for this, because the public believes that the FDA is
watching the door, that they are the sentry."--
Dr.
Lemuel A. Moye, University of Texas School of Public
Health, FDA advisory committee (1995-99) •
"FDA used to serve a purpose. A doctor could feel sure
that a drug he was prescribing was as safe as possible.
Now you wonder what kind of evaluation has been done,
and what's been swept under the rug."--
Dr. William
L. Isley, Kansas City, Mo. • “A survey
conducted by watchdog group Public Citizen found that at
least 27 medical officers whose job it is to review
drugs were sometimes ‘made to shade their reviews to be
more favorable toward a drug or to not present data
adverse to a drug before an advisory committee.’”--
Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News,
12/2/02• “The [FDA] experts are supposed to
be independent, but USA TODAY found that 54 percent of
the time they have a direct financial interest in the
drug or topic they are asked to evaluate.”--
USA
Today, 9/25/00 • "Either you play games or
you're going to be put off limits . . . a pariah. The
people in charge don't say, 'Should we approve this
drug?' They say, 'Hey, how can we get this drug
approved?' "--
Dr. John L. Gueriguian, a 19-year FDA
medical officer• “The [Prescription Drug
Users Act] has brought in lots of industry cash...In
return for its money, the industry got what it wanted:
speedier reviews and more approved drugs.’ What the
public got was unsafe drugs being approved only to be
recalled after they killed people.”--
The
International Coalition for Drug Awareness,
2/19/02• “[Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)] notes
that [the pharmaceutical] industry is not keeping
promises to conduct further safety studies of newly
marketed drugs: A report delivered to Congress in March
shows that happens with only 37% of regular drugs, 15%
of biotech products.”--
Cindy H. Dubin, Editor,
Pharmaceutical Formulation and Quality, April/May
2002• "It's shocking. How can you say,
'Release drugs to the market sooner,' and not know if
they're killing people?.... It really is a dramatic
statement of public priorities."--
Dr. Brian L.
Strom, chairman of Epidemiology, University of
Pennsylvania• “Overall, the [pharmaceutical]
industry has already spent more than $29 million in
lobbying this year, more than any other industry,
according to Political Money Line, a nonpartisan
Washington Web site.”--
Frederic J. Frommer, AP,
10/14/03• "… this committee and this
Congress jump when the drug industry says 'jump'; it
rushes to pass legislation when the drug industry wants
it to pass legislation. But we better not talk about
drug pricing or the impact of direct-to-consumer
advertising on health care utilization. Those topics are
taboo."--
Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH),
3/6/02• “The United States is the only major
country that allows the private inventor of a drug or
medicine to patent the discovery, even if it was made
with the help of a public grant, and to retain exclusive
rights to its production and sale, thereby avoiding
competition.”--
Wayne O'Leary, The Progressive
Populist, 8/1/02• “Industry prefers to sell
drugs by prescription because they can charge more since
insurance companies pay for them. Of course, industry
doesn’t care about the uninsured who have no money to
pay for the higher costs of drugs. These folks are
solicited for clinical trials to test new drugs ‘without
any cost’.”--
Alliance for Human Research Protection,
3/18/2002• "Currently, taxpayers fund the
development of drugs at the National Institutes of
Health, which in turn sells the drug to a corporation
for very little money…Once the drug company has control
of the product, they charge an exorbitant amount of
money to consumers."--
Joyce Marcel, Albion Monitor,
7/24/00 • “The FDA is responsible … for
advancing the public health by helping to speed
innovations that make medicines and foods more
effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the
public get the accurate, science-based information they
need to use medicines and foods to improve their
health.”--
FDA Mission Statement,
11/10/03The FDA needs to rededicate itself
to this mission. The safety of food and drugs must be
determined by unbiased testing conducted by unbiased
researchers. If not, the FDA stamp of approval means
nothing but trouble.