
FDA Repays Industry by Rushing Risky Drugs to Market - onychomys
https://www.propublica.org/article/fda-repays-industry-by-rushing-risky-drugs-to-market
======
refurb
Wow. What a terrible and one-sided article. It’s apparent the author has
little understanding of how the FDA and drug approval works.

Yes, all drugs have side effects and yes, some drugs will be approved and
later pulled from the market when we have more data. It is impossible to fully
vet a drug in clinical trials. It’s meant to reduce the risk, not eliminate
it.

And yes, drug manufacturers pay most of the FDA budget. That’s by design and
there is zero evidence that it has an impact on the FDA’s independence.

~~~
deweller
> there is zero evidence that it has an impact on the FDA’s independence

This is a strong claim. Do you have any proof? Has anyone studied this?

~~~
refurb
I think the fact the FDA has rejected plenty of drugs for companies who have
been “working the system” is proof enough.

Generally manufacturers are scared of the FDA. They have a lot of power and
aren’t afraid to use it.

------
mc32
The new regime began in earnest in 2011. The FDA is also now making it easier
to obtain experimental drugs for terminal illnesses.

There are some negative side effects, but overall, so long as there is full
disclosure of known issues (we may need to improve upon this) I think people
are better served by having a wider choice of medicines to address their
ailments. Pro publica, here, is not being pro public but more anti pharma for
unknown reasons.

It’s distateful when public interest orgs transform into political orgs with
agendas.

~~~
DannyBee
"It’s distateful when public interest orgs transform into political orgs with
agendas."

Okay, so what exactly do you think public interest orgs are?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Okay, so what exactly do you think public interest orgs are?

Public interest organizations represent the diffuse general public against
concentrated power, e.g. when the EFF pushes back against Hollywood lobbying
for retroactive copyright term extensions.

The issue is to avoid an "us vs. them" frame, because not everything MegaCorp
wants is against the public interest. There is a public interest in having
access to more medicine. It's counterproductive to fight something that helps
everyone just because it also helps MegaCorp.

~~~
DannyBee
The OP said was distasteful when they turn into "political orgs with a
political agenda".

The EFF is in fact, a political org with a political agenda. They don't
pretend otherwise.

Whether they are working on behalf of the public all depends on your relative
viewpoint.

Pretty much all of them believe they are working on behalf of the public, even
the ones HN would classify as industry lobbying orgs, etc.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> The OP said was distasteful when they turn into "political orgs with a
> political agenda".

There is a difference between political in the sense that all legislation is
political, and politics as an "us vs. them" tribal conflict where anything
which is bad for your opponents is good for you and vice versa. Having anyone,
but public interest orgs especially, participate in the second kind of
politics is distasteful.

------
XalvinX
Related article some may find interesting:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/fda_inspections_fraud_fabrication_and_scientific_misconduct_are_hidden_from.single.html)

~~~
mmt
This is probably the best refutation to the (currently top) sub-thread about
this article being one-sided.

> It does so not only by passive silence, but by active deception. And despite
> being called out numerous times over the years for its bad behavior,
> including from some very pissed-off members of Congress, the agency is
> stubbornly resistant to change. It’s a sign that the FDA is deeply captured

------
RickJWagner
"Between 2011 and 2015, the FDA reviewed new drug applications more than 60
days faster on average than did the European Medicines Agency."

At least the article didn't try to imply it's a new problem, which might drum
up some clicks. Kudos for integrity that way.

