New treatments and drugs are of no use to those Americans who cannot afford them. What this country needs is a healthcare system which is cheaper and covers everyone.

Single payer now!

"What do you want us to take!? We have nothing else!" ...Not true, you can take your vegetables over your animal products and reverse your cancer for free with no risk to your health or life

Well, no. But there are interventional therapies like mastectomy and chemotheraphy that people can fall back on. It's not good news though.

Not true for you to reply with authority, devinevegan. I know several vegans (I am vegetarian myself) who contracted cancer, even having been vegan for many years. It's more than what we put into our bodies--heredity, environment, so many unknown variables. Eating a plant-based diet is undoubtably healthier for everyone, but I've never been privy to any proven information that says the diet will reverse cancer. It's a lovely dream, though.

Hmmm... "$100,000 per year for treatment."

It's no wonder our healthcare system is broke. I wonder how many times Roche has made their initial R&D budget back? 100 fold? 1,000 fold?

Profit gouging people on death's door. You must be proud, Roche.

Devinevegan: Wow, you are one heartless person. Next time, you should keep your stupid and insensitive comments to yourself. You should be ashamed.

The purpose of medicine and medical care is to prevent premature death, not promote immortality. Get over it. Cancer is a killer (lost both my parents to it) and if you wish to live forever, go for it, just don't expect me and the rest of the taxpayers to fund your "extra month or two" to live in pain, not to mention drawing another month or two out of social security.

Jeez, no wonder we're going broke. If you had to pay for these treatments out of your pocket would you do it? Likely not!

Eating a plant-based diet is undoubtably healthier for everyone.

With respect to diet commentary, that is the most mininformed comment I have ever read on the vine.

The for-profit medical industry, especially physicians, hospitals, and drug companies have gotten very good at using false hope, shame and guilt in order to get terminally ill patients to spend every last cent available to them and their families on worthless "treatments" that promise only to prolong agony.

Of the people who declared bankruptcy in 2010, 67% did so because of unanticipated medical bills. Of that 67%, 47% had health insurance and were still forced into bankruptcy.

It costs Roche $132 to manufacture a course of Avastin and they were selling it for $88,000 a course. (The $100,000 per year is a bit bogus because a course of Avastin is only 9 months [or until you die].)

I would point out that Roche did not develop Avastin. It was what is referred to in the drug industry as a "forced purchase" from Genentech. The drug was "discovered" by academics on a National Institutes of Health taxpayer-paid grant. Then the discoverers took the drug to Genentech because neither academia not NIH provides resources to develop a drug and bring it to market, even if it were of huge public benefit to do so. (This would be denounced as socialist and anti-capitalist.) But when the drug started to pan out at Genentech, Roche approached them and told them "the bedtime story." "We have the "ins" at the FDA. Only we have the resources to get a drug through clinical trials. If you try it on your own, we will oppose you every step of the way and it will never come to market."

The parading of "witnesses" who claimed that Avastin had "cured" them was so scientifically bizarre that it is tantamount to Roche giving knowingly false testimony.

But the very worst thing that Roche (and cooperating physicians and hospitals) did was to steal away the last shreds of dignity from women with breast cancer.

We really need to see more physicians and hospital personnel in jail for scamming the American public at their most vulnerable time.

@ Chris,

Wow, the fact that they haven't even developed it pisses me off even more.

Makes you wonder about how they come up with these prices for drugs, I mean, similar mass-market drugs for much less serious issues, such as heartburn, flatulence, sleeplessness....you don't see them selling for $88,000 per treatment, now do you?

Even though they probably spend the same, if not more, in R&D costs while they are developing them.

I strongly advocate for some sort of system that allows the taxpayer to recover money for drugs that were discovered and initially developed on taxpayer funds. I would really like to see this happen BEFORE the drug companies see ANY profit. The recovered funds could them be plowed back into medical research and even more discoveries made. Since the taxpayer would be in "recovery mode" when the drug was new on the market, it would also be reasonable for the taxpayer to determine the pricing of the drug. I do not think that the taxpayer would allow more than a 6% profit.

