4 ms·
It's about being suspicious of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA, which has a revolving door that has been abused. The FDA has never been held to account
by steelstraw 5y ago
It's about being suspicious of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA, which has a revolving door that has been abused.
The FDA has never been held to account for its improper handling of the opioid crisis. But the FDA’s conduct is all the more troubling in light of the close relationship between the agency officials responsible for opioid oversight and opioid manufacturers. For example, the 2 principal FDA reviewers who originally approved Purdue’s oxycodone application both took positions at Purdue after leaving the agency. Over the past 20 years, several other FDA staff involved in opioid approvals also left the FDA to work for opioid makers. Last January, the head of the FDA’s analgesic division retired from the FDA to start her own consulting business, which promises drug makers “help” to “successfully and efficiently bring your products to market” with “more than 30 years of experience at the FDA.”
To be clear, the revolving door between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry is not limited to opioids. A 2018 study found that 11 of 16 FDA medical reviewers involved in approving 28 products now work for the companies whose products they regulated. Without appropriate limits on employment after leaving the FDA, staff might be tempted to put the interests of future employers, whose favor they wish to gain, ahead of public health.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-fda-failures-contributed-opioid-crisis/2020-08 https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-fda-failure...
- avs733 5y agoDo you have any evidence to support that accusation in the last paragraph or is it just a hypothesis that you linked to minimally related other facts?
- ghufran_syed 5y agoyou mean prove that conflict of interest is real? Isn’t that something that any experience with human behavior would confirm quite easily? Do we need to prove that judges should not receive money from one of the parties in a lawsuit they are presiding over?