Sometimes I get a little
weary about the laxity in standards in this country. I really wonder if there
is a company‒anywhere‒who 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment