RE:RE:Let's pay More.jicoop wrote: woundedknee wrote: Obviously that heading, "Let's pay more" was sacasm. But this is happening between big Pharma and the FDA according to Project Veritas. It's all there on social media. YouTube, rumble etc. A recording of an FDA official revealed basically that the more you pay the FDA the quicker your drug is approved. In this case they( big pharma) are pushing for an annual booster shot for people 6 months and older that will bring in billions. And this is backed by President Biden. Can TLT compete with those large pockets?
I have been hinting this for years, that the FDA can be persuaded to make certain decisions. Plenty of evidence to find, just google oxycontin + FDA and you find tons of corruption. Thats why we need Health Canada or Europe or Asia to step up and get this through. Little read here :
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.11 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.”30 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.31 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.
The biggest problem imo is the fact that the FDA commissioner is a "political" appointee. It's never good policy to mix science with politics...imo, such policy simply invites the risk of scientific discovery & public health becoming subordinate to political agendas. Instead of allowing all miracles of science to be unleashed, many become diminshed/skewed/under or unrepresented & often funneled into the next Big Pharma slogan...connect the dots. JMO.