Are US Regulatory Agencies Beholden To Private Interests?

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So in a different thread, @ B Braydon made the following claim:

Saying the FDA would protect us if it's dangerous? That's a joke right? The FDA does what ever it's lobbied or bribed to do, it has nothing to do with health and safety.

And also:

I'm sorry, why do you think the government allows them to get away with anything they want?

Far from me to be considered a statist, but this kind of blind rejection of government sources as biased or unreliable bothers me. Not the least of which because places like the CDC are actually really solid, reliable places to get information on disease and medicine. And you can find it all over the place. Virtually anyone who believes in alternative medicine is quick to point out how their treatment is suppressed by the FDA and the like. People like Stanislaw Burzynski have made a killing off this kind of thing, and when they get shut down because they have yet to show that their treatment actually works (and also have serious ethical violations, destroy patient records, and show huge conflicts of interest at their internal review boards), they're quick to claim that the government is going after them because "Big Pharma" doesn't want them to know the TRUTH.

So, are these regulatory agencies paid off? And if they are, how could we tell?

Well, one good way would be to assume they are, and see if they show behavior consistent or inconsistent with that.

To take the FDA as an example. The FDA does approve genetically modified foods. This is consistent with the FDA being paid off by Monsanto. It is also consistent with the FDA doing its job of ensuring that the foods and drugs on the market are safe, as every GMO currently on the market has undergone significant scientific examination, the overwhelming majority of which has shown no negative effects. So that's kind of a wash. How 'bout drugs? Well, the FDA approves many safe medications for on-label uses. This is consistent with the FDA being paid off by Big Pharma. This is also consistent with the FDA doing its job, so long as the safety studies hold up to scrutiny. So there's one way we could tell - are they accepting subpar safety studies, or dangerous drugs?



Here's something the FDA does which directly contradicts the idea that they're paid off. They reject drugs from major manufacturers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/26/us-avanir-fda-migraine-idUSKCN0JA2BS20141126
http://www.webmd.com/multiple-sclerosis/news/20131230/fda-rejects-ms-drug-lemtrada
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-rejects-oral-testosterone-replacement-drug-rextoro-1411074915
http://www.drugs.com/nda/apf530_130402.html
http://www.pharmatimes.com/article/14-05-17/FDA_rejects_Novartis_heart_failure_drug_serelaxin.aspx

And by googling "FDA rejects drug" you can find countless more examples where the FDA rejected a drug - either due to side-effects that were not outweighed by the benefits, or due to inadequate study design.

I'm not sure about other government organizations, but I'm fairly sure the FDA isn't "bought". Same with the CDC. Am I missing something? Are there other government organizations that are significantly "paid off" by business interests?

 

[EarthCrash]

This is a very interesting thing to talk about, and it's great that it started off with a well-researched response towards an ignorant view on certain government agencies.

 

[FaYu]

So in a different thread, @ B Braydon made the following claim:


And also:


Far from me to be considered a statist, but this kind of blind rejection of government sources as biased or unreliable bothers me. Not the least of which because places like the CDC are actually really solid, reliable places to get information on disease and medicine. And you can find it all over the place. Virtually anyone who believes in alternative medicine is quick to point out how their treatment is suppressed by the FDA and the like. People like Stanislaw Burzynski have made a killing off this kind of thing, and when they get shut down because they have yet to show that their treatment actually works (and also have serious ethical violations, destroy patient records, and show huge conflicts of interest at their internal review boards), they're quick to claim that the government is going after them because "Big Pharma" doesn't want them to know the TRUTH.

So, are these regulatory agencies paid off? And if they are, how could we tell?

Well, one good way would be to assume they are, and see if they show behavior consistent or inconsistent with that.

To take the FDA as an example. The FDA does approve genetically modified foods. This is consistent with the FDA being paid off by Monsanto. It is also consistent with the FDA doing its job of ensuring that the foods and drugs on the market are safe, as every GMO currently on the market has undergone significant scientific examination, the overwhelming majority of which has shown no negative effects. So that's kind of a wash. How 'bout drugs? Well, the FDA approves many safe medications for on-label uses. This is consistent with the FDA being paid off by Big Pharma. This is also consistent with the FDA doing its job, so long as the safety studies hold up to scrutiny. So there's one way we could tell - are they accepting subpar safety studies, or dangerous drugs?