The hell with the FDA! They are criminals, and should be dispersed immediately. For those who don't know, please look up "Dr. Berzenski". This Dr. has discovered a natural non-toxic and very safe way to heal most cancers. The FDA has been trying to stop him and his cure for almost 20 years. The FDA and all of their Pharma companies are crooks and do not care for the people, they care only about profits and "contributions" , which I call bribes and payoffs.

Actually, Chris, Avastin was developed by Genetech. Check out the primary literature.

In fact, most approved drugs are developed by pharmaceutical companies (and most statistics you read online are bogus). Academia is too focued on publishing and bureaucracy most of the time to develop a drug from bench-to-bedside (as a postdoctoral fellow, I can attest to this). However, it does happen. Academic PI's can, and do, start their own companies with promising drugs WITHOUT taking a leave-of-absense (it just has to be reported to the University or research hospital as a conflict of interest). Additionally, research institutions are able to conduct their own clinical trials without pharmaceutical help. In the longrun, most startups and Universities are not equipped to handle mass production, and that is where large, established pharmaceutical companies come in handy.

It deleted the link to Nature article, but here's the reference:

Ferrara et al. Nature Reviews, 3, 2004, 391.

I stand corrected, on Genentech. Genentech bought the drug and then "partnered" with Roche.

I stand by my statement that virtually NO drugs are initially developed by drug companies. It is almost impossible to check through all drugs and especially older ones, but you can spend days and days without even seeing one that a drug company developed. And even these are primarily "traditional" remedies that are then summarily patented by drug companies.

It isn't so much the focus of academics that keeps them chained to the bench. It is more that neither NIH nor any major university has even the slightest way of helping a researcher develop a drug and marketing it. There is simply no help at all, even though most schools have plenty of staff that could help. It is just seen as too "socialist."

Many schools maintain that any drug developed by a staff member in any capacity belongs 100% to them (Emory University is an example) while others say that unless it is a direct conflict of interest, it belongs to the discovered (University of Alabama.)

Most academics lack the specific expertise to bring a drug to manufacture, especially in the area of large-scale production. They have to hire others to do it. And time becomes important as well. If you are not bringing in grant funds, your pay is under pressure, so non-funded development of even the most promising drug is discouraged.

There are all; sorts of problems, not the least of which is getting things by the IRB, that keep an academic from developing a drug without having the barrier of a LOA or a Sabbatical between him and the university. Just reporting it as a conflict of interest is not all that easy, especially in private institutions.

it is the bottom line, as you say, that "most startups and Universities are not equipped to handle mass production, and that is where large, established pharmaceutical companies come in handy."

Universities have no trouble handling a $40 million a year athletic department but cannot find the funding or the methods to develop drugs.

The real problem comes in the pricing. Avastin costs $132 to manufacture a full 9-month course of treatment, but is priced at $88,000. It was developed using taxpayer funds but the taxpayer can recover none of that money. The drug has already made billions from off-label illegal usage, but the taxpayer gets not a dime. Sounds to me like you side with the people who like screwing the taxpayer.

This treatment is effective for some women with metastatic breast cancer. Perhaps the indication should be narrowed to women who respond. To entirely withdraw the indication is irresponsible.

Actually there IS scientific research to prove a whole foods plant based diet reverses cancer, decades of science. Of course the doctors and pharma companies don't want you to hear about it because how would they make money? Ironic that the people trying to HELP the women with cancer for free are the ones who are ridiculed while the doctors and pharmaceutical companies are seen as the heroes. Meanwhile people are dying listening to their advice. Do you want to be healed and live healthy? Which path sounds riskier? Taking these drugs like Avastin or eating plants and whole grains?

