Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–177 of 177 posts

Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up

#171

Post by CodeWriter23 »

marincounty wrote: post #16
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #9

The misconduct itself is not surprising, given that all drug studies required for drug approval are performed by the company seeking the approval. The cover-ups are also not surprising, given that industry insiders go back and forth between jobs in Industry, and running the FDA.

Maybe as a condition of hire, the appicliant, if hired by the FDA, couldn't seek future employment in any aspect of the Pharmacutical industry? I belonged to a union that flat out told apprentices that they were forbidden from going through the program and opening up a non-union shop. I've always wondered about the legality of putting conditions on a job? I know the formentioned union still has the clause in it's byl…

It's a sensible solution to the issue, from a distance. Then there are realities like this:

"Today, medical-journal editors estimate that 95 percent of the academic-medicine specialists who assess patented treatments have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, and even the prestigious NEJM [New England Journal of Medicine] gave up its search for objective reviewers in June 1992, announcing that it could find no reviewers that did not accept industry funds.

Source: https://theamericanscholar.org/flacking-for-big-pharma/#.VOD... [2011]

Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up

#172

Post by thisIsNotMikey »

hueving wrote: post #168
thisIsNotMikey wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral hazard is the FDIC, which arguably helped perpetuate the crisis. Banks are insured by the fed, lender of last resort, and individual accounts are insured by FDIC. Insurance, or assurance in the case of the FDA, is the moral hazard which causes risky behavior.

Nope. The FDIC made sure they didn't do the crap they did with depositor money. It's the reason the FDIC insurance wasnt massively triggered during the crisis. The accounts that got screwed were investment accounts which were not insured by the FDIC.

Moral hazard is an objective term. From the FDIC website, https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/international/guidance... All you have to do is read the first sentence. And "The FDIC made sure they didn't do the crap they did" is nonsensical. Not to mention, I never once referred to the economic crisis.

Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up

#173

Post by bduerst »

thisIsNotMikey wrote: post #150
bduerst wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So simple it doesn't apply. This isn't automobile insurance. You're no less risky with your money because the FDIC backs your bank account - in fact, you're more likely to leave it there with less risk.

Banks are more risky. Your right, this isn't a simple concept for some.

Banks are not more risky because there is corporate governance to curtail moral hazard.

I'm sorry for assuming you knew this, but as you say, it isn't simple for some.

Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up

#174

Post by thisIsNotMikey »

bduerst wrote: post #173
thisIsNotMikey wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks are more risky. Your right, this isn't a simple concept for some.

Banks are not more risky because there is corporate governance to curtail moral hazard. I'm sorry for assuming you knew this, but as you say, it isn't simple for some.

The moral hazard is introduced by the insurance. So yes they are more risky. Corporate governance, as you said, helps curtail the moral hazard, but without the insurance, the moral hazard would not exist in the first place. Go troll somewhere else. Your just wrong!

Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up

#175

Post by bduerst »

thisIsNotMikey wrote: post #174
bduerst wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks are not more risky because there is corporate governance to curtail moral hazard. I'm sorry for assuming you knew this, but as you say, it isn't simple for some.

The moral hazard is introduced by the insurance. So yes they are more risky. Corporate governance, as you said, helps curtail the moral hazard, but without the insurance, the moral hazard would not exist in the first place. Go troll somewhere else. Your just wrong!

Glad you finally agree about the FDIC. Maybe I'll create an account for each thread on HN and start calling people names, since that seems to be popular now.

Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up

#176

Post by chaostheory »

chris_va wrote: post #152
chaostheory wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The redactions are not surprising to me. The FDA is a regulatory agency that deals with very sensitive and confidential information. They are not a criminal agency, and this isn't some district attorney asking for the information. Yes the FDA is a regulatory agency. In my mind, it's similar to the IRS, SEC, or FBI. It ensures that specific people and organizations are complying with rules and regulations; in other…

Maybe... Technically it's not their study, it's the study of the company running the trial. That isn't public information. Now, one could argue that all clinical and pre-clinical data used for the drug approval process should be public information. That is a very complicated argument (and I actually come down on the "public" side, but it would take a long time to explain).

It's not complicated. Elements within the FDA redacted key data from the FDA's own Advisory Committee.

Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up

#177

Post by hueving »

thisIsNotMikey wrote: post #172
hueving wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. The FDIC made sure they didn't do the crap they did with depositor money. It's the reason the FDIC insurance wasnt massively triggered during the crisis. The accounts that got screwed were investment accounts which were not insured by the FDIC.

Moral hazard is an objective term. From the FDIC website, https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/international/guidance... All you have to do is read the first sentence. And "The FDIC made sure they didn't do the crap they did" is nonsensical. Not to mention, I never once referred to the economic crisis.

Maybe you didn't follow the economic crisis then? One of the key differences between it and the great depression was the fact that depositor money was not at risk this time around thanks to the FDIC and the regulations surrounding it. There weren't wide spread bank runs wiping out savings accounts that are supposed to be risk free.
Post reply on HN