Bureaucracy at the FDA
The Washington Post claims that the FDA is broken, but not in the way you think. Rather than arguing that the bureaucratic administration at the FDA costs taxpayers money and time that some patients do not have, the Washington Post is calling for more bureaucracy. Experts are saying that the FDA does not make drugs safe enough, and have recommended a variety of policy changes. Foremost among them are a ban on consumer advertising of some new drugs and increased funding. Many drugs that have passed the FDA’s approval would thus be available only to those patients who had the time and ability to actively search them out and even then they would cost more. Luckily, I am not alone in my disgust. The director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Steven Galson, also has some healthy distrust of government solutions and is quoted as saying, "Creating a new bureaucracy is rarely the right answer." Rock on Sir. Galson.
Oh my god, that fricken sucks. My dad has MS and he has a hard enough time finding out about new treatments and/or better ones, and this new bureaucracy is gonna delay the release of a cure if their ever is one. And the FDA might ban it if there’s something like a .002 percent risk if it does ever come out.
To be or not to be is a question of insecurity, know thyself.
i blogged about this, or a similar WaPo article here on bureaucrash. read it
doinki¢arus for Minister of Economics
The decisions of the higher authorities are carried into effect by means of murder or torture, or threats of one or the other, according to whether they offer resistan