The Merck/FDA problem.

[Christoph]

This is a good topic to mention the word "LOBBYISTS"

 

[Guest]

First off, generally speaking people do not leave jobs in the regulatory agencies to take jobs at the big pharma companies.

Generally, people in GOVERNMENT agenciess walk over the corporate/gov. lines, back and forth. I.e., Richard Perle, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney (you think he's not going straight back to Haliburton in 2008?), Giuliani, etc.

I suggest looking at historical evidence first. Sure, Xioxx or whatever that drug is called slipped through the net and had a long term detrimental effect on heart health. But, to take the example of one drug and broadbrush the entire regulatory process is a cheap shot.

Yes, VIOXX has been a problem--so have been at least 5 drugs, THIS YEAR ALONE, that are being or are on the verge of being recalled. Pfizer is just as under fire as Merck, as are several other companies.

the stock price took an immediate 30% hit. So, how exactly did this help the 'profit' of said pharma company?

It would've helped the company if their several-year cover-up of potentially negative results had been successful, and if large numbers of people getting sick from the drug hadn't come forward.

As if corruption were LEGAL at the present time??

Have you heard of Political Action Committees? Lobbbyists? Corporate sponsorship? Political donations? Slush funds? Soft money? The 2000 election? Jeb Bush? Karl Rove?

 

[Guest]

YOUR scenario sure as hell isn't just "human nature", it's out-and-out CORRUPTION, if it's done intentionally. Let's hope that it's rare, if it occurs at all.

Bryan

Do not hope against out-and-out CORRUPTION, legislate against it.

As if corruption were LEGAL at the present time??

Bryan

corruption is illegal because of legislation, not in spite of it

Ty

 

[Bryan]

YOUR scenario sure as hell isn't just "human nature", it's out-and-out CORRUPTION, if it's done intentionally. Let's hope that it's rare, if it occurs at all.

Bryan

Do not hope against out-and-out CORRUPTION, legislate against it.

As if corruption were LEGAL at the present time??

Bryan

corruption is illegal because of legislation, not in spite of it

Yes. Which means we don't need to go legislate against it, it's ALREADY been legislated against! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Guest]

YOUR scenario sure as hell isn't just "human nature", it's out-and-out CORRUPTION, if it's done intentionally. Let's hope that it's rare, if it occurs at all.

Bryan

Do not hope against out-and-out CORRUPTION, legislate against it.

As if corruption were LEGAL at the present time??

Bryan

corruption is illegal because of legislation, not in spite of it

Yes. Which means we don't need to go legislate against it, it's ALREADY been legislated against! :wink:

Bryan

The law and corrporate culture are not an immovable set of rules forever carved in stone, when you say 'it's ALREADY been legislated against' does that mean we never have reason to visit any law governing corrporate activities? For example it is seen that an embryonic culture of self-help is developing between a large pharmachutical and a branch of the FDA.

 

[Guest]

Yes. Which means we don't need to go legislate against it [corruption], it's ALREADY been legislated against!

Bryan: What are you talking about? You sound like a little kid in kindergarten saying, "We don't need to make rules against badness, because we already have rules." Corruption is not a specific problem to be corrected by policy. Corruption is the rust of policy, the badness, so to speak, in politics. Pray tell: if we WERE to legislate against it, how would we illegalize badness?

 

[The Gardener]

Who cares. The roads are paved, the trash collector comes regularly, my utilities work, and my hair is lookin' faaaantastic. God Bless America!

 

[Bryan]

Yes. Which means we don't need to go legislate against it [corruption], it's ALREADY been legislated against!

Bryan: What are you talking about? You sound like a little kid in kindergarten saying, "We don't need to make rules against badness, because we already have rules." Corruption is not a specific problem to be corrected by policy. Corruption is the rust of policy, the badness, so to speak, in politics. Pray tell: if we WERE to legislate against it, how would we illegalize badness?

???

I really don't have a CLUE what you're talking about. Are you saying, for example, that nobody has ever gone to jail for accepting a bribe?? :wink:

Bryan

 

[pilogenic101]

You can't have it both ways. People complained that it took too long for a new drug to get approved, so the FDA streamlined their approval process, and guess what --some not so good drugs are sneaking thru. I think the FDA can be more vigilant without slowing down the approval process significantly, though. Personally, I have never had to take anything stronger than aspirin, and I like it that way.

 

[blue]

I love these topics....everyone has different views yet everyone also thinks their right..fun fun

 

[Guest]

Are you saying, for example, that nobody has ever gone to jail for accepting a bribe??

