It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: FDA Chief Resigns

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 06:37 PM
Thanks for that link eeper! Excellent read.

Many industry officials say that under an acting commissioner, the agency tends to put off difficult decisions.

The agency has had a full-time commissioner for only about 18 months out of the four and a half years that President Bush has been in office.

That is rather dismal, along with quite a lot of other info I'm still digesting. Seems Bush already has someone lined up though, a Dr. von Eschenbach, currently head of the national Cancer Institute (another appointment I believe).

Initial look at Dr. von Eschenbach appeared quite encouraging. In fact it's one glowing comment after another. Then I found this:

With this:

Nevertheless, NCI's prevention policies are virtually restricted to faulty lifestyle considerations. As strikingly exemplified in von Eschenbach's recent speech, prevention is defined only in terms of tobacco, "energy balance" and obesity. However, this is hardly surprising as von Eschenbach was President-Elect of the ACS prior to his appointment as NCI Director. The ACS Cancer Facts and Figures 2002 dismissively reassures that carcinogenic exposures from dietary pesticides, "toxic wastes in dump sites," ionizing radiation from "closely controlled" nuclear power plants, and non-ionizing radiation, are all "at such low levels that risks are negligible."

and well, the more I think about it, is this the attitude we want heading the FDA?

[edit on 9/24/2005 by Relentless]

posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 09:08 PM
Don't you know, every Bush apointee is a crony and credetials are never bothered ot be checked to see if they are actaulyl qaulified.

I am jsut glad Bush isn't in charge of promoting people in the military

posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 07:00 AM
Relentless and eeper69,

Thanks for bringing lots of useful, relevant information to the thread. I was unaware that there were possibly financial issues behind Crawford's resignation, and likewise whom the new candidate for the position would be. Neither development is too surprising, but its nice to flesh out the scenario.

I think it is high time the public turned a more skeptical eye on what's going on at the FDA. For far too long the place has been little more than a rubber stamp bought and sold by the drug lobby. I know that sounds harsh, but the American people deserve better, and we need to wake up now and get involved in straightening out the mess in Washington.


posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I was unaware that there were possibly financial issues behind Crawford's resignation,

Somehow, I just don't buy this one. The nomination makes it all the way through the confirmation process and then some, before anyone notices any financial irregularitites and then it becomes an issue? Another red herring I would say.

Next question is, if the head of the NCI gets appointed to the FDA instead, this leaves a hole at the NCI, does this make sense? Why the shuffle?

posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 08:48 AM
It gets hard to sift through all the disinfo and get down to what's really happening. I think its done to some extent on purpose, kind of a 'shotgun effect' to obscure the sleight-of-hand taking place behind the scenes. A distraction. There is also lots of legitimate speculation about outcomes taking place.

Possibly, this appointment leaving a vacancy at NCI is indicative of a H.C. Andersen 'finger-in-the-dike' approach. Could Pres. Bush be running out of patented, pre-approved cronies for these positions? Is he worried that the public is catching on to his methods? Who's next at NCI?

Uh, oh, my cynicism is showing. Better tuck that back in.

posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 12:43 PM
FYI not many Vetenarians deal with animals that have high colesteral, bypass surgery, strokes, or impotence problems. In fact, if you really want to be obtuse I wouldn't want some vets to treat humans the same way you would treat horses by putting thme out of thier misery. (granted that isn't done as much anymore)

posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 12:49 PM

Originally posted by RANT
His credentials aren't the issue here. He didn't screw up (we know of). He and the Women's health chief are quitting, and there's obviously some underlying conflicts.

It's been a while since the record resignations list got bumped or added to (most in the first term of any administration ever), but

this goes in the "scientists that can't take it anymore" section for those keeping score.

Ahhh. Thanks RANT.

This is a biggie, guys. US scientists have been gagged, misdirected, and forced to write crap that totally denies their findings - again and again.

Maybe this means scientists are standing up for truth, and people, against the regime. Anyone checking that angle?

posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 04:40 PM
I had wondered about that too, Soficrow, but he seems to have found favor with the less scientific crowd, rather than butting heads with them.....from the article :

`We will not be missing him,'' said Peter Lurie, director of health research at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, in a telephone interview today. ``Many of the most serious drug disasters of the last several decades occurred on his watch. He was too much in the pocket of industry.''

Remember it was on his watch that the he FDA's monitoring of drug safety was called into question after antidepressants were linked to increased suicide risks and Merck & Co. withdrew the Vioxx painkiller because of heart attack risks. Not to mention the shortage of influenza vaccine. ( maybe he's bailing before the Avian Flu hits the fan??)

[edit on 25-9-2005 by frayed1]

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in