Opinion Russell Brand - Why You Can't Trust the FDA and Big Pharma

[CantCucktheTuck]

You seem like the type that might derive pleasure from the misfortune of others. There is a term for that, but it would go way over your head lmao

Zing

 

[Hadron90]

Best part is you don’t know what my doctor has told me or any of my positions on COVID or vaccination whatsoever.

And I don't need to. I'm criticizing your thought process, not your doctors.

 

[Bald1]

So some of you don't see potential problems with a governing body getting half it's funding from the industry it's supposed to regulate? Or with the inherent problem that comes from a cozy relationship between the two industries that have a history of bigwigs moving back and forth between the two? It's a situation ripe for abuse under the "scratch my back now and I'll scratch yours later" heading. The whole idea is a plausible deniability players dream.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Is he a tv show host or youtuber?

 

[fingercuffs]

I know he's not for everyone but this is a really solid video by Brand.



A few key points that stuck out to me.

- I had no idea that the FDA was not publicly funded anymore. It used to be funded by tax payers alone. Now, it's funded by the people that it's supposed to be investigating. This is obviously a huge problem.
- There are all kinds of ways to pass certification now without actually passing certification

And something that I totally agree with is 2008 was the end of capitalism. He doesn't go deep into it but basically capitalism isn't real anymore. In 2008, all of those businesses should have failed and new companies rise up. Instead, they got bailed out. Profit is king over everything - even public health. That was never the design of capitalism or how it should work.

I'm confused. Is this lying?
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/fact-sheet-fda-glance

About 55 percent, or $3.2 billion, of FDA’s budget is provided by federal budget authorization. The remaining 45 percent, or $2.7 billion, is paid for by industry user fees.

Seems like it's pretty government funded. User fees in looking at them seem a lot like a direct tax on pharmaceutical companies to bring drugs to market.

That doesn't seem to be the actual problem. The actual problem seems to be "do some time at the FDA and you somehow end up at a multi-million dollar position at pfizer when you are done." Thats the payoff.

I REALLY like Brand. His first two books I couldn't put down and his stand up used to be great. Can't watch the video right now, but hope it's good when I get round to it.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

And I don't need to. I'm criticizing your thought process, not your doctors.

I know, just giving you the opportunity to pontificate

 

[djacobox372]

If the FDA was so corrupt, why is it so ridiculously hard to get anything approved by it? Of all the regulating bodies in the world it's the strictest by far.

 

[PhitePhan]

If the FDA was so corrupt, why is it so ridiculously hard to get anything approved by it? Of all the regulating bodies in the world it's the strictest by far.

Or not...

FDA approves drugs more quickly than peer agency in Europe

“The researchers found that the FDA approved more new drugs than EMA — 170 versus 144 — in the study period. ... The median review time for FDA-approved drugs was quicker, 306 days compared to 383 days for EMA-approved drugs.”
https://news.yale.edu/2017/04/05/fda-approves-drugs-more-quickly-peer-agency-europe

 

[Hadron90]

If the FDA was so corrupt, why is it so ridiculously hard to get anything approved by it? Of all the regulating bodies in the world it's the strictest by far.

Part of corruption is getting your drugs approved. The other part is paying them to shut down your competitors drugs. See: Ivermectin.

 

[The XL]

Part of corruption is getting your drugs approved. The other part is paying them to shut down your competitors drugs. See: Ivermectin.

Bingo.

 

[tastaylvr]

I have a friend who works at an aged care facility here in Melbourne where 98.5% of residents and 100% of staff are double vaccinated. There are even some who have had multiple vaccines and the procedures seem to be getting tighter not looser for some reason. Everyone comes in double masked and takes a covid test every single day. Then they spray their hands and throw the masks they are wearing away and wear two new ones. The nurse giving the test wears new ppe every 15 minutes. The amount of face shields, plastic coverings and masks they must go through every day for this bs is mind boggling. Some stupid doctor is setting these policies. Just fucking ridiculous that they might be doing this dumb shit forever.

 

[Fugazy]

Funny seeing people who hate Russell Brand and don't believe in 99% of what he does, suddenly championing him because he gave a bit of ammunition to the anti-vax tards.

Wow you know which posters here do and don’t like Brand, who does or does not share his politics and what their own politics are? And you are familiar enough with them to draw comparisons, see patterns and draw conclusions? Wow. That be some high level data collection and interpretation. Might you have any raw data to share or are you making a lazy half assed point that was pulled out of your ass?

 

[Arkain2K]

- I had no idea that the FDA was not publicly funded anymore. It used to be funded by tax payers alone. Now, it's funded by the people that it's supposed to be investigating. This is obviously a huge problem.

The FDA, or FTC, or FCC, or SEC, or EPA, or any other regulatory body gets the bulk of their funding from tax players, and much of the rest from mandatory regulatory fees imposed on those whom they regulate. These fees are more like taxes, rather than the sort of "funding" that Russell Brand is trying to insenuate.