Yeah, when they're caught flagrantly accepting one. I'm SAYING no one goes to jail for accepting contributions to their campaign from pharmaceutical companies. I'm SAYING no one goes to jail for submitting to the influence of PACs. I'm SAYING no one goes to jail for accepting a job at Merck, fresh out of the FDA; or vice-versa.

I really don't have a CLUE what you're talking about.

I repeat: like they said every day in first grade at 12 o'clock, reading time, my man. Reading time. Pick up the Times, or the Nation, or the New Yorker, or some printed form of news that isn't the Wall Street Journal or USA Today.

 

[Bryan]

Are you saying, for example, that nobody has ever gone to jail for accepting a bribe??

Yeah, when they're caught flagrantly accepting one. I'm SAYING no one goes to jail for accepting contributions to their campaign from pharmaceutical companies. I'm SAYING no one goes to jail for submitting to the influence of PACs. I'm SAYING no one goes to jail for accepting a job at Merck, fresh out of the FDA; or vice-versa.

And I'm SAYING you haven't built a case for the assumption that accepting a job at Merck, fresh out of the FDA (or vice-versa) is a sure sign of corporate/government hankey-pankey! :wink:

Bryan

 

[The Gardener]

What is wrong with accepting campaign contributions? Withough campaign contributions, candidates could not campaign? You would go to the polls to vote for President, or whatever, and see a list of names and have no idea what any of them stand for.

That is why things like advertising, holding the convention, and having debates are important. It lets the public know what issues the candidates will be addressing. Have you ever thought about how that sh*t gets paid for? Well, the campaigns, and the political parties pay for it, and they get their money from campaign contributions.

The $5 to $10 dollar pidley contributions that you and I might make to a campaign ain't gonna cut the mustard. So, they get money from corporations, interest groups, labor unions, etc. If you ever look at the websites that list contributions, you will also see that most corporations give fairly equally to both parties.

Everyone thinks that Corporations are bad and evil.. blah blah blah. Think about who puts bread on the tables of the vast majority of Americans. Corporations do. Think about who gives the largest amounts of money to the charitable organizations that help the suffering here and abroad. Corporations do. Think about who pays the most taxes to support our government's cost. Corporations do. Think about who transports food to your home, who makes the medicines that keep you healthy, and who keeps your home warm in the winter. Corporations.

I'm not a CEO, not a 'Republican' and not even a very large 'stockholder' but I get really tired of people talking about corporations like they are all about evil. They do a LOT to give us the lifestyle we enjoy, and perhaps they DESERVE a prominent voice in a lot of issues.

 

[The Gardener]

Additionally, I don't see a big problem with someone who used to work at Merck or wherever taking a job with the FDA. I mean, if someone is going to regulate an industry, one would hope that they have some background in it? Would you rather that the FDA regulator job go to a person who has a background in real estate, or architecture, or something? How effective would that be? You wouldn't hire a clown to fix a leak in the john.

 

[hair mchair]

Additionally, I don't see a big problem with someone who used to work at Merck or wherever taking a job with the FDA. I mean, if someone is going to regulate an industry, one would hope that they have some background in it? Would you rather that the FDA regulator job go to a person who has a background in real estate, or architecture, or something? How effective would that be? You wouldn't hire a clown to fix a leak in the john.

I think the bigger problem is someone at the FDA getting a job at a pharmaceutical company, and this creates a possible conflict of interests while the individual in question is employed with the FDA.

 

[Bryan]

I think the bigger problem is someone at the FDA getting a job at a pharmaceutical company, and this creates a possible conflict of interests while the individual in question is employed with the FDA.

Can doctors/scientists have positions with the FDA and drug companies simultaneously?

Bryan

 

[Temples]

You can't have it both ways. People complained that it took too long for a new drug to get approved, so the FDA streamlined their approval process, and guess what --some not so good drugs are sneaking thru. I think the FDA can be more vigilant without slowing down the approval process significantly, though. Personally, I have never had to take anything stronger than aspirin, and I like it that way.

What's interesting is that I heard on the radio last week that if aspirin were a new med, it wouldn't get approved.

 

[Guest]

And I'm SAYING you haven't built a case for the assumption that accepting a job at Merck, fresh out of the FDA (or vice-versa) is a sure sign of corporate/government hankey-pankey!

Yeah, good call--let's make it OK for people who regulate the products drug companies produce to later accept jobs from said companies; not much chance of anyone wanting to grease the wheels of the corporate cogs there.

What is wrong with accepting campaign contributions?