It is not illegal for doctors, particularly oncologists, to prescribe medications that do not have FDA approval for a specific cancer. It is often "cutting edge" treatment. If something works for an advanced stage cancer patient and the medication is not covered by insurance (this is especially true of medicaid) because it is not FDA approved, there are "patient assistance" programs available through most drug manufacturers where they will provide free drugs to the patient. NONE of this "drives up the cost of healthcare". Be informed.

stage4 - I never said it was illegal for doctors to prescribe off label, just that it was illegal for drug companies to market off label - Which it most definitely is!!! The off label prescribing of drugs has gotten out of hand and more often than not has little benefit for the patient. There are always cases where off label uses do have value to the patient, and these are sometimes tried out of desperation by doctors who have patients with nothing left to lose. The key is that when these off label uses do show promise they should be tested through controlled trials and not rely on often times worthless anecdotal evidence. This has the the dual benefit of both protecting the patient from taking a useless drug at great cost and gets the drug approved for that use if it does work so insurance will cover it. Many people do not get this off label cost covered by the drug companies unless it is as part of a controlled trial. They end up paying for the drug out of their own pockets.

@stage4,

It is unethical for physicians to violate their oath, specifically "First, do no harm." It is illegal to prescribe an unapproved drug without full disclosure of the risk, benefits, and costs. It is illegal for a physician to prescribe any drug known to be ineffective, dangerous, or inordinately expensive. FDA studies have determined that 76% of off-label prescription of drugs has little or no scientific basis and are more likely to do harm than good.

If you are being treated by a physician and he/she recommends an off-label drug, it is definitely time for a second or third opinion and probably time to find a physician who practices more of the science of medicine than the art of medicine.

The typical drug company "patient assistance" is funded at less than $50,000 and is exhausted by mid-January. There has not been a single instance of a drug company offering a financial assistance where the costs of advertising associated with the program did not exceed the funding for the program itself. It is typical of a drug company to spend $2-3 million advertising its assistance program and less than $50,000 on the program itself. The costs of the advertising and the "assistance" are spread over other drugs, driving up their costs.

@JS,

I would make one small correction. It is legal for a physician to prescribe off-label only if they have solicited information from the drug company that shows that the drug is likely to be effective. This almost never happens because the physician is unlikely to know if information is available to be solicited. It is illegal for the drug company to offer this information unsolicited by the physician. If there is ANY financial connection between the physician and the drug company --- even a free lunch or a ball point pen --- it IS illegal for the physician to prescribe that drug company's products off-label. This is in the FDA Modernization Act of 1997.

@Chris -

Wrong again - The FDA Modernization Act of 1997 does the opposite:

"The law abolishes the long-standing prohibition of broadcasting by manufacturers of information about unapproved uses of drugs and medical devices. The act allows a firm to circulate peer-reviewed journal articles about an off-label indication of its product. Said company is also committing itself to file proof of research within a certain amount of time."

As long as the off-label use is supported by scientific data, companies are allowed to provide it to physicians... soliciated or not.

Nope, I stand by my statement. If the drug company supplies any unsolicited information to the physician or institution or has any financial connection, no matter how slim, it is against the law.

truthseeker, i am always relieved to see there are still individuals out there that want to know the truth. You must be a Fox News supporter, one of the few honest and truthful news sources.

The basis for the decision was that it was ineffective based on reproducible empiric evidence. The FDA properly did its job, and the patient won. End of story.

Lots of cancer drugs are proving not to affect things like how long the patient lives after diagnosis, even though they do stuff like reduce tumor mass. Even though it does something, it doesn't do what we want it to do and therefore is pulled. That is the rigor of FDA approval.

Another issue bought out.

OC Voice - you’re joking, right?

You must be an employee of that shill “news” show, otherwise you’ve just made Forrest Gump look like a Rhodes Scholar...

Uh, BTW, does the “OC” in OC Voice stand for “Obsessive Compulsive”?

I am sorry that you lost your wife. I lost mine as well. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about Avastin. It is a very expensive "BAND-AID".

There has been a cure out since 1996 and the FDA is trying to stop this drug from being manufactured in the US.

