Now, this is a bit ironic...

[vidcc]

It was a question raised by this

The FDA has a track record of being extra-strict in drugs hitting the market. .

to the safety...well look at the recent problem with vioxx as an example.

to the effectiveness it was more the type of drugs being approved

many new drugs are developed to make drug companies and their shareholders more profit, not to offer new treatments and certainly not to offer cures.

only roughly15%-20% (i can't remember the artical i read that but i think it was time magazine) of drugs approved by the FDA in the decade upto 2000 were cited as offering significant clinical advantage over drugs already on the market. a vast majority of research & developement dollars are spent on developing drugs that simply compete with existing drugs already on the market, so drug company A can try to rip sales away from drug company B. What’s more, most drug makers won’t even consider developing drugs for rare diseases because there is little promise of profit.

[hobbes]

Yes, Vioxx is a rare example. You call the FDA too slow, yet you want to get upset when a complication occurs. If we want 100%, don't expect to see any drugs soon.

What you are not taking into account are the drugs that never make it. The problems you never see, because they are caught.

Who gets AIDS from blood products? No one, thanks to the FDA. The FDA sets up a lot of overly-protective measures, that sometimes require factories to be overhauled. As in the vaccine case, the companies just say, "screw it".

What drug companies choose to make is their own business. They apply for FDA approval, the FDA does not tell them what to make.

As for rare diseases, that is what academic centers and government grants are for.

Drug companies are businesses, not charities.

I don't mind people who question their government, or wonder if there is a better way, but your attitude seems to be rather cynical. Your purely speculative postulate about the FDA more reflects your attitude than their incompetence.

You're wandering further and further from the point of the thread. You say the FDA is probably not stricter, they are probably just slow. And their drugs are not safe or effective and I don't like the drugs they are making,.....

Where are you going. Does everything we do in America have to be bad? If I refute every point, will you say you don't like the color of their building.

I feel like I'm trying to hit a moving target.

[vidcc]

Yes, Vioxx is a rare example. You call the FDA too slow, yet you want to get upset when a complication occurs. If we want 100%, don't expect to see any drugs soon.

I just responded to your point about the FDA being strict by asking if you felt strictness meant safe.. I didn't say they were "too slow" i said they may not be as fast as their counterparts.....then i replied to your asking for more infomation about "safety" and then "effectiveness" and in that post i only mentioned the FDA once when i was talking about the drugs that had been approved had been drugs whos research and developement money was used to produce drugs that purely compete with existing drugs. The one mention of the FDA was to say that the drugs had been approved

What you are not taking into account are the drugs that never make it. The problems you never see, because they are caught.

How do you know what i do or do not take into account ? If i posted about every aspect i would need several pages just for one post

Who gets AIDS from blood products? No one, thanks to the FDA. The FDA sets up a lot of overly-protective measures, that sometimes require factories to be overhauled. As in the vaccine case, the companies just say, "screw it".
Isn't that what the FDA is supposed to do? what is your point? that i am suggesting the FDA is pointless?.... A problem was identified and the solution was put in place
What drug companies choose to make is their own business. They apply for FDA approval, the FDA does not tell them what to make.
Who said they did? My point was THE DRUG companies saying they need to charge high prices to fund research but spend a very large amount of the money to produce competative drugs and not new drugs
As for rare diseases, that is what academic centers and government grants are for.

Drug companies are businesses, not charities.

But we were talking about prices the drug companies charge...the point was raised that they need to charge high prices for research...they also charge these high prices for drugs they are licensed to produced using research gained from public money

I don't mind people who question their government, or wonder if there is a better way,
And could i just be asking if they could be more efficient?

but your attitude seems to be rather cynical. Your purely speculative postulate about the FDA more reflects your attitude than their incompetence.
WHat attitude would that be?
You're wandering further and further from the point of the thread.
And you are on thread?

You say the FDA is probably not stricter, they are probably just slow. And their drugs are not safe or effective and I don't like the drugs they are making,.....
The FDA makes drugs?
Are you suggesting that no other countries are as strict?
Repeat :I just responded to your point about the FDA being strict by asking if you felt strictness meant safe

Where are you going. Does everything we do in America have to be bad? If I refute every point, will you say you don't like the color of their building.
Show me where i said the FDA got everything wrong.... My problem with the FDA has little to do with the approval of new drugs, I haven't put any case about the FDA other than saying they are part of the overal problem with high prices...i haven't said why.
I feel like I'm trying to hit a moving target.

The target is stationary...on this occasion i feel the hunter may be on the tailgate of the pickup with the drunk redneck driving

[Everose]

Yes, Vioxx is a rare example. You call the FDA too slow, yet you want to get upset when a complication occurs. If we want 100%, don't expect to see any drugs soon.

What you are not taking into account are the drugs that never make it. The problems you never see, because they are caught.

Who gets AIDS from blood products? No one, thanks to the FDA. The FDA sets up a lot of overly-protective measures, that sometimes require factories to be overhauled. As in the vaccine case, the companies just say, "screw it".

What drug companies choose to make is their own business. They apply for FDA approval, the FDA does not tell them what to make.

As for rare diseases, that is what academic centers and government grants are for.

Drug companies are businesses, not charities.

I don't mind people who question their government, or wonder if there is a better way, but your attitude seems to be rather cynical. Your purely speculative postulate about the FDA more reflects your attitude than their incompetence.

You're wandering further and further from the point of the thread. You say the FDA is probably not stricter, they are probably just slow. And their drugs are not safe or effective and I don't like the drugs they are making,.....

Where are you going. Does everything we do in America have to be bad? If I refute every point, will you say you don't like the color of their building.

I feel like I'm trying to hit a moving target.

Hobbes, I never really expected the large drug companies to be charities, never really expected them donate their products to the public out of good will only. But after reading of Pfizer's large donations of product to the tsunami victims......is that not charity?

[hobbes]

The FDA is a cumbersome foe to overcome, and the requirements they put in place to ensure that a drug does not have serious side effects(clinical trials), that the drug you are getting is free of contamination and that it is the actual chemical you desire, drives up the cost of the drug.

Many people go to Europe to try new drugs because the process the FDA puts companies through is more demanding than abroad. Drugs we think are new have been around for years.

As for generic brands being elevated in cost here, I think it because our insurers are willing to pay that price. This falls hard on the out of pocket payer, to be sure, but those under insurance aren't bothered a lick.

In other countries, as Maxtor pointed out, the government pays a set price for the drug and thus it is available cheaper to it's citizens.

This is one of the reasons why drug costs are higher here.

Also the reason why my parents travel to Tijuana, Mexico to fill their prescriptions.


@Everose, you are not a charity either, but you can be charitable.

[Everose]

@Everose, you are not a charity either, but you can be charitable.[/QUOTE]




But Hobbes, my charity begins at home.

[Rat Faced]

I dont know enough about the FDA to know how it works.

I do know that there are drugs available in the USA that the UK Government refuse to license here.

I suspect there are probably cases the other way around too though..

....which also makes me suspect all sorts of "beneath the counter" arrangements on both sides of the pond in this area.