April 20, 2009
Citizen or Subject?
One of my favorite parts of Amity Shlaes's The Forgotten Man is when the publisher of Good Housekeeping is at the White House (for dinner as I recall) and is told about the new FDA that will replace her cherished "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval."
I have tiresomely suggested a privatized FDA based on the Underwriter's Laboratory/CSA model, but I think I'd take about anything over what we have now. While 30,000 die each year of prostrate cancer, the FDA is empowered (again) to keep its most promising new drug off the market for a couple of years so that the developer can complete some more t-dotting and i-crossing. And only the WSJ Ed Page and I seem to care.
Provenge is an advanced cancer "vaccine," which stimulates the body's immune system to attack tumor cells and thereby fight off cancer on its own, instead of using chemotherapy or surgery. In an earlier placebo-controlled Phase III trial (the most rigorous kind), men with late-stage cancer who received Provenge lived a median of 25.9 months, compared with 21.4 months otherwise. After three years, 34% were alive, compared to only 11% for the control group. In March 2007, an FDA advisory panel voