November 30, 2004
During This Flu Season...
Ronald Reagan: “The most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.’”
During the Presidential campaign, there was a big outcry that George W. Bush “failed to get enough flu vaccines.” Instead of explaining that the shortage was not a failure of the free market but lack of vaccines that the FDA has deemed “good enough”, Bush echoed the government-will-fix everything mantra and said that he was doing everything he could to get Americans these vaccines. In the meanwhile, Americans had to sacrifice for the “common good” and pass up non-essential vaccines.
Yet the reason for this shortage is that (1) American vaccines providers are regulated so heavily that there is virtually no free market in these goods; and (2) domestic and foreign suppliers have to go through the slow bureaucracy of the FDA before Americans are even allowed to consider purchasing their products. Given this realization, I found it rather ironic that today federal agents used tax payer dollars to stop citizens from obtaining flu vaccine they desired to purchase on the "black market". These same vaccines could have easily been permitted on the market with a "Not Approved by the FDA" label, but that would allow people a level of choice in their own health care that an "enlightened society" cannot permit. Under the dominant world view, a healthy citizen who wants a vaccines should follow President Bush's call-to-patriotism and refuse getting a flu vaccine, even while there are perfectly fine vaccines which no one is using sitting in a company's plant.
Those in the federal bureaucracy have convinced citizens that they would be lost without the benevolent paternalism of agencies like the FDA. The misuse of this power has led to shortages- and the same supporters of the paternalistic programs are now calling for more power in the hands of the same federal government to solve the problem. And when that solution leads to another problem- well, we can call a Congressional investigation and it can recommend creating another federal agency which derives authority from no enumerated power in the Constitution.
Posted by Misha Tseytlin at November 30, 2004 03:49 PMAnother excellent example of government arrogance and incompetence.
Government meddles in everything imaginable,
and eventually manages to totally screw it up.
The government wants to control everything,
but be responsible for nothing.
Perhaps we should send a message to government?
before they will pull us all down with them.
Frankly, I like the concept of the FDA and its mission of insuring that, for the most part, profit motives do not sacrifice the well being of consumers. On the other hand, I agree with you, Americans should take back their freedom to conduct commerce with other nations directly if they so choose. The internet is making that more and more possible despite the lobbyist crocodile tears over loss of consumer loyalty.
I say make the FDA even more efficient while at the same time removing barriers for consumers to choose higher priced quality assurance of FDA approved over higher risk and lower cost products from overseas. But, the consumer is not calling the shots alone here, so it is unlikely the consumer will achieve this kind of choice in the long run.
Posted by: David R Remer at December 5, 2004 08:34 PMThe FDA has clearly become another bureaucratic football, led by politics rather than science.
The prescription drug issue, and this flu vaccine debacle are shining examples.
The AMA has long ago abdicated its role in auditing doctor behavior and has instead become a monopoly to advance physician profit.
It is a shame that greed in politics will lead to the degradation of US standards as global standards. I work in engineering and am also dismayed that NIST is even begun to be influenced by economic forces. Although it remains a standard bearer, outside agencies are misusing its standards for economic gain.
It’s kinda like watching Rome burn.
Posted by: Greg at December 6, 2004 01:03 AMI agree Greg. There is a story just this morning in the NY Times, entitled At F.D.A., Strong Drug Ties and Less Monitoring. The reporter states:
When federal drug officials suspected in 1992 that a popular allergy pill might cause heart problems, they turned to their own scientists. Their trial confirmed the danger, and the drug was pulled from the market.Posted by: David R. Remer at December 6, 2004 08:02 AM
Eight years later, similar worries surrounded the arthritis pill Vioxx. But by then, the Food and Drug Administration had shifted gears, slashing its laboratories and network of independent drug safety experts in favor of hiring more people to approve drugs, changes that arose under an unusual agreement that has left the agency increasingly reliant on and bound by drug company money. Discovering Vioxx’s dangers would take four more years.
