I was just interviewed on the Bloomberg radio news about AAPS's victory against the FDA. Maybe some of you pick up that radio news. Here is a synopsis:
The reporter asked me who the co-plaintiffs are, which fortunately I had just previously checked: Competitive Enterprise Institute and Consumer Alert.
She asked me what the alternative is for testing these drugs used on children: I said use some of the over $20 billion that NIH has for medical research. I volunteered that some funding of testing of Ritalin and Prozac on children would be a good idea. There is plenty of research money already available to do this.
She asked me if I knew of any examples of drugs being delayed by the FDA for this reason. I said we challenged the rule quickly. The FDA is claiming the power to block drugs for this reason, and it would presumably exercise the power it claims.
She said the drugs can become available under the Rule during pendency of the child testing. Yes, the FDA can grant waivers. But it doesn't make sense to withhold a drug based on testing for a disclaimed use.
She allowed me final comments. I said that the FDA is too powerful. Consumers and the medical profession should have more decisionmaking responsibility about new drugs, especially for patients who are terminally ill.
Remember David Kessler? He's the nutcase who abruptly forced the suspension of breast implants for 45 days, as head of the FDA. That even though all studies have shown them to be harmless. Kessler was a Bush appointee that Clinton liked so much he kept him on for his entire first term.
So what's the career path for this liberal bureaucrat? Now he's dean of Yale Medical School. Sooner or later, all liberals end up in controlling positions in formal education.