Here's something the FDA does which directly contradicts the idea that they're paid off. They reject drugs from major manufacturers.

And by googling "FDA rejects drug" you can find countless more examples where the FDA rejected a drug - either due to side-effects that were not outweighed by the benefits, or due to inadequate study design.

I'm not sure about other government organizations, but I'm fairly sure the FDA isn't "bought". Same with the CDC. Am I missing something? Are there other government organizations that are significantly "paid off" by business interests?

A closer look at the modus operandi of the FDA unmistakably reveals that this federal agency mostly protects big corporate money instead of public health (read thru this: do a search engine query for "Tougher Supplement Regulation: A Necessity Or Politics?" by Rolf Hefti). That means that "FDA approval" of anything isn't a sign of scientific validity but mostly of big corporate favoritism over the interests of public health.

The CDC and any other US government entity is not much different because corporate fascism rules not democracy(read "Occupy World Street" by Jackson, and watch the documentaries “America: Freedom To Fascism” by Aaron Russo and “An Unreasonable Man -A Documentary About Ralph Nader” by Mantel & Skrovan). Ever heard of the recent vaccine scandal committed by the CDC?

The FDA rejecting certain drugs is like how some drug companies get fined occasionally and pay penalties for fraud: it's part of doing business for this industrial-federal cartel and it gives the deceptive public impression that the federal authorities are actually looking out for your well-being (read "The Medical Mafia" by Ghislaine Lanctôt). It's all part of the corrupt game.

Only official propaganda (and people repeating the hype) testifies that the FDA or the CDC are "really solid, reliable places to get information on disease and medicine."

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

A closer look at the modus operandi of the FDA unmistakably reveals that this federal agency mostly protects big corporate money instead of public health (read thru this: do a search engine query for "Tougher Supplement Regulation: A Necessity Or Politics?" by Rolf Hefti). That means that "FDA approval" of anything isn't a sign of scientific validity but mostly of big corporate favoritism over the interests of public health.

Okay, not sure why you couldn't have gotten the link yourself, but I'm assuming you mean this:
http://www.supplements-and-health.com/supplement-regulation.html

The first thing that sprung out at me was that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, "Orthomolecular Medicine News Service". A journal which ranks up there with the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" in terms of reliability, impartiality, and impact factor. Oh joy, we're doing this little dance again.

It starts out with a big fat strawman - improved FDA regulations on supplements and vitamins are not asked for out of safety concerns, but rather efficacy concerns - the issue being predominately that most supplements don't actually do anything.

Then we hit what we're actually here for.

Alluding to Berman's statement above, the public health authorities (like the FDA) and the conventional medical industry continue to remind the public how stringent and solid the decrees are regulating traditional medical products and services such as pharmaceutical medications. For example the FDA announced that:

“Prescription drugs must undergo clinical testing and receive the FDA's full review for safety and effectiveness before they are sold.” [2]

Henceforth, advocates of the medical orthodoxy, and “evidence-based” medicine (EBM) in particular, press for supplement regulation mandating that health supplements get rigorously tested and approved for safety and efficacy, akin to prescription drugs and other medical interventions [3].

I love how they refer to evidence-based medicine as though it was a bad thing; as though we shouldn't base our knowledge of medicine on a hierarchical assembly of knowledge. As if we shouldn't rely on solid, clinical evidence for the efficacy of treatment. Not to be a **** here, but if your source is disparaging EBM, find a new source for medical information, because these guys are either selling you something or are nuts.

Moving on,

Yet, the fact remains that:

“[...] many treatments used in conventional medicine have not been rigorously tested, either, […].” [3] [emphasis added]

Guys, it's 2014. There is no ****ing excuse for not having inline citations. There just isn't. I could write you a PERL script to automatically inline all of these citations, or at least have the numbers link to the place on the bottom of the page where they're clustered, rather than needing to scroll all the way down to find the source of this claim. Which is this article, in which it is a throwaway line not further elucidated. The authors do not explain what they're talking about in any way. It's not impressive as a source, and if I had not found the article in question, I would have rejected this as a quote mine.

The proper administration of all prescription drugs, products supposedly backed by randomized controlled studies and clinical drug trials, and...

... approved by the FDA for “for safety and effectiveness before they are sold”(!)...

... kills over a hundred thousand people every year in the US [4-9].