KrackerJack, there are real people out there who have suffered real losses of loved ones to these terrible diseases. We definitely do not need self-righteous or conspiracy folk telling us to just eat all our vegetables or take snake oil as cures.

You punk pansy Byron,

I lost my mother, Father, and next is my sister to this evil cancer. Screw you. You dont know me. I came to spread the word and punks like you try to stop this info from spreading. Hope you dont come down with this cancer, and if you do, hope you die a slow painful death. LOSER. Enjoy you Chemo retard.

I read your comment saying you lost your wife due to Avastin. What type of cancer did she have? And why do you feel that way. I have peritoneal cancer, stage 3. I had a total hysterectomy June 1020. I have been on Avastin a year, now noticing side affects of stomach/bowel troubles, stiff joints. I had three drug chemo until Dec. 2010. I was diagnosed in June 2010. Now, I am on Avastin only until Nov. I am on a clinical trial. I am having second thughts, but I am in remission ... just wanted to know your thoughts. Thanks for your time in advance.....

wait till it is U or a loved one that wants that extra month or two. U will then change your tune big time. for your sake, i hope that time never comes.

If it’s going to give my loved one more time to live and this is what they really want, I say give.

Kevin: Are you advocating GOP death panels? Perhaps you should contact Ms. Palin.

Yeah, you got to love the RepubliCon rant on “death panels” over Obama’s health care plan when in fact, the RepubliCons have been the original authors of death panels under HMO’s.

The whole reason we need the President’s health care plan is because HMO’s and the current system has failed so miserably. It is simply amazing that the oligarchy has gotten as many dittoheads as they have to rant against the Presidents efforts at obtaining a rational healthcare plan.

One can never ceased to be amazed at the extent of stupid in the republiCon party. You’d think that even they would eventually tire over the likes of Palin, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, Trump, Limpbag and Beck... it’s like these idiots try to outstupid each other!

Any health care system will have something that will be referred to as rationing. It will either be the government, the insurance company, or the individual (paying for their own care) who will make the cost/benefit tradeoff.

What they boil down to mostly is "what is a year of 100% quality life worth", and from that point on statistics determine if the care will be reimbursed or provided.

In the UK, this would be the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). They use something along the lines of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) to determine if a treatment is appropriate.

Regardless of if this is an open/formal process or a hidden/informal process, such decisions will always be made. For example, a bit over a decade ago it came out that in the UK, people over some age just didn't get kidney dialysis -- it wasn't a formal rule, but it was understood among doctors that it was too expensive (well, the government just didn't buy enough machines so I suppose it was the government making the decision). Now, I assume, that decision is more formalized (considering patient condition, age, and other health issues).

Therefore, one must ask themselves "What is the value of 1 QALY?" and the rest pretty much falls out for common procedures/medications/conditions.

Rational people paying for their own care also make these decisions - albeit with less research and more bias than government/insurance boards. Except for the super rich, they ask themselves questions like "Do I spend $200K to have a 50% chance of living an extra year or do I leave that to my kids for their education?" and the answer impacts if they pursue the treatment.

My wife has PIC also. She has been treated with Avastin for years now. This off-label use has preserved her eyesight. I cannot address its success for cancer, however, it is wonderful for PIC.

Look up Dr. Berzenski, also look up Cannabis oil, and look up the Gerson therapy. These have been proven to cure cancer.

Your statement is completely false.

Actually, most 'pure research' into new drugs in done by the National Institute for Health via public grants to universities and passed on to the private sector for further development and marketing.

In other words, the tax payer funds the research and development and the private sector reaps the profits.

'pure' research are only fundamental...I'd like to see anything eating a piece of paper with the APAP chemical formula on it and say that its effective in treating headache...

these 'pure' research are done by NIH/Universities, but don't forget these projects are largely funded by the pharma companies or research institutes that are associated with the pharma industry. That is why any conclusive data from the research are exclusive to the use of its funder-AKA the pharma industry. In addition, each company spends billions every years buying results from other's research/pipelines.

