5 ms·

FDA manipulates the media. That's one part. The other part: FDA is controlled by the companies that come under its umbrella. Think of the fox guarding the hen

by finid 10y ago

FDA manipulates the media. That's one part. The other part: FDA is controlled by the companies that come under its umbrella. Think of the fox guarding the hen house. So in the final analysis, those companies control the media. But it gets better; sometimes, the parent company of a media company is in some sort of partnership with the companies that control the FDA.

bpodgursky 10y ago
Did you even read the article? The main example that broke the news about this was when the FDA announced regulations about e-cigarettes. The tobacco interests were staunchly opposed to the regulations, and the FDA wanted to prevent NPR + other journalists from getting comment from them. Try to actually read before injecting your politics.
- spdustin 10y ago
  Yes, and that proves the GP's point. The tobacco industry are the ones who'll remain largely unaffected by that ruling because they are grandfathered in from certification requirements. Oh, and also, they own a considerable size of the disposal e-cig market, so the relevant ruling effectively extinguishes the smaller players who sell re-usable kit. So the interested media (who cover tobacco legislation) were kept out. So... The companies pulling the strings of the FDA were able to control the messaging of the ruling to make it about "we're in support of this" rather than "we're removing all our competition by employing the FDA as our market enforcer"
- SparkyMcUnicorn 10y ago
  But finid still isn't wrong and you aren't either. The FDA definitely seems to be controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. I guess sometimes these industries step on each others toes getting things done, and in the e-cig case pharma won over tobacco. P.s. friendly note that your first sentence is against HN rules.
- finid 10y ago
  Sorry, I don't depend on breaking news before I become familiar with something that affects me. How the FDA operates, or how it is operated, is no news for those who have been following the FDA. So the e-cig regulation was no news. I wish how food companies where allowed to market a particular type of cereal as good for you made the breaking news reel. And before you say there's solid science behind it, wasn't there an article the other day about how food companies control(led) food and nutritional scientists? I always try to look at the big picture, not just a breaking news item.
seehafer 10y ago
> The other part: FDA is controlled by the companies that come under its umbrella. Think of the fox guarding the hen house. People who work at companies that come under its umbrella wish that were true. It's not. There is a revolving door and a lot of pressure back and forth but the relationship is a lot more complicated than "pharma owns the FDA". There are some fire-breathing regulators there (who think they're the only thing preventing Big Pharma from selling us poison) who would slap your face if you told them that.
- Fordrus 10y ago
  No no no, we people who come under its umbrella wish that it wasn't a FOX guarding the henhouse, but rather, a reliable dog. Instead, if we extend the metaphor, the fox that's guarding the henhouse is taking measure to make sure that the chickens are safe from everyone but him, and that fox is getting HUGELY STRONG from chicken dinner ever night, and walks back out into the forest and beats up all us other foxes. We'd love him to be locked out of the henhouse, or even, if necessary, for all us foxes to equally be able to access the henhouse, but instead we've got a massive, roid-raging fox terrorizing the forest, and it's freaking annoying. The idea here is that small, powerful parts of BIG pharma do functionally control the FDA, and they use the FDA to manipulate the market in their favor - and to the detriment of all smaller players in that space. The fire-breathing regulators out there, they're useful idiots in that battle - convince them of some threat, and like an attack dog, they'll go after it. That wouldn't be so bad, but it's just that some players in big pharma are holding the leash and dictating (or at least strongly influencing) which targets to hit and how to hit them. (edit: I don't mean to say that some people who work under the FDA's oversight don't feel like you said in your comment, but I'm asserting that in my experience, we feel somewhat differently than that - I felt I should clarify, because you may work there yourself, and the way I put it up above, I sort of excluded the possibility of anyone feeling that way. It's not that I don't disagree with you here, it's that I don't mean to disagree disagreeably. :) )
- refurb 10y ago
  Agreed. Just take a look at some of the recent FDA decisions that absolutely slapped down the biggest pharma companies. I've worked in the industry for a while and I would say most big pharma tiptoes around the FDA since they can literally make or break you.

by finid 10y ago

bpodgursky 10y ago

Did you even read the article? The main example that broke the news about this was when the FDA announced regulations about e-cigarettes. The tobacco interests were staunchly opposed to the regulations, and the FDA wanted to prevent NPR + other journalists from getting comment from them. Try to actually read before injecting your politics.

spdustin 10y ago
Yes, and that proves the GP's point. The tobacco industry are the ones who'll remain largely unaffected by that ruling because they are grandfathered in from certification requirements. Oh, and also, they own a considerable size of the disposal e-cig market, so the relevant ruling effectively extinguishes the smaller players who sell re-usable kit. So the interested media (who cover tobacco legislation) were kept out. So... The companies pulling the strings of the FDA were able to control the messaging of the ruling to make it about "we're in support of this" rather than "we're removing all our competition by employing the FDA as our market enforcer"
SparkyMcUnicorn 10y ago
But finid still isn't wrong and you aren't either. The FDA definitely seems to be controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. I guess sometimes these industries step on each others toes getting things done, and in the e-cig case pharma won over tobacco. P.s. friendly note that your first sentence is against HN rules.
finid 10y ago
Sorry, I don't depend on breaking news before I become familiar with something that affects me. How the FDA operates, or how it is operated, is no news for those who have been following the FDA. So the e-cig regulation was no news. I wish how food companies where allowed to market a particular type of cereal as good for you made the breaking news reel. And before you say there's solid science behind it, wasn't there an article the other day about how food companies control(led) food and nutritional scientists? I always try to look at the big picture, not just a breaking news item.

seehafer 10y ago

> The other part: FDA is controlled by the companies that come under its umbrella. Think of the fox guarding the hen house. People who work at companies that come under its umbrella wish that were true. It's not. There is a revolving door and a lot of pressure back and forth but the relationship is a lot more complicated than "pharma owns the FDA". There are some fire-breathing regulators there (who think they're the only thing preventing Big Pharma from selling us poison) who would slap your face if you told them that.

Fordrus 10y ago
No no no, we people who come under its umbrella wish that it wasn't a FOX guarding the henhouse, but rather, a reliable dog. Instead, if we extend the metaphor, the fox that's guarding the henhouse is taking measure to make sure that the chickens are safe from everyone but him, and that fox is getting HUGELY STRONG from chicken dinner ever night, and walks back out into the forest and beats up all us other foxes. We'd love him to be locked out of the henhouse, or even, if necessary, for all us foxes to equally be able to access the henhouse, but instead we've got a massive, roid-raging fox terrorizing the forest, and it's freaking annoying. The idea here is that small, powerful parts of BIG pharma do functionally control the FDA, and they use the FDA to manipulate the market in their favor - and to the detriment of all smaller players in that space. The fire-breathing regulators out there, they're useful idiots in that battle - convince them of some threat, and like an attack dog, they'll go after it. That wouldn't be so bad, but it's just that some players in big pharma are holding the leash and dictating (or at least strongly influencing) which targets to hit and how to hit them. (edit: I don't mean to say that some people who work under the FDA's oversight don't feel like you said in your comment, but I'm asserting that in my experience, we feel somewhat differently than that - I felt I should clarify, because you may work there yourself, and the way I put it up above, I sort of excluded the possibility of anyone feeling that way. It's not that I don't disagree with you here, it's that I don't mean to disagree disagreeably. :) )
refurb 10y ago
Agreed. Just take a look at some of the recent FDA decisions that absolutely slapped down the biggest pharma companies. I've worked in the industry for a while and I would say most big pharma tiptoes around the FDA since they can literally make or break you.