Good job for MSNBC for calling them out as "unethical." What a joke.....

Ugh... lets pass around some paper bags. That is so counter-intuitive I could scream. Remind me to trust the FDA even less than I do now, which comes out to none.

The pusher controls and writes the "science", beautiful.
50 years ago, this month link found from pharmagossip.blogspot

and the pusher is only trying to help the sick. Sick being defined by the pusher.TeenScreen Truth

This is an unethical conflict of interest, period.

I know this is a huge question, but I really want to hear what you would say. How would you ideally separate the three big players in the drug manufacturing process: pharaceutical companies, academia, and the FDA?

I'd probably leave R&D to the universities to hopefully minimize conflict of interest and biased experimental designs, keeping the names and makers of the drugs anonymous. But then again, that may just ruin our institutions instead.

Your thoughts?

Can anyone say, conflict of interest? It is amazing things like this are even allowed to occur. And we wonder why unsafe drugs slip through the approval system. The FDA already has enough conflict of interest as it is.

This boondoggle was parked right in the middle of the Kennedy-Enzi bill to -quote - improve drug safety and, much more important, re-authorize PDUFA, the gizmo in which the Pharmas pay the FDA to approve their new drugs. I don't know if it was in the Waxman-Markey bill but it just sat there like a loaded bomb in Kennedy-Enzi. Only one senator voted against the bill, which had pretty much been stripped of all its good parts - Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont.

I understood that the FDA already receives close to 50% of their funding from Big Pharma. Is this worse? If so, how?