Guest guest Posted August 29, 2003 Report Share Posted August 29, 2003 Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:11:22 -0500 WC Douglass The letter of the law... Daily Dose August 29, 2003 ************************************************************** Who's regulating the regulators (Part one)? I loathe admitting when The New York Times gets something right. It makes me feel like part of the establishment crowd when I agree with a piece they've written. But, every once in a while, a clear voice of reason and conscience finds its way into those pages... And usually, it's echoing something I'VE SAID BEFORE. Such is the case in a recent article about the Food and Drug Administration's lax (or nonexistent) regulation of false or misleading claims in TV ads for pharmaceuticals. You might remember me spouting off about this in an earlier Daily Dose ( " Safety patrol? " 3/25/03). I was lamenting the fact that people assume the FDA stringently regulates drug ads on TV - and that only medicines that are totally safe can be advertised on prime time. That's just not the case, however. As I mentioned back then, the FDA's " enforcement " practices amount to no more than writing letters to offending drug companies - letters I felt were likely to be completely ignored... But by the targeted drug companies - not the FDA's OWN LAWYERS! According to the New York Times, at least part of the problem is behind the doors at the hallowed halls of the FDA (there's a shocker, huh?). In one example given, regulators identified misleading claims in a series of TV ads for the Prevacid antacid drug. Immediately, they drafted a letter of warning to Tap Pharmaceuticals (Prevacid's makers)... This letter then sat on the FDA chief counsel's desk for TWO AND A HALF MONTHS while millions continued to see the TV spots and ask their docs for prescriptions of the drug. The reason the letter was held up? So that the FDA's lawyers could review whether the letter (or the regulation process itself) infringed on the company's right to promote its products under the first amendment! That means that the goal of the FDA is no longer to protect the citizens of this country from the potentially harmful effects of drugs and the predatory marketing practices of drug makers. It's to create as tolerant an environment as possible for the promotion of prescription drugs - and to facilitate the ever-increasing tax revenues from sales of these drugs. This is a pretty scary shift in priorities, isn't it? Not only does this change take the FDA into formerly uncharted waters as a regulatory agency (one that's sympathetic to those it seeks to regulate), it also opens the door to untold millions of cases of " drug abuse " of a different stripe. More next time... ************************************************************** Wear a necktie to work? Loosen up... Nobody likes wearing a necktie to work, but I doubt anyone ever considered it a health hazard before. But sure enough, according to recent research published in the British Journal of Ophthalmology, wearing a crisp, tight, businesslike necktie raises blood pressure in the eye (called intra-ocular pressure, or IOP), which can lead to the eye disease, glaucoma. Now, we all knew that wearing a necktie too tight can impair judgment - just look at how our elected officials act up there on The Hill! The same can be assumed of most mainstream doctors. What else but tie-induced lightheadedness would explain some of the idiocy that passes for " medicine " nowadays? But I digress - we were talking about glaucoma, weren't we? According to the study, a tight necktie's constriction of the jugular vein is what increased the IOP in up to 70 percent of test subjects - which, in turn, increases the likelihood of developing glaucoma. What the description of the study failed to mention was how the researchers defined a tight necktie? That little tidbit would be nice to know. Does " tight " mean simply touching the neck all the way around, or causing the subject to turn beet-red and pass out? Such distinctions are needed for cogent analysis. And what I really want to know is this: Who wears a tie that's too tight, anyway? Doesn't everyone prefer a little clearance between collar and neck, so they can breathe, speak, and think straight? And why do we need a study to tell us not to wear our ties too tight? Isn't that kind of common sense? I'm having trouble deciding whether this study is intended as a serious medical comment designed to spur us to re-evaluate traditional modes of business dress, or simply an attempt to raise awareness of glaucoma... . But I can't wait to see how long it is before someone tries to use this study as the basis for a lawsuit against his former employers for requiring him to wear anything other than jeans and a T-shirt. I can see the headline now: BLINDED RETIREE SUES EMPLOYER FOR HAZARDOUS DRESS CODE Hanging loose, William Campbell Douglass II, MD ************************************************************** Copyright ©1997-2003 by www.realhealthnews.com, L.L.C. The Daily Dose may not be posted on commercial sites without written permission. ************************************************************** Before you hit reply to send us a question or request, please click here http://www.realhealthnews.com/questions.shtml ************************************************************** If you'd like to participate in the Real Health Forum, search past e-letters and products or you're a Real Health r and would like to search past articles, visit http://www.realhealthnews.com ************************************************************** To learn more about Real Health, call (203) 699-4420 or visit http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/RHB/WRHBD610/home.cfm ************************************************************** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.