Can We Trust The FDA?

The Federal Food & Drug Administration just voted to keep Avandia on the market by a 8-7 vote...even though it has been proven to cause heart attacks. Can we trust the FDA to "protect" us?

Reference: http://www.diabetesauthor.com

Posted By themonk on November 1, 2007

You can subscribe to this Debate if you log in.

About themonk

Maybe I'm an over the hill hippie - Maybe I'm a renaissance reenactor - Maybe I'm just off-the-wall...BUT...I'm a middle aged guy with some strong opinions and not afraid to share them. I also happ...

Top Friends: ramrod Westcoast eastwind
Top Enemies: none
From_the_east

At least if the FDA approved a drug, then if something goes wrong you ca...

Posted By eastwind on November 6, 2007

Person_60

I have personally experienced the incompetency of the FDA first hand

Posted By ramrod on November 14, 2007

Image1

The FDA is a government agency that bows to special interest groups and $$$

Posted By themonk on November 1, 2007

Call For Backup

Invite others to join and support you in this debate. Or maybe you just want to pick a fight! Either way...

Call for backup now!

I think the FDA does a great job...

From_the_east

At least if the FDA approved a drug, then if something goes wrong you can sue them , lol

-- Posted By eastwind on November 6, 2007

Is the number of bad drugs that the FDA allows greater than the good? In other words, is it possible that we are making a big deal out of nothing? Just wondering, if it IS a big deal, is there a was to see heads roll?

4922

Yes, FDA should be trusted

-- Posted By colander on December 20, 2007

We have to believe in the competence and integrity of government agencies, otherwise, what else can we believe in? It is not infalliable but it does its best. Drugs and medicines are not a hard science and there may be side effects down the line that are not evident at first. At least we can hold FDA accountable. It is better for this Body to exist rather than there be no agency responsible for monitoring the safety, purity and efficacy of drugs

I can't imagine that this is a serious comment. The FDA like every other government agency is good to those who pay them the most. That is what politics has become, and the FDA is as political as any other government agency.
i agree with Ellavemia. if you have that much trust in our government faculties then you dont even know what a democracy is or what one should be. Its all about checks and balances, as soon as people dont question things anymore then you give them too much power. the FDA is not necessarily corrupt but not necessarily trustworthy either.
I think that allowing the government to do what its supposed to do is important, however i also think that assuming that it is always in the right is idiocy. That will lead to eventual abuse and fallacy.
Add Comment
4922

Yes, FDA should be trusted

-- Posted By colander on December 20, 2007

We have to believe in the competence and integrity of government agencies, otherwise, what else can we believe in? It is not infalliable but it does its best. Drugs and medicines are not a hard science and there may be side effects down the line that are not evident at first. At least we can hold FDA accountable. It is better for this Body to exist rather than there be no agency responsible for monitoring the safety, purity and efficacy of drugs

4922

Yes, FDA should be trusted

-- Posted By colander on December 20, 2007

We have to believe in the competence and integrity of government agencies, otherwise, what else can we believe in? It is not infalliable but it does its best. Drugs and medicines are not a hard science and there may be side effects down the line that are not evident at first. At least we can hold FDA accountable. It is better for this Body to exist rather than there be no agency responsible for monitoring the safety, purity and efficacy of drugs

4922

Yes, FDA should be trusted

-- Posted By colander on December 20, 2007

We have to believe in the competence and integrity of government agencies, otherwise, what else can we believe in? It is not infalliable but it does its best. Drugs and medicines are not a hard science and there may be side effects down the line that are not evident at first. At least we can hold FDA accountable. It is better for this Body to exist rather than there be no agency responsible for monitoring the safety, purity and efficacy of drugs

4922

Yes, FDA should be trusted

-- Posted By colander on December 20, 2007

We have to believe in the competence and integrity of government agencies, otherwise, what else can we believe in? It is not infalliable but it does its best. Drugs and medicines are not a hard science and there may be side effects down the line that are not evident at first. At least we can hold FDA accountable. It is better for this Body to exist rather than there be no agency responsible for monitoring the safety, purity and efficacy of drugs

4922

Yes, FDA should be trusted

-- Posted By colander on December 20, 2007

We have to believe in the competence and integrity of government agencies, otherwise, what else can we believe in? It is not infalliable but it does its best. Drugs and medicines are not a hard science and there may be side effects down the line that are not evident at first. At least we can hold FDA accountable. It is better for this Body to exist rather than there be no agency responsible for monitoring the safety, purity and efficacy of drugs

4922

Yes, FDA should be trusted

-- Posted By colander on December 20, 2007

We have to believe in the competence and integrity of government agencies, otherwise, what else can we believe in? It is not infalliable but it does its best. Drugs and medicines are not a hard science and there may be side effects down the line that are not evident at first. At least we can hold FDA accountable. It is better for this Body to exist rather than there be no agency responsible for monitoring the safety, purity and efficacy of drugs

4922

Yes, FDA should be trusted

-- Posted By colander on December 20, 2007

We have to believe in the competence and integrity of government agencies, otherwise, what else can we believe in? It is not infalliable but it does its best. Drugs and medicines are not a hard science and there may be side effects down the line that are not evident at first. At least we can hold FDA accountable. It is better for this Body to exist rather than there be no agency responsible for monitoring the safety, purity and efficacy of drugs

Are you kidding? The FDA is always approving drugs then withdrawing them.

Image1

The FDA is a government agency that bows to special interest groups and $$$

-- Posted By themonk on November 1, 2007

The FDA has a horrible track record. They have repeatedly approved drugs & medical devices that were later recalled or pulled off shelves. We can't trust them.

Whenever I see the phrase "FDA approved" I have to laugh because they have okayed an awful lot of bad drugs and other things. I think that money means more than public health to them.

I had a doctor who wanted to install a medical device in me. He insisted it was safe because the FDA had okayed it. I declined and within a year the device was pulled off the market for causing more harm than good.

Wow thats pretty bad. I honestly believe that it is cheaper for the FDA to be sued than for it to follow the rules. There is way more money to be made through the trust of the ignorant.
True hahaha
Add Comment
Images

FDA: the lapdog of corporations.

-- Posted By CharlesDarwin on April 11, 2009

I won't doubt that the FDA does some of it's job.

Key word: some.

Yet, other times the FDA chooses to look in the opposite direction when it could harm a large corporation. Something smells fishy.

Person_60

I have personally experienced the incompetency of the FDA first hand

-- Posted By ramrod on November 14, 2007

I did a medical study for a anti depressant that was pulled off the market and had already been through phase one and two. It made everyone in my study so ill that they canceled. And they were selling this s$^t to people. .

I guess this is a situation where people directly effected would be more angry than a bystander. I think though that this is worth looking into.
Add Comment
Rss RSS