FDA approval and labelling

General Discussion
#1

We all know that Merck lied when they put propecia on the market, claiming that any sexual side effects would disappear on cessation [from this we can assume that anything they say can be taken with a pinch of salt as they only say what they can get away with, merrily manipulating the corrupt system only for profit].

Anyway, my question is, if Merck were “honest*” from the start [*as much as they can be], and stated that sexual function may not recover, would propecia have been approved for cosmetic use, even if they claimed that it only effected a small percentage? And if by these conditions it wasn’t fit for approval, how would just changing the possible side effects leaflet now make it a legitimate safe product for cosmetic use if retrospectively it wouldn’t have passed. Is it just a case of “get the drug on the market by whatever means and once it’s on the market we can just amend the side effects list once they start complaining, as long as the money keeps coming in as once it’s on the market its difficult to remove”???

How exactly does this fucked up system Merck has such a handle on work and how can we fix it? And can we at all use the “the FDA wouldn’t have approved it if they have known?” as any kind of defence?

#2

Scotsman

Its all about the cash, fuck the repercussions of public health.

My guess is that once its FDA approved, you’ve cracked it. The product is on the market to stay unless it kills people.

#3

The FDA seem to be like the pope of the medical world when they say something is safe then there is longer any need for discussion.

#4

If you read the Propecia’s approval hearing, Merck treated the FDA like a substitute teacher. The FDA just sat there befuddled after Lie after lie after lie Merck told; it was painful to read. Also, Proscar did say side effects wouldn’t always resolve. Needless to say, the FDA didn’t ask why Propecia side effects were resolveable when Proscar’s weren’t.

To answer your question, yes it would’ve been approved. This was the FDA during the Clinton Administration. If they approved Vioxx, they would’ve approved Ricin.

#5

Thanks for the feedback. I still feel that if it can be demonstrated that you deliberatedly withheld or manipulated information for the purposes of getting your product on the market then surely this constitutes fraud.

#6

Then again I also know that there is a world of difference between what is evidently right and just and a system which claims to be these things but is expertly bought, leaving those it is alleged to serve completely vulnerable to these immoral profiteers/criminals.

#7

the fda are a bunch of evil fucking cunts … they do not give two fucks about people and they work for the drug companies … the fox guarding the hen house, as they say

again, fuck the fda