And, the government agency has full knowledge about this enormous human damage...

Ah, the deadly doctor gambit. A favorite of alternative medicine, particularly those in the supplements industry and homeopathy. After all, it's quite difficult to have negative side-effects when your treatment has no effects.

The fact is that many drugs, particularly those for things like cancer, have known negative side-effects. Side-effects that can be kind of nasty. But then again, even aspirin can kill you. These side-effects are generally well-explored. Haven't you ever read the warning labels on the drugs you take? I bet your doctor has. There's a reason that for many of these, we require a trained medical professional to say, "you need this drug" - because pharmacology is a difficult and complex field.

To throw out this hundred-thousand figure with no context whatsoever is misleading and dishonest. It completely ignores why we use drugs like this in the first place. And for what it's worth, if a drug actually is shown to be a legitimate danger that is not justified by its positives, that drug does not get approved. Remember Vioxx? The scandal there wasn't "the FDA approved this dangerous drug". It was "the manufacturer buried test results that they didn't like so that the FDA would approve it!"

The fact is that when Peter Gøtzsche says this:

"First of all, the public needs to know the extent to which they are being deceived in the current system, e.g. few people know that prescription drugs are the third major killer. If drug testing and drug regulation were effective, this wouldn’t happen."

I just can't agree. He shows a very low understanding of how complex the human body is and how difficult medicine can be. Can we have some examples please? Like, drugs that aren't worthwhile? Because these figures torn from context don't get us anywhere. These things happen, regardless of the case, and all we can do is figure out which drugs are worth the risks and which are not. Indeed, the larger problem is doctors overprescribing drugs. Most of these drugs have legitimate uses, but if you give someone who's barely above the norm anti-cholesterol medication, then that's part of the problem. But this has very little to do with the FDA. Honestly, this article is aggregating everything wrong with our modern medical system (and there are problems) and blaming it on the FDA, in an attempt to make its later claims of conspiracy more plausible.

And then the article lies by omission about Vioxx (see my previous statement about it), and we're done. I'm sorry, this source is crap. They're appealing to lousy sources, using really bad arguments, refuse to get to the point, and the article is a huge pain in the ass to fact check because you constantly have to flip back and forth to find out where the damn sources are. In terms of medical articles, it's your typical alt-med, anti-science screed - disparate facts taken out of context with bad arguments that will fool people who don't know what they're talking about. But if you understand the review process, if you understand how medicine works, you can very quickly see how bad these arguments actually are.

The FDA rejecting certain drugs is like how some drug companies get fined occasionally and pay penalties for fraud: it's part of doing business for this industrial-federal cartel and it gives the deceptive public impression that the federal authorities are actually looking out for your well-being (read "The Medical Mafia" by Ghislaine Lanctôt).

And of course, your source is a book. A book by an insane conspiracy theorist. And that is your only source for this incredibly tall claim. I love how this is. If the FDA approves bad drugs, it's proof that there's a conspiracy. If the FDA doesn't approve bad drugs, it's proof that the conspiracy is careful to avoid detection. Is there any way to falsify this? Any way to show that this isn't the case? This is conspiracy theory 101 - any time something threatens the conspiracy theory, just expand it to make room. In this case, the fact that the FDA quite often rejects big-ticket items from major manufacturers is... because they didn't pay their dues? To fool the public? You don't see anything questionable about this logic?

See, the problem here is, nothing could prove this wrong. No matter what the FDA does, no amount of them doing their job could possibly demonstrate that they aren't bought and sold. There's no falsifiability here. There's no place where you'd ever have to say, "Okay, I might be wrong". And when that's the case, you've abandoned rational discourse. Using these sorts of mental contortions, I could "prove" to you that we did not land on the moon. Hell, I could prove that the moon doesn't exist!

Conspiracy theorizing is a colossal waste of everyone's time.

The CDC and any other US government entity is not much different because corporate fascism rules not democracy(read "Occupy World Street" by Jackson, and watch the documentaries “America: Freedom To Fascism” by Aaron Russo and “An Unreasonable Man -A Documentary About Ralph Nader” by Mantel & Skrovan).

Yeah... I'm not going to read or watch those. Books and documentaries on issues like this are often a practical lesson in how far down the rabbit hole people are willing to go. They're also massively time-consuming, and your last source already ate up half an hour and I didn't even get 1/8th of the way through it. Also, you'd have to give me a good reason to want to read them, because your last source was total junk, and you go on to talk about...