A company may research hundreds of different formulas but only one may actually proof effective and it takes 13 yrs for that one formula to be finished as a product to be put on the market. Because the pharma companies initially took 13 years without any returns in investigating the drug, producing the drug, testing the drug, that's why we are making huge profits now. And every time you reach for your tylenol you should think for 13 years McNeil was located in a small basement in Philly taking out loans left and right.

No Pharma company started out to be rich...and thanks to them, we are alive...

You are absolutely wrong!

Of the top 100-selling drugs, 99 were discovered by academic researchers on taxpayer funds generally on grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH.) I'll say it a different way --- the taxpayer pays for the development of virtually every drug. The drug companies NEVER fund academic research except in attempts to establish new criteria for an existing drugs. The drug companies fund approximately .1% (one tenth of one percent --- 50 cents out of a hundred dollars) of originating research, the most difficult part.

But the drug companies have gotten legislation passed time and again that opposes "socialist" or "anti-capitalist" drug development and forbids any college or university receiving federal funds or any scientist taking funds from the NIH from using taxpayer funding in any way, shape or form to bring a drug from discovery through human trials to market.

So when academics find a new drug (or more likely a family of drugs) they are forced to take a leave of absence from their research, and connect with drug development people and venture capitalists to get it developed to the point that it can be go to clinical trials. This can take years in itself.

Then the developer is approached by one or more interested drug companies who tell them the "bedtime story." They are told, you don't have the connections in the FDA or the financial backing to bring this drug through testing and to market. In fact, if you try, we will oppose you and you will NEVER see it sold." then they make a very generous offer to buy the rights to the drug. They only do outright buys, no license fees are ever granted.

The drug companies used to claim (even in testimony before Congress) that it cost more than a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market. The CBO did a little research and the most expensive drug they could find at the time was $74 million to bring Vioxx to market.

It is the taxpayer who funds even the most basic research and the taxpayer is repaid by being charged $88,000 for a course of a drug that cost $132 to manufacture and zero to develop. How fair is that? Maybe the taxpayer should decide how much profit the drug companies are entitled to?

OK Pharma

If your handle is correct then you know that a monoclonal antibody, such as bevacizumab has many more aplications that single organ tumors. Bevacizumab has proven to be extremely effective on Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer; treatment of unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic nonsquamous, nonsmall cell lung cancer; treatment of progressive glioblastoma; as for the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer this is still under investigation

The only indication that has been disproven is treatment of metastatic HER-2 negative breast cancer (who have not received chemotherapy for metastatic disease)

So, Did they push a drug they did know did nor work? Completely False. If you want to Critizise, please at least read what has happened: Genetech refused to voluntarily retire the indication from the package insert while studies where ongoing. Very different from a drud that don't work.

Where you laid off from Genetch?

You don't know what you are talking about. I am a medical oncologist, and many of my patients are alive due to Avastin alone or in combination with other chemotherapeutic regimens. You should keep your ignorance to yourself instead of writing such moronic and biased comments. The FDA was wrong, the government is trying to save money. The FDA should include members NOT working for the government.

If Avastin had a proven empirical effect of extending patient life, then it wouldn't have been pulled. Pretty much the only reason popular cancer and heart disease drugs are pulled is that they don't show a change in patient survival no matter what else they do.

Fernandito has broken the rules of common courtesy and accused someone of being an idiot for relating what they have witnessed. Fernandito may be an oncologist but perhaps have a monetary stake in keeping patients on this drug and in accusing FDA expert panels and a patient advocate on this panel of incompetence.

It seems like that there are a lot of 14-year-olds claiming to be "medical oncologists" on here. And with all that sports and movies and video games to attend to, how do they have time for NewsVine? Actually what surprises me the most is that they can spell oncologist.

The FDA has absolutely no interest in saving the government money. It is a stupid accusation with no thought behind it.

In fact, over 80% of the physicians associated with the FDA have refused, even though it is required by law, to disclose financial ties to the for-profit medical industry. Of the 20% who have disclosed, roughly half have financial ties to the for-profits.