Our current candidates/the 2000 election/our campaign system. That's what's wrong. Unless, of course, you're cool with raising money having anything to do with the success or failure of a given candidate. John McCain (a Republican) and Russ Feignhold have a problem with it, and so do I.

advertising, holding the convention, and having debates are important. It lets the public know what issues the candidates will be addressing. Have you ever thought about how that sh*t gets paid for? Well, the campaigns, and the political parties pay for it, and they get their money from campaign contributions.

The government pays for much of this; I could do with less advertising, not more; and debates are paid for by the networks that sponsor them.

If you ever look at the websites that list contributions, you will also see that most corporations give fairly equally to both parties.

Wrong again. If you ever look at the websites that list contributions--from such esteemed corporations as K-Mart, Walmart, Target, Fred Meyer, McDonalds, etc.--you'll find they give overwhelmingly to Republicans (the ones listed above do); sometimes to Democrats, but rarely are the contributions even-handed.

Think about who puts bread on the tables of the vast majority of Americans. Corporations do.

Wrong again. Americans do. I think you're putting the cart ahead of the horse. Corporations don't exist without one pivotal factor: labor. And it used to be--say, from the end of WWII through the seventies--that yes, corporations provided many opportunities for work. Now corporations are so globalized and focused on outsourcing, manufacturing is an all but nonexistent vocation--even such white-collar jobs as information technology has been sent out of the country to India. Our trade and federal defecits are so dire the less-than-liberal World Bank and International Monetary Fund are sweating bullets, and the dollar is on the brink of a major drop in value, to say nothing of the fact that various OPEC countries are about to unpeg their currency from the dollar. Saddam was about to, remember what happened to him? My point being, US corporations manufacture all but nothing in the US, and US labor is outsourced at every opportunity. Don't talk to me about corporations putting food on the table. Oregon, Ohio, Washington, etc. haven't experienced this economic largesse.

Think about who pays the most taxes to support our government's cost. Corporations do.

Excuse me, 1999 Man, but have you been awake the past 4 years? Were you living in the country when Bush made tax-cuts for corporations and the wealthy the main pillar of his economic policy? When he cut taxes AGAIN during a WAR that he STARTED?

Think about who transports food to your home, who makes the medicines that keep you healthy, and who keeps your home warm in the winter.

Uhh, since when did "corporations" become my mother/fire place?

I'm not a CEO, not a 'Republican' and not even a very large 'stockholder'

No, you're just another uninformed American who has been granted the unfortunate right to vote. When your social security gets privatized and disappears in the mist of the next recession, when your company cuts your benefits and your country continues to refuse you health care, and when your company finally finds a way to make YOU redundant, then wax poetic about the magnanimous spirit of the corporations you now lather thickly with vapid encomiums.

 

[The Gardener]

Yeah, good call--let's make it OK for people who regulate the products drug companies produce to later accept jobs from said companies; not much chance of anyone wanting to grease the wheels of the corporate cogs there.

If an FDA regulator accepts a job at a corporation, what could he possibly do at that job to 'grease corporate cogs'? What do you mean by that?

Sure, the FDA employs people from the food and drugs corps. Would you rather have our food drugs regulated by people who came out of the construction industry?

Our current candidates/the 2000 election/our campaign system. That's what's wrong. Unless, of course, you're cool with raising money having anything to do with the success or failure of a given candidate. John McCain (a Republican) and Russ Feignhold have a problem with it, and so do I.

I agree with Feingold/McCain. I never said that campaign contributions weren't excessive.. I just said that I'm glad that corporations, labor unions, and interest groups are paying for them, and not ME.

advertising, holding the convention, and having debates are important. It lets the public know what issues the candidates will be addressing. Have you ever thought about how that sh*t gets paid for? Well, the campaigns, and the political parties pay for it, and they get their money from campaign contributions.

The government pays for much of this; I could do with less advertising, not more; and debates are paid for by the networks that sponsor them.

And, where does the government get the vast majority of their money? Taxes from Corporate activity. The networks do NOT pay for the debates. They are forced by law to offer up airtime for them gratis.

If you ever look at the websites that list contributions, you will also see that most corporations give fairly equally to both parties.

Wrong again. If you ever look at the websites that list contributions--from such esteemed corporations as K-Mart, Walmart, Target, Fred Meyer, McDonalds, etc.--you'll find they give overwhelmingly to Republicans (the ones listed above do); sometimes to Democrats, but rarely are the contributions even-handed.

I disagree. Some corporations give more to Republicans, some give more to Democrats. However, this is somewhat balanced out by labor unions who give almost exclusively to Democrats.

Think about who puts bread on the tables of the vast majority of Americans. Corporations do.