Ever heard of the recent vaccine scandal committed by the CDC?

Indulge me, will you? I think I know what you're talking about, but I'm interested to see how badly you botch the science on this one.

Oh, and welcome to Smashboards. Enjoy your stay.

 

[FaYu]

@ Budget Player Cadet_:

Thank you for the warm welcome.

But I've rarely seen so much rage, irrationality, nonsense and hyperbole come out of a potty mouth at one time. Any hope of a decent discussion of anything with you would be total illusion and a total waste of time.

Im asking myself if you are representative of this online group or just a childish oddball troll..

 

[Braydon]

@ Budget Player Cadet_:

But I've rarely seen so much rage, irrationality, nonsense and hyperbole come out of a potty mouth at one time. Any hope of a decent discussion of anything with you would be total illusion and a total waste of time.

Im asking myself if you are representative of this online group or just a childish oddball troll..

Well there are only two of them regularly, but they sure do talk a lot. There are people who aren't like that on here though, at I guess a decent enough rate for an internet forum.



@ Budget Player Cadet_
Your argument against @ F FaYu 's argument seems to hinge on the idea that these supplements, primarily vitamins, that almost any doctor will prescribe to someone deficient in said vitamin, can actually be harmful. Outside of ODing by taking a bottle of iron pills, there aren't going to be negative effects to taking vitamins or other supplements, these aren't drugs.

Vitamins are widely proven to be beneficial you know...

And anyway you openly admit to taking drugs which have far less evidence supporting them being safe...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@ Budget Player Cadet_
Your argument against @ F FaYu 's argument seems to hinge on the idea that these supplements, primarily vitamins, that almost any doctor will prescribe to someone deficient in said vitamin, can actually be harmful.

No? Not even close? In fact, I quite explicitly said in the first segment:

It starts out with a big fat strawman - improved FDA regulations on supplements and vitamins are not asked for out of safety concerns, but rather efficacy concerns - the issue being predominately that most supplements don't actually do anything.

And the entire rest of my post was completely independent of whether or not supplements are safe or effective. Reading is fundamental; reading the post you respond to is just common sense.

Vitamins are widely proven to be beneficial you know...

Yeah - if you're suffering a deficiency. If you're not (like the vast, vast majority of people living in the west who are the primary market for such supplements), then all you're doing is giving yourself expensive pee.

http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-s...xperts-dont-waste-your-money-on-multivitamins
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...nts-a-ruse-by-any-other-name-is-still-a-ruse/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...our-money-down-the-toilet-in-expensive-urine/

In fact, dietary supplements as a whole are almost completely unregulated, and what little research there is shows strong indications that it doesn't actually do anything - that they have no effects.

And anyway you openly admit to taking drugs which have far less evidence supporting them being safe...

Yeah, but most people taking multivitamins don't take them for fun. Either way, this is almost completely off topic. As said, my rejection of his source was based on it being long, hard to read, and using incredibly distorting and dishonest arguments. It had nothing to do with supplements being safe or effective.

Also, @ F FaYu , I'm sorry, but I simply see no reason to believe your sources show any merit. They show all the typical signs of woo - the same typical bad arguments you could get from homeopaths and the like. I might have kept slogging through it if it wasn't so obnoxious to fact-check, but as is, nah. Not gonna. And then the rest of your sources are documentaries and books, including one from someone who is really, really crazy. And you appeal to anti-vax manufactroversy du jour. Let's just say that while I may be irate, you clearly don't know the first thing about source analysis.

Look, let's make it simple. You think the FDA is approving drugs that are dangerous and should not be approved? Well, make your case. Not with a book, not with a 10,000-word screed like that last article, but with a few examples. Name me some drugs, their side effects, their intended uses, and make a case for why they should not have been approved. If I had to do that, I reckon I could get it done in under 500 words. It would be quick and easy to read and make a damn good point, far better than just pointing to out-of-context numbers of people who died from prescription drugs and spiraling off into conspiracy theories from there.

But here's the thing. I don't think you can do that. If you could, why would you be pointing to those aforementioned out-of-context numbers? Why would your sources be appealing to the deadly doctor gambit? Why wouldn't they just point to these cases and say, "Here, here, here, and here, these are evidence the FDA isn't doing its job"?