If there was any conflict of interest in the FDA, I would say it is between the physicians who run that show even though they possess NO credentials that would allow them to design, conduct or evaluate clinical trials and DO have serious illegal ties to the for-profit medical industry.

Wow, each one of you are immature. Do your research. Avastin is approved in Europe for metastatic breast cancer. The clinical evidence is there. It is RARE for the FDA to remove an indication after-the-fact, thus the uproar. They shouldn't have pulled the label. Let the doctors and patients decide....the option should be available.

Edie,

How long would your mother have lived without Avastin? If she was on it for five years, presumably there were still signs of tumors on PET scans -- what alternative did she reject in favor of Avastin that would have helped her live yet longer?

Did Avastin cause her death to be more or less painful? If her cancer had been untreated, would it have been any less painful? Why do you think that?

Terminal cancer is, well, terminal (with perhaps a very few unexplained spontaneous remissions). Treatments only delay the death and/or change the discomfort level of that process.

Kraff

Avastin has not been retired from the market, it is ONLY THE INDICATION ON BREAST CANCER THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT.

Sheesh! Read People!

Your opinion on this very difficult subject are very valuable and I'm sure all readers offer their condolences to you and your family.

My wife is a PhD gerontologist. Her area of specialty is caregiver support (among others.) So this is a frequent topic of conversation around my house. And I am 67 and we have discussed this at length and I have written instructions for my medical care.

The problem is that physicians, hospitals, and drug companies have become very good at using shame and guilt and false hope to extract every last cent from the dying. But worse than the money, they steal the patient's dignity and the last shreds of their quality of life.

It has reached the point that physicians and hospitals routinely disregard living wills and advanced directives unless they contain a specific provision to sue any physician or other provider who disregards it. My living will does include such a provision and my wife knows exactly who to contact the instant that the physician or hospital seeks "medical custody."

I really hate to say it, but I have had physicians in my home who openly discussed how wonderful it is to have long-term comatose patients. I have heard terminally ill patients referred to as "income intensive" as a sort of joke. Ask an oncologist sometime what he thinks of hospice. You'll be shocked by the rant. They don't see a terminal patient as a person, but as a pile of money in a dying wrapper.

There are good physicians. But they are few and far between and usually very overworked. Most are of the "show me the money" variety.

We will all die some day. If we're lucky, it will be sudden and painless. If we are unlucky it will be slow and painful. But we will all go sometime. The best exit, however, is to go with as much dignity intact as possible. I appreciate @Dale's comments and it really goes to the subject of false hope and the wish to try everything possible but causing a lot of unnecessary stress for the caregivers in the process.

JoAnn - just because a particular drug is not a good choice for one type of cancer does not mean the same for another type. It is not a black and white issue. All cancer types are very different. There are also different breast cancers, different skin cancers, etc. Cancer is not one disease but a class of diseases.

Often drug approval is a balance of pros and cons. Do the benefits to the patient outweigh the risks associated with side effects? The FDA has decided that the benefits do not outweigh the risks with Avastin for breast cancer. For other cancers there may be better survival rates and so it does make sense to use it. Or there are fewer risks due to how the drug interacts with the cancerous cells vs. healthy cells in those types of cancer.

There is a not a drug on this planet that is 100% safe and for which there are no risks. It is always a question of benefit vs. risk.

You are oversimplifying a very complicated subject.

Avastin may be effective for some types of cancer and this suggested that it would be useful and effective for metastasis of breast cancer to other organs as well. However, one type of cancer can be quite different than another..........there is not just one plain and simple definition of cancer and what causes it to occur in cells.

It was worth a try! Now that respectable scientific panels have concluded that it does not work for THIS kind of cancer.............let it go and quit bashing the FDA. Both patients and members of the panel all wanted it to work as it apparently does for other cancers...........but it didn't and doesn't.

I'd like to thank you for being the one person to speak the truth on here.

