That’s the way Merrill Goozner analyzes the Avandia story – a terrific analysis focusing on the fact that “The Food and Drug Administration today slapped new restrictions on GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia (rosiglitazone), while the European Union suspended its marketing entirely.”
Read the entire column – a GoozNews gem.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
JS
September 25, 2010 at 9:42 amI think that analysis is naive at best.
“What we’re seeing emerge — remember there are now about 30 of these programs in existence — is a new class of drugs. They are not exactly safe, but not so dangerous that we would deny them to physicians or patients who really want to have them.”
There are no “safe” drugs and there never have been, there are only drugs with acceptable and unacceptable risk, and the acceptability of the risk depends on the nature of the potential benefit conveyed, which in turn depends on the circumstances and even the values of the individual for whom the drug is being prescribed. Where’s the moral high ground in complaining categorically that there should be no effort to try to accommodate these complexities?
There are problems with the REMS strategy, and it’s worth discussing how it can be improved. But bemoaning that the FDA is even attempting to move away from black and white decisions into a middle-ground that can be more flexible is just foolish.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like