The FDA has an established protocol for approving an NRT as pharma product. It also has a history here and a constituency of companies (Big Pharma) that it has guided ("forced") down this path for years. The FDA and these constituents have a lot at stake. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal highlighted the fact that Glaxo and other manufacturers of NRT are looking to take the labeling off these products that recommend discontinuance after 12 weeks, acknowledging that many ex-smokers will use gum, lozenges and patches for the rest of their lives. The article highlighted the fact that a one to two week supply of Nicorette gum will cost a consumer $50 to $70. Compare that to what most of us are using and what that costs. This is about the money, it always has been. To say it shouldn't matter to the FDA and its constituents is profoundly naive.
SE, NJoy vs FDA -- Discussion
- Thread starter rolygate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Add to that, that often times when an excutive person at the FDA leaves that position they are often going to an excutive position with one of the large pharmaceutical companies. There is a great incentive for them to cater to the pharmaceutical company's wants and wishes.
Here's something I was completely unaware of. More icing on the cake! I'm not sure how this conflict of interest is even allowed, let alone tolerated.
Edit: It's akin to taking the country's top Mob figures and putting them in charge of all legalized gambling & prostitution.
Last edited:
It's a long-standing issue with government officials flip-flopping between government regulatory jobs and jobs in the private sector which they regulated. Oil, pharmaceuticals and agriculture have all been exposed to have this happening, yet the practice continues. The movie Food, Inc. showed the links between the FDA and USDA and agricultural industry jobs (pitting farmers against huge companies like Monsanto and it's seed monopoly & crusade to allow genetically modified food) and the oil spill in the gulf showed how inspectors had jobs with oil companies. The ties between FDA and other government officials and huge companies like GlaxoSmithKline should come as no surprise. Yet when people try to point it out, the public still thinks "crazy conspiracy theory." 
They are, aren't they?
The conflicts of interest are precisely what the FDA is now being called to account for. This started with Mike Siegel, after the TSPAC was first appointed, continued with BT suing them over it, and now they have the CRE asking questions.
The thing is, now that we have the internet, it is MUCH harder for them to hide their corruption.
The conflicts of interest are precisely what the FDA is now being called to account for. This started with Mike Siegel, after the TSPAC was first appointed, continued with BT suing them over it, and now they have the CRE asking questions.
The thing is, now that we have the internet, it is MUCH harder for them to hide their corruption.
It's a long-standing issue with government officials flip-flopping between government regulatory jobs and jobs in the private sector which they regulated. Oil, pharmaceuticals and agriculture have all been exposed to have this happening, yet the practice continues. The movie Food, Inc. showed the links between the FDA and USDA and agricultural industry jobs (pitting farmers against huge companies like Monsanto and it's seed monopoly & crusade to allow genetically modified food) and the oil spill in the gulf showed how inspectors had jobs with oil companies. The ties between FDA and other government officials and huge companies like GlaxoSmithKline should come as no surprise. Yet when people try to point it out, the public still thinks "crazy conspiracy theory."
The double standard is very interesting. If you dealt with government contractors when you were in the military, you are prohibited from going to work for them for several years after you get out. Many private companies have high ranking employees sign non-compete agreements agreeing not to go to work for the competition or to start their own business in competition with the employer.
So why is this not required of high-ranking government agency employees?
That type of non-compete agreement is essentially industry-standard ... no matter really what type of specialty industry you happen to be in. This is a very good question, indeed. Why aren't government employees with this type of likely conflict held to the same standards as the rest of us private-sector folk?
Jan
The crazy thing is that it isn't just one direction. People holding government jobs leave their givernment position (sometimes it's because of an administration change) go to the private sector in what they were regulating and then go BACK into another regulatory government position a fe years later, overseeing the industry they just worked for! If they left the public job and went into the private sector and stayed there it'd be one thing, but to them to flip-flop between public & private sectors is just unjustifiable.
Thanks, Julie. You have a great weekend too.Nothing to report on any of the dockets today. Have a great weekend!
But no doubt quite lucrative. Ultimately, who ends up lining their pockets? U & Me
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