The FDA is best known for trying to stifle and progress for any promising cancer drug. My father and I work for a cancer clinic that, among commonly known FDA approved drugs, also uses an alternative cancer drug (yes, a DRUG, not herbal remedies or any type of quackery for you skeptics reading this). This drug has not only proven to be effective many times over, but has none of the damaging side effects that chemo and radiation are known to cause. The doctor behind this drug has been fighting the FDA for over 30 years now and they've only barely allowed him to enter the final clinical trial stage for a drug that has proven to be legitimate. I've met the patients who've taken this drug, who had 6 months to live but are alive 15 years later, who took it as children and now have families of their own, who were sent off by their doctors to die and now have xrays showing them to be tumour free.

If the FDA spent half as much time fighting FOR the newer, better drugs, instead of against them then we'd have a much higher survival rate than 25%.

I find it difficult to believe that the FDA is a death panel. There are indeed patients who can recover, some who were mis-diagnosed. I find it difficult to believe that these people that you describe really did have terminal cancer.

Byron,

Its because you are an IDIOT! Thats why you cant believe. Maybe when you actually have to go thru this problem, then you will believe.

You have got to be joking !!! This comment is so stupid I can't believe it didn't implode.

Come on Newsvine pull this guy. Unbelievably stupid.

You are 100% correct. The same can be said for the trillions of dollars raised by Susan G Komen and Livestrong and other cancer 'research' funds...the majority of the money doesn't even go to cancer research. If a cure was found the people running these organizations would lose million dollar paychecks.

Stuart.......I accidentally checked the wrong box in voting for your worthless comment and do not want you to think that FDA makes any money on approval of drugs and the Agency has no vested interest except in protecting your safety and making sure that there is a greater benefit than risk in approval of drugs.........I do not work for FDA and in contrast have to often work to convince them of safety of food and drug ingredients so I know how tough these scientists have to be in keeping us from fake claims.

Herbal teas can be classified as "functional foods" or dietary supplements so if your miraculous tea works anyone could buy it and experience the placebo effect for themselves.

The real benefit of these drugs is that they generate profits for the pharmaceutical industry, which the FDA seems sworn to protect. The pharmaceutical industry is the one reaping a benefit.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/009693.html#ixzz1QhqiqvBs

The only place you find that sort of distorted logic is, of course, at the FDA. The bottom line with all of this is that the FDA has once again proven itself to be a highly corrupt regulatory agency that will go out of its way to protect the pharmaceutical industry at the risk of public safety

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/009693.html#ixzz1QhrUXWtv

the FDA has proven itself to be the single largest threat to the health of the American public that we've ever seen in the history of this country. It is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans today. The agency has decided to put its stamp of approval on a class of drugs that will undoubtedly kill tens of thousands more people each and every year. This is not just politics or a regulatory snafu. This is a crime against humanity. The FDA is guilty of that crime, and its decision makers should be punished as criminals.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/009693.html#ixzz1QhrlaT83

FDA critic Mike Adams, author of "Grocery Warning," calls the FDA a "criminal organization" and claims it puts pharmaceutical and food industry profits ahead of public safety. Adams called the charges against Crawford "yet another serious blow to the illusion of FDA credibility.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/020783.html#ixzz1Qhuw69Yf

Well, the FDA is "criminal" only in intent. Everything they do is lawful.

The FDA, and most other letters of the alphabet, are police agencies under the authority of the executive branch of government.

As the executive branch of government continues to rise in power, its police agencies get more authority. The main effect is to enhance prosecution of business competitors of campaign contributors.

If you are a pharmaceutical company, you buy a Congressman, who then passes a law that a US citizen may not buy medicine from a Canadian company.

Traditionally, the FDA enforces that law... and as surely as a police agency like the FBI no longer needs warrants for search and seizure, the FDA is very close to having no legislated limits at all... making corruption impossible.

It doesn't matter what the critics of the FDA say or think, as long as folks who contribute money to the Party can have their competitors processed.

The "illusion of FDA credibility" is only matched by the illusion of their need for credibility.

That's what I think.

Amen. I agree with you 100%.