<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Universal Safety Symbol For Drug Web Sites?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/11/a-universal-safety-symbol-for-drug-web-sites/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/11/a-universal-safety-symbol-for-drug-web-sites/</link>
	<description>News, Comment and Conversation</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:26:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: JaT</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/11/a-universal-safety-symbol-for-drug-web-sites/#comment-444916</link>
		<dc:creator>JaT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:51:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=19737#comment-444916</guid>
		<description>Allow me to intentionally fill in the blanks.

The problem, Mr. Francer, is that FDA exists to regulate the industry. Because of regulations on DTCs they really do need to consider those regulations as they might relate to other mediums. For the protection of the industry. For the avoidance of consumer fraud suits, at the very least, but you know that.

FDA does not exist to regulate or influence freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religious freedom, freedom of assembly, and right to petition. 
I mean what are they going to do? Direct people to this page?
http://www.coreynahman.com/FDA_Page.html
For crying out loud.

ex-FDA Reviewer, 
The irony here is that people who are having problems with a product are not going to care if there is an 'Energy Star' type of label where they come together in mass. 
Where there is industry funding credibility already causes concern. 
One might think that an FDA approval rating might cause the same concern if people feel that FDA made a bad call. People do tend to feel that FDA becomes self serving if it doesn't respond to the issues that arise.
This is destined to backfire if it comes about.

"This would “clearly allow for proper balance of benefit and risk information..."

Fairness Doctrines only exist to diminish opposing opinions. Everyone knows it.
Be careful what you wish for. One day it will come back and bite us in the ass. We may not like opposing opinions but we better like the ability to have them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Allow me to intentionally fill in the blanks.</p>
<p>The problem, Mr. Francer, is that FDA exists to regulate the industry. Because of regulations on DTCs they really do need to consider those regulations as they might relate to other mediums. For the protection of the industry. For the avoidance of consumer fraud suits, at the very least, but you know that.</p>
<p>FDA does not exist to regulate or influence freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religious freedom, freedom of assembly, and right to petition.<br />
I mean what are they going to do? Direct people to this page?<br />
<a href="http://www.coreynahman.com/FDA_Page.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.coreynahman.com/FDA_Page.html</a><br />
For crying out loud.</p>
<p>ex-FDA Reviewer,<br />
The irony here is that people who are having problems with a product are not going to care if there is an &#8216;Energy Star&#8217; type of label where they come together in mass.<br />
Where there is industry funding credibility already causes concern.<br />
One might think that an FDA approval rating might cause the same concern if people feel that FDA made a bad call. People do tend to feel that FDA becomes self serving if it doesn&#8217;t respond to the issues that arise.<br />
This is destined to backfire if it comes about.</p>
<p>&#8220;This would “clearly allow for proper balance of benefit and risk information&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Fairness Doctrines only exist to diminish opposing opinions. Everyone knows it.<br />
Be careful what you wish for. One day it will come back and bite us in the ass. We may not like opposing opinions but we better like the ability to have them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack Conway</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/11/a-universal-safety-symbol-for-drug-web-sites/#comment-444785</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack Conway</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:45:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=19737#comment-444785</guid>
		<description>The FDA has the power to prevent false advertising so I don't see what additional benefits would be gained from having this symbol. 

It seems very similar to the VIPPS scheme for online pharmacies that most purchasers of online pharmaceuticals don't know about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The FDA has the power to prevent false advertising so I don&#8217;t see what additional benefits would be gained from having this symbol. </p>
<p>It seems very similar to the VIPPS scheme for online pharmacies that most purchasers of online pharmaceuticals don&#8217;t know about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ex-FDA Reviewer</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/11/a-universal-safety-symbol-for-drug-web-sites/#comment-444583</link>
		<dc:creator>ex-FDA Reviewer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=19737#comment-444583</guid>
		<description>This would only serve Pharma's agenda.

There are sites that would not be able to get the logo that sometimes provide important information that is covered up by companies.

A good example is http://www.healyprozac.com/GhostlyData/default.htm

Dr. Healy reveals that companies had information on SSRI induced suicide back in 1991.

As an FDA reviewer I would sometimes find information on toxicities on sites and (in particular patient sites) that after I looked into them realized FDA management was hiding from the reviewers (often buried in post marketing reports or if premarketing the documents would disappear out of the files.)

FDA management is corrupt and has unwritten SOPs on how to prevent information on toxicities from coming to light or to downplay them for the simple reason is that if we told the truth less drug would be prescibed and sales would suffer. (This is based on statements made by companies themselves in FDA meetings).

Fear and retaliation rule at the FDA.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This would only serve Pharma&#8217;s agenda.</p>
<p>There are sites that would not be able to get the logo that sometimes provide important information that is covered up by companies.</p>
<p>A good example is <a href="http://www.healyprozac.com/GhostlyData/default.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.healyprozac.com/GhostlyData/default.htm</a></p>
<p>Dr. Healy reveals that companies had information on SSRI induced suicide back in 1991.</p>
<p>As an FDA reviewer I would sometimes find information on toxicities on sites and (in particular patient sites) that after I looked into them realized FDA management was hiding from the reviewers (often buried in post marketing reports or if premarketing the documents would disappear out of the files.)</p>
<p>FDA management is corrupt and has unwritten SOPs on how to prevent information on toxicities from coming to light or to downplay them for the simple reason is that if we told the truth less drug would be prescibed and sales would suffer. (This is based on statements made by companies themselves in FDA meetings).</p>
<p>Fear and retaliation rule at the FDA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.152 seconds -->

