Thursday, September 21, 2017

Taking $ from FDA Bad for Public Health


Sometimes I get a little weary about the laxity in standards in this country. I really wonder if there is a companyanywherewho wouldn’t do anything it takes to sell its products. Legal or illegal, moral or immoral, whatever it takes, as long they didn’t get caught.

For instance, there is a popular soda pop company that started selling its beverage in the 1800s. To insure a steady stream of customers, the company laced its drink with cocaine, which company officials knew was addicting. After addiction became epidemic, and hospital wards were swarming with newly minted cocaine addicts, the government stepped in and put a stop to the practice of drugging Americans in an attempt to get them to buy more of the company’s  soft drinks. Question: Do you think for a minute this company would not again begin the practice of lacing its beverages with cocaine if it was thought they could get away with it? And how do we know it’s not happening now? Can government agencies be trusted to periodically check the products of the beverage companies for addicting drugs. How can we be sure that a fat check sent to, say, the FDA couldn’t persuade one of its officers to turn the other way when samples of drug-laced beverages are submitted for testing?

You would likely think, Well, aren’t there rules to prevent such a practice?

The answer is, yes there are.

You might ask, Don’t American taxpayers pay the government (through taxation), which in turn pays the salaries of FDA officials to enforce the rules to protect those who eat, drink, and use medications approved by this department of the government?

You would think the answer would be an unequivocal Yes! But you would be only half right.

You see, the government pays only a part of the money that supports the FDA. Guess who pays the other part. If you said the industry that the FDA was created to oversee, you would be right.

Unbelieveable, given the sleezy reputation of the pharmaceutical companies, but absolutely true.

Since the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992, which says companies seeking approval for new drugs or drug updates must fork over user fees to the FDA, the pharmaceutical companies pay half the support for the agency. Before 1992, we taxpayers paid the whole bill, which, it would seem, makes the process much safer.  Remember, the drug companies are the ones who publicly say they will finance the testing of such-and-such experimental drug, but when the results don’t support the theory, they secretly discontinue testing, rearrange the data and submit bogus results for approval. The 1992 law says forget all the expensive preparation and just submit the crapola. We’ll take care of everything. Doesn’t that make you feel safe, though?

As this report is a bit out of sync with what I usually write, perhaps an explanation is in order. The reason I bring this up (seeing as the law has been in effect for 25 years) is that, according to statnews.com  Trump budgeteers plan to reduce the FDA’s budget by one billion dollars in the 2018 budget. The plan will mean that drug companies cough up higher user fees than in the past. Big Pharma is not accustomed to losing money via reduced profits and so can be expected to recoop what they can. Higher product prices, of course, but the most disturbing aspect is the possibility of “buying” the approval of a drug that may not be ready just yet. Or ever be ready.

I don’t think reducing the funding available for the proper inspection of medicines sold to the public is a safe and proper way to save money. There must be other places from which money can be removed that isn’t so potentially deleterious to public health.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

How "Her"icanes Got Their Names


I’ve been wondering about all of these hurricanes and I’m pretty happy we don’t live anywhere near where hurricanes are.

If you thought Katrina was bad, back in ’05, Harvey was a complete disaster and it appears Irma was no pussy cat.

I began wondering about the names of hurricanes, so I did what most citizens in the Internet world do: I googled it. ( Google is, as you must know, the most important verb in the English language. It is the answer to almost any question and has been known to open up the whole world for those who avail themselves of it. But you must be sure not to let Google know too much about you, as the company has an intimate relationship with the feds.)

My first question regarding the names of hurricanes is where the names came from. Before 1979 all hurricanes had female names (a system begun in 1953)Gloria, Agnes, Hermione(?)but a group of women with nothing better to do with themselves, probably the NOW gang, thought it sexist that “her”icanes all were given women’s names. The issue was brought up in Congress (who very seldom has enough to do or when it does, very seldom does anything appropriate about it.) and a law was passed that made it a requirement that half of the she-named storms had to have boys names. So now we have Andrew, George, Rico and Jose and so on and on.

Something I didn’t know (or suspect)is that storms are named six years in advance. There are lists for the next six years. For example, this year hurricanes with such names as Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Don, Emily, Franklin, and Gert have blown through someplace, and then as we by now know, Harvey, Irma, and perhaps, Katia, and if there are more storms, they’ll be called Lee, Maria, Nate and Ophelia, etc. I didn’t know hurricanes were prenamed. I had always thought some guy at the weather service said, “Okay, folks, here comes another one. Let’s put our heads together and think up a name. U-m-m let's see, we need a female name that begins with an “R”. Okay?” Next year the first three storms will be tagged Alberto, Beryl and Chris; in 2019, Andrea, Barry and Chantel. In 2023, a rotation of the same names used from 2017 through 2022 starts all over again.

There is, of course, an exception to the rule. If a storm is so deadly or costly that the use of its name for future storms would be considered inappropriate for (now hold onto your hats!) reasons of insensitivity, its name will be deleted from upcoming  lists. Yep. I hadn’t realized we needed to be concerned with the feelings of storms, but as we are so sympathetic to almost every other thing, it wasn’t hard to see it coming. (Yeah, I know what they meant, but it's fun to make fun of.)

For example, the name Camille (1969) was stricken from the list; Agnes has been stricken (as per the storm of 1972), Andrew because of its devastation in 1992; and Catrina, Dennis, Rita, Stan and Wilma (as per the storms of ’05); Sandy in 2012; Just last year the names Matthew and Otto were erased. There are many others (as our sensitivity increases). I just discovered my own namesakeFredericwas scratched in 1979, but I have no weepy feelings about it (but I’ll bet it got a bum rap).

There no doubt that we will never hear about another Harvey again. Or an Irma. It’s said Jose may linger for several days before assailing the Atlantic coast at some point. And “Katia” is out there someplace, destination unknown. Whether we’ll see either of the latter two on a list again is, at this point, a question mark. Let’s just say we hope not.