Failing the FDA

So the news is out that Vioxx can cause an increased risk of heart attack and strokes. And someone in the FDA actually met with resistance when he tried to warn of his findings back in August.

Dr. David J. Graham, associate director for science in the FDA Drug Center's Office of Drug Safety, told Senate investigators he faced stiff resistance within the regulatory agency to his findings.

"Dr. Graham described an environment where he was 'ostracized,' 'subjected to veiled threats' and 'intimidation,'" Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement after Finance Committee investigators interviewed the researcher Thursday.

Graham told The Associated Press that Grassley's characterization was accurate. Raising safety concerns within the agency is "extremely difficult," the 20-year employee said, declining further comment.

Any inquiry into this will be rolled into an ongoing investiagtion involving another muzzled staffer who had linked antidepressents to suicide in children.

Why would I blog about drug interactions on a so-called political site? What importance is there that the FDA has a hard time getting warnings out about dangers of prescription drugs?

Recall this from July's New York Times:

The Bush administration has been going to court to block lawsuits by consumers who say they have been injured by prescription drugs and medical devices.

The administration contends that consumers cannot recover damages for such injuries if the products have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Which means that anyone who has suffered as a result of Vioxx should have no legal recourse according to Bush. They should accept the heart attack or stroke, the medical bills that may have arose because of it, and the money they spent on a drug that turned out to be dangerous, and chalk it all up to a grand medical experiment.

That's a man who has concern for the middle class.