Further more, the hefty million-dollars fines imposed on the companies and executives who broke the law would be distributed to the regulatory bodies involved as well (see the threads on the EPA smacking down Volkswagen, or the SEC bitch-slap Elon Musk).

This is extremely common knowledge for any educated American adults, because it is taught in High School's Government class in the U.S. The annual budget for each American public regulatory agency are also easily fact-checked by anyone, because they are public information, not national secrets.

Russell Brand saying the FDA is "funded by big pharma" is akin to saying the EPA is "funded by big cars companies", or the SEC is "funded by big bankers". It's completely idiotic, but I can already tell what sort of Shertards will click Like on that steaming pile of bullshit and gladly eat it all up due to sheer ignorance, in yet another laughable attempt to twist reality to fit their bizarre view.

Then again, Sherdoggers being miseducated by professor Russell Brand is still a step up from Dr. Tito Ortiz on this panel of scholars, I suppose.

 

[ocean size]

Part of corruption is getting your drugs approved. The other part is paying them to shut down your competitors drugs. See: Ivermectin.

please mate

 

[Hadron90]

The FDA, or FTC, or FCC, or SEC, or EPA, or any other regulatory body gets the bulk of their funding from taxes, and much of the rest from mandatory regulatory fees imposed on those whom they regulate. Hefty fines imposed on the companies and executives who broke the law would go to the regulatory bodies involved as well (see the threads on the EPA smacking down Volkswagen, or the SEC bitch-slap Elon Musk).

This is extremely common knowledge for any educated American adults, because it is taught in High School's Government class in America. The annual budget for each public regulatory agency are also easily fact-checked by anyone, because they are not national secrets.

Russell Brand saying the FDA is "funded by big pharma" is akin to saying the EPA is "funded by big cars companies", or the SEC is "funded by big bankers". It's completely idiotic, but I can already tell what sort of Shertards will click Like on that steaming pile of bullshit and gladly eat it all up due to sheer ignorance, in yet another laughable attempt to twist reality to fit their bizarre view.

Then again, being miseducated by professor Russell Brand is still a step up from Dr. Tito Ortiz on this panel of scholars, I suppose.

Lol. The SEC is sure doing a great job at regulating those bankers. Lol.

 

[tenniswhiz]

Russell Brand has no more expertise on this topic than your average person.

 

[Arkain2K]

Russell Brand has no more expertise on this topic than your average person.

But plenty of Sherdoggers are much dumber than the average person, ergo Professor Russell Brand, Dr. Tito Ortiz, or even random people on Twitter are practically scholars for them.

It's sorta like how some people regurgitate whatever Hollywood celebs and Talkshow hosts have to say about anything at all, from the law to the economy, as if those "experts" actually have any real credentials on the subject matter outside of their job to entertain.

 

[Fugazy]

But plenty of Sherdoggers are much dumber than the average person, ergo Professor Russell Brand, Dr. Tito Ortiz, or even random people on Twitter are practically scholars for them.

It's sorta like how some people regurgitate whatever Hollywood celebs and Talkshow hosts have to say about anything at all, from the law to the economy, as if those "experts" actually have any real credentials on the subject matter outside of their job to entertain.

I actually loled at reading “Dr. Tito Ortiz”.

That head sitting on top of a white coat, ha!

 

[PhitePhan]

There are other problems with FDA regulations and back scratching...

Hidden conflicts? Pharma payments to FDA advisers after drug approvals spark ethical concerns
Science investigation of journal disclosures and pharmaceutical funding records shows potential influence on physician gatekeepers

“Corporate payments and other support given to advisers before a drug review are widely acknowledged as troubling. When "a voting member of a committee demonstrably had financial associations with the company or the competitor prior to the meeting, and the FDA doesn't flag it, then somebody's dropping the ball on due diligence," says Yale University physician Robert Steinbrook, editor at large for JAMA Internal Medicine.

Yet benefits that come later, even years after a drug approval vote—jobs, money, professional prestige, and influence—are also fraught, ethicists say. They are a way of "postponing your reward," says Carl Elliott, a medical ethicist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis who has persistently criticized the financial inducements pharma gives to researchers. "You do something positive for a company that you feel confident is going to pay you back for it later on. And they do”... Brilinta fits a pattern of what might be called pay-later conflicts of interest, which have gone largely unnoticed—and entirely unpoliced. In examining compensation records from drug companies to physicians who advised FDA on whether to approve 28 psychopharmacologic, arthritis, and cardiac or renal drugs between 2008 and 2014, Science found widespread after-the-fact payments or research support to panel members.”
https://www.science.org/news/2018/0...a-advisers-after-drug-approvals-spark-ethical

 

[HOLA]

Haven't you guys filled your "taking medical advice from bad comics" quota with Joe Rogan? You really need to add this dude?