Bravo!   The less the Gov. has to do with it the better it would work.

David Meigs
[log in to unmask]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marjorie L. Moorefield" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 8:25 AM
Subject: FDA too slow/Rita


> No Rita,
> Not Gratis,
>   In all reality everyone who purchases
> a drug pays twice, once as a taxpayer,and once as a consumer.
> Do away with the FDA ,as an entity under US Department of Health
> and Human Services, and set it up with a group of scientists or as
> a private enterprise, using the funding currently paid to the FDA.
>    Drug Companies pay
> to have drugs tested too, get them in on a re-evaluation of the FDA.
> There just has to be a better way,and the history of the FDA
>   proves they are too slow!!!
>
> The average time for approval from the FDA is 18 months,
> All PWP's know what 18 months does to their bodies,
> especially after they have had it a number of years.
> How many new drugs do you think are sitting there waiting
> for FDA approval which would be of use to us now?
>
> Things have changed since the FDA was set up in 1906 , and if
> one reads the History of the FDA you'll see it takes them too
> long to get anything done, always has!
>
> I'm including this for persons who don't have research capabilities:
> This is from Encarta 1998, which I have in my computer.
> There are many, many books written on the history of the FDA
> is someone cares to read more about it, go to your favorite library.
> If they don't have a book on it, they will be happy to do an
> ILL (inter library loan) for you, and they will gladly find titles
> of books for you on the History of the FDA.
>
>
> <SNIP>
> The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was enacted in 1938 requiring
that
> new drugs be safe for humans; however, it did not require that
> manufacturers prove their drugs' effectiveness. It would be 24 years
before
> legislation was passed that would require proof of the efficacy of new
> drugs (the Kefaver-Harris Amendments, 1962). Enforcement of this law was
> entrusted to the FDA.
> Two laws enacted in the 1960s strengthened the FDA's efforts to reduce
drug
> abuse. The Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965 provided penalties for
the
> illegal sale or possession of stimulants, sedatives, and hallucinogens,
and
> the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 set up a federal program
for
> addicts that provided them with the option of receiving treatment for
their
> drug problems in place of a prison sentence.
> In 1970 the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act
established
> rules for manufacturing and prescribing habit-forming drugs. It stipulated
> that physicians can prescribe all drugs, but a special license is required
> to prescribe drugs with a high abuse potential. This license is issued by
> the Drug Enforcement Administration.
> The Anti-Drug Abuse Acts, signed into law in 1986 and 1988, set up funding
> for the treatment of drug abuse and for the creation of law-enforcement
> programs to fight the illegal sale of drugs. These acts also detailed
> severe punishments for individuals selling and possessing drugs illegally.
> Harsh penalties for using anabolic steroids (hormones that promote the
> storage of protein and the growth of tissue that are sometimes abused by
> competitive athletes) were included in the 1988 act, along with the
> requirement that all alcoholic beverages be labeled with warnings about
> alcohol's potentially dangerous effect on the body. The 1988 act also
> established the Office of National Drug Control Policy to develop an
action
> plan that would involve the public, as well as private agencies, in
> eliminating the illegal sale of drugs; in helping individuals who use
drugs
> to stop; and in preventing nonusers from ever starting to use drugs.
> The U.S. government and its regulatory agencies continually monitor the
> development and use of all drugs sold in the United States to ensure that
> the American public has access only to drugs that are safe and effective.
> Recently, the FDA introduced legislation requiring warning labels on all
> over-the-counter medication after research indicated that the nonaspirin
> pain reliever acetaminophen can cause liver damage when taken in high
doses
> with large quantities of alcohol.
>  >END>
>
> Maybe it's possible that the FDA has too much to do, and not enough help,
> but it certainly
> needs to be brought up to speed, 18 months for approval is unacceptable in
> this century.
>
> just me,
> Marjorie
> 68/58/55
>
>
>
>
> At 09:39 AM 11/02/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >Marjorie said.......
> >
> >"MOHO, the FDA gives a new meaning to the expression "Slower than
molasses
> >on a cold day in January".  Also in my own humble opinion, the FDA
should=20
> >be removed from
> >Federal Control and turned over to a private group of scientists!!!!!
But=20
> >then no
> >one ever asked me for my opinion!"
> >
> >and Rita asks.......Who is going to pay for the FDA program if the
taxpayers
> >don't?
> >Someone must foot the bill.....where will the private group of scientists
get
> >the money?.......or is this just to be a "gratis" thing that is added on
to
> >the research platter?
> >
> >Rita Weeks  56/11