Since the bill appears likely to pass, opponents like Richards are supporting the efforts of Sen. Chuck Grassley to amend S1082 to blunt Big Pharma’s influence. Grassley is one of too few Washington politicians who have stood up and said the FDA’s relationship with Big Pharma is “too cozy” — and would become even cozier were this legislation to pass.

I find the FDA’s new plan to have pharmaceutical companies directly fund the agency’s review of drug commercials — through so-called “user fees” — strangely amusing. But then, I always found Orwell amusing, too. The FDA positions the plan as a toughening of previously lax regulations in response to public complaints about direct-to-consumer ads. The reality is, the projected $6 million in annual fees for FDA review would primarily serve to keep the drug ads coming at a blistering pace. As one observer sums up FDA priorities:

According to the News & Observer, Democrats, who will take control of Congress in January 2007, might attach to the bill “price controls under Medicare, more safety assessments, provisions that would open the debate on stem cell research and requirement

I guess Big Pharma’s advertising is getting a little out of hand. According to MedsAbroad.com, a recent GAO (General Accountability Office) report stated...

This documentary trailer specifically references the Vioxx scandal — but it serves as a general reminder of the toxic relationship between the FDA and Big Pharma. Check it out:

Here we go again: the FDA using the actions of a few rogue players to issue a broad-brush warning about Internet pharmacies. This is nothing new; the FDA is clearly in the pocket of Big Pharma and does its bidding at every turn. Were the actions of these