3 ms·

> This dissipates any doubt I had about the influence of lobbying. Who are you accusing of lobbying here? It's pretty clear from the article that the primary

> This dissipates any doubt I had about the influence of lobbying. Who are you accusing of lobbying here? It's pretty clear from the article that the primary advocate for this drug is the military (DoD). > Like is not fentanyl strong enough to address every possible medical use case for a powerful opioid? Strength is not something that's assessed along a one-dimensional axis, much as popular reporting on opiates and pharmaceuticals would have you believe.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
whoisjuan 8y ago
> Who are you accusing of lobbying here? AcelRx, the pharmaceutical company that produces and distributes DSUVIA. You understand how lobbying works right? Even if the Department of Defense is advocating for the use of a drug, they don't have any input on the safety of whatever they are advocating for. This is the role of the FDA. AcelRx happens to have something that the DoD wants so they lobby for its approval. In this case, DoD, FDA, and AcelRX are all different parties but is clear that AcelRX is the only party that will benefit financially from this. Just from an anectodical perspective, so you can understand how this works, check ACRX stock closing price today. It closed 16% up today. Just because the DoD is advocating for this drug, that doesn't mean that there's no pharmaceutical lobbying behind this. By that logic then all defense contractors and weapon manufacturers wouldn't have to lobby as much as they do.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > You understand how lobbying works right? Yes, I do. There's no need to be condescending. > clear that AcelRX is the only party that will benefit financially from this The DoD benefits as well. > Just because the DoD is advocating for this drug, that doesn't mean that there's no pharmaceutical lobbying behind this. Thr converse applies too. Just because FDA approved a drug that the military wanted, that doesn't mean that the approval was the result of their lobbying.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

whoisjuan 8y ago

> Who are you accusing of lobbying here? AcelRx, the pharmaceutical company that produces and distributes DSUVIA. You understand how lobbying works right? Even if the Department of Defense is advocating for the use of a drug, they don't have any input on the safety of whatever they are advocating for. This is the role of the FDA. AcelRx happens to have something that the DoD wants so they lobby for its approval. In this case, DoD, FDA, and AcelRX are all different parties but is clear that AcelRX is the only party that will benefit financially from this. Just from an anectodical perspective, so you can understand how this works, check ACRX stock closing price today. It closed 16% up today. Just because the DoD is advocating for this drug, that doesn't mean that there's no pharmaceutical lobbying behind this. By that logic then all defense contractors and weapon manufacturers wouldn't have to lobby as much as they do.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> You understand how lobbying works right? Yes, I do. There's no need to be condescending. > clear that AcelRX is the only party that will benefit financially from this The DoD benefits as well. > Just because the DoD is advocating for this drug, that doesn't mean that there's no pharmaceutical lobbying behind this. Thr converse applies too. Just because FDA approved a drug that the military wanted, that doesn't mean that the approval was the result of their lobbying.