New house bill addresses COIs for EPA scientific panels

[DrMA]

Why did they limit this good policy to EPA? All agencies should be subject to this common sense rule against blatant conflicts of interest.

http://io9.com/house-passes-a-bill-that-restricts-scientists-from-adv-1661140635

See also the recent federal court decision on COIs within the FDA TPSAC.

 

[Kent C]

Why did they limit this good policy to EPA?

Get the biggest offender first

 

[DrMA]

Get the biggest offender first

Lol. If only... IMO FDA is a much bigger offender than EPA.

 

[Kent C]

Lol. If only... IMO FDA is a much bigger offender than EPA.

Every federal, state, county, municipal gov't has EPA restrictions on any development, construction, pollution (even if it's 'their' definition of pollution only), and even PC considerations that range far and wide, even to exports to other countries.

 

[Nate760]

Lol. If only... IMO FDA is a much bigger offender than EPA.

Why, just because every single person in their leadership and upper management came from the pharma industry?

 

[DrMA]

Why, just because every single person in their leadership and upper management came from the pharma industry?

Exactly. While EPA has a lot of rules impacting a lot of places, like Kent said, the corruption and cronyism is far thicker at FDA.

 

[AndriaD]

Exactly. While EPA has a lot of rules impacting a lot of places, like Kent said, the corruption and cronyism is far thicker at FDA.

I've also thought, for years, that doctors have some inside thing going with pharmaceutical companies -- prescribe a certain quota, and get some kind of kickback. It's like a freaking epidemic, tell your doc about some symptom or other, and he reaches for the prescription pad. And people go along with it like obedient little sheep, because a doctor surely wouldn't prescribe something that one didn't REALLY need... Especially the geriatric crowd; my parents have literally got pills for pills, because half the pills they take cause some other problem that also requires a pill. It's a total racket.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

Earlier, it was noted that the OMB’s 2013 Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations presented a range of costs of $14.8 billion to $19.5 billion. Well over half of that is attributed to the EPA: $8.3 billion is EPA exclusively, and another $5.3 billion to $8.8 billion is ascribed to the EPA and Department of Transportation’s fuel economy standards.81 Overall, this author ascribes $379 billion in annual costs as an estimate for the EPA’s impact.

Crews, Tip of the Costberg, “Environmental Protection Agency,” 2014, pp. 68–78.

http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Wayne Crews - Ten Thousand Commandments 2014.pdf

 

[csardaz]

Confusing. FDA has a pharma revolving door and its easy to see FDA as pharma-dominated. EPA overly restricts chemical and energy company scientists from its advisement. I worked for a bank for 15+years - yet feal in no way influenced by the banking industry. Clearly some of the best scientists applied their craft and worked for companies who use their science - are they all beholden? FDA needs less industry entanglement and EPA would benefit more from the most expert scientists that work for industry. Clearly COI is not just once worked for someone with an interest.

 

[DC2]

Especially the geriatric crowd; my parents have literally got pills for pills, because half the pills they take cause some other problem that also requires a pill. It's a total racket.

My father has pills for pills, and other pills for other pills.
If you aren't paying attention and doing due diligence, they can continue to pile up.

I recently undertook a mission to understand this growing pile of pills and attempt to reduce them.
With the help of his doctor we have eliminated some, and reduced his intake of others.

This never would have happened had I not stepped in and insisted on taking this course of action.
Given his condition it is hard to determine if he is doing any better, but he definitely isn't doing any worse.

It seems to me this should have been the doctor's job, not mine.

 

[AndriaD]

My father has pills for pills, and other pills for other pills.
If you aren't paying attention and doing due diligence, they can continue to pile up.

I recently undertook a mission to understand this growing pile of pills and attempt to reduce them.
With the help of his doctor we have eliminated some, and reduced his intake of others.

This never would have happened had I not stepped in and insisted on taking this course of action.
Given his condition it is hard to determine if he is doing any better, but he definitely isn't doing any worse.

It seems to me this should have been the doctor's job, not mine.

I think it illustrates very clearly that BP doesn't give a ratsass for anyone's health; they release medicines that they KNOW will cause some other problem, just so they can sell even more pills and make more money. If the FDA would concentrate more on BP's nefarious money-grubbing game plan and less on everything else they extend themselves to worry about (like, oh, nicotine?), we'd ALL be a lot better off. I mean, wasn't it the WHOLE POINT of the FDA, to keep charlatans from marketing dangerous drugs to the public? Lydia Pinkham's Cure-all Tonic? Yet now they let all the dangerous drugs into the market willy-nilly just 'cause they're in bed with BP, and give us all this worry and headache about NICOTINE!

I think the FDA needs to be completely eradicated and re-built from the ground up, and no one who's EVER been employed by BP need apply.

Andria

 

[Nate760]

I think the FDA needs to be completely eradicated and re-built from the ground up,

Agreed, and the first step needs to be removing it from the executive branch and making it a politically independent agency. If our monetary policy is important enough to be protected from political entanglement, why should public health policy be any different?

 

[AndriaD]

Agreed, and the first step needs to be removing it from the executive branch and making it a politically independent agency. If our monetary policy is important enough to be protected from political entanglement, why should public health policy be any different?

Wish I could like this 10,000 times, and send it to Wash DC!!!

Andria