KENNEDY CALLS FOR COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF FDA CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

[paineinthearse]

http://www.kennedy.senate.gov/index_high.html

SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY CALLS FOR COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ON THE FDA'S DRUG ADVISORY PANELS
In response to the New York Times article detailing the financial ties between some FDA advisory panel members and the drug industry
February 25, 2005

----------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release
Contact: David Smith / Jim Manley
[phone]


"The revelations about hidden conflicts of interest among members of the committee that reviewed Vioxx, Celebrex, and Bextra emphasizes the need to restore public confidence in the FDA and its ability to protect the public health and safety of the American people. One step is to help restore that confidence is a great deal more transparency about how and why FDA makes the decisions it does. Minimizing conflicts of interest and full and complete disclosure of conflicts on public advisory committees is just one part of the more transparent FDA that the American people need and deserve. I look forward to working with the Administration to put reforms in place that achieve the best possible protections for the American people."

[Why Syzygy]

1. with all due respect to Senator Kennedy

this says NOTHING!

Like no one knew the FDA was in bed with the drug companies, ETC.?

But now we do! So, back to busines as usual.

Or am I reading this wrong?

[baby_bear]

3. Not sure what you mean, votesomemore

When you refer to the FDA being in bed with the drug companies, are you talking about the career employees? The political appointees? The "independent" review boards from people not employed by FDA to review and make recommendations? This is a very complicated issue.
I think Kennedy is right to require potential conflicts of interest by review board members to be transparently published for all to see, but I also think there are enough qualified independent scientists in the subject matters to not need to include people who have even the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

b_b

[Why Syzygy]

4. I guess I was mainly referring to

"The revelations about hidden conflicts of interest among members of the committee that reviewed Vioxx, Celebrex, and Bextra ... "

I don't have an organizational chart for the FDA. Just going by what the OP writes.

Yes, I agree. It is a good recommendation.

Maybe I'm cynical. If this were the beginning of the ouster of the pharmcos from public policy, count me in.
I'm afraid it is just more rhetoric.

It would be nice to be wrong.

[proud patriot]

2. Right On

:D