Wrong again. Americans do.

What?!? Go into a grocery store and look at what you buy to eat. Unless you are some hunter/gatherer type, corporations provide you your food. And they do so at much lower prices than if you went into some sort of non-capitalist 'barter' economy with mom and pop producers.

I think you're putting the cart ahead of the horse. Corporations don't exist without one pivotal factor: labor. And it used to be--say, from the end of WWII through the seventies--that yes, corporations provided many opportunities for work.

Exactly! I think you are seeing the light.

Now corporations are so globalized and focused on outsourcing, manufacturing is an all but nonexistent vocation--even such white-collar jobs as information technology has been sent out of the country to India.

That is tough. America is a capitalist country. If somebody can do something cheaper, that means I can buy those products for lower prices. Do you have some sort of grudge against India? Or, do you believe that free markets, which I believe is part and parcel with freedom in general, only applies to Americans, but the rest of the world can screw itself?

Our trade and federal defecits are so dire the less-than-liberal World Bank and International Monetary Fund are sweating bullets, and the dollar is on the brink of a major drop in value, to say nothing of the fact that various OPEC countries are about to unpeg their currency from the dollar. Saddam was about to, remember what happened to him? My point being, US corporations manufacture all but nothing in the US, and US labor is outsourced at every opportunity. Don't talk to me about corporations putting food on the table. Oregon, Ohio, Washington, etc. haven't experienced this economic largesse.

Oregon, Ohio, and Washington have a standard of living amongst the top 5% in the world. If you think that sheltering America from competition is going to improve our standard of living or make the world a better place, I disagree on both.

Think about who pays the most taxes to support our government's cost. Corporations do.

Excuse me, 1999 Man, but have you been awake the past 4 years? Were you living in the country when Bush made tax-cuts for corporations and the wealthy the main pillar of his economic policy? When he cut taxes AGAIN during a WAR that he STARTED?

The war is stupid, I agree. And Bush did cut taxes for corporations... but you still haven't refuted my point.

Think about who transports food to your home, who makes the medicines that keep you healthy, and who keeps your home warm in the winter.

Uhh, since when did "corporations" become my mother/fire place?

Your home is heated by energy, provided by corporations. Would you rather that energy distrubution be turned over to the jurisdiction of the US Postal Service?

I'm not a CEO, not a 'Republican' and not even a very large 'stockholder'

No, you're just another uninformed American who has been granted the unfortunate right to vote.

I'm not uninformed, I just have a different opinion than you. I didn't attack you personally, so why are you attacking me personally? Back in debate class, you would lose points for that. Personal attacks are usually a sign that the attacker has no further ammunition left to address the issue, so instead he tries to make assumptions about his debate opponent to discredit him personally.

When your social security gets privatized and disappears in the mist of the next recession, when your company cuts your benefits and your country continues to refuse you health care, and when your company finally finds a way to make YOU redundant, then wax poetic about the magnanimous spirit of the corporations you now lather thickly with vapid encomiums.

Sink or swim buddy. The world is a'changing very quickly and your employment situation is YOUR responsibility, not the government's. I'm not counting on my social security, I prefer to 'make my own luck' so-to-speak, and I save my own money. Personally, I wish I didn't have to pay social security. If I get laid off, its my own fault. Like I said, in life, you have to make your own luck... and keep your resume fresh. In a very competitive and capitalist country, you have to be an active participant, be flexible, and stay on your toes. For every American who wants a lifetime sweet deal from their job, there are 100 Chinese or Indians who would work their *** off for the same opportunity. It's not nice, but it is an inevitablity and we just have to learn how to dance faster.

I don't think you understand... this is an inevitability. No protectionism nor John McCain nor Feingold can ever stop this. We need to be more competitive, and a healthy corporate environment is one of the few things this country has going for it, given that relative to the rest of the world, we demand some VERY high wages for skills that they can do just as well.

 

[hair mchair]

I think the bigger problem is someone at the FDA getting a job at a pharmaceutical company, and this creates a possible conflict of interests while the individual in question is employed with the FDA.

Can doctors/scientists have positions with the FDA and drug companies simultaneously?

Bryan

I worded that poorly. What I meant was someone at the FDA getting a job at a pharmaceutical company AFTER LEAVING THE FDA. The Gardener's scenario was the exact opposite - someone leaving a pharmaceutical company to go work at the FDA. I see more problems with the first scenario, although I suppose you could argue that someone at the FDA who still has stock options in the pharmaceutical company at which he was previously employed might also have a vested interest in the financial fortunes of that company. I'll do some research to see if I can cite some examples of either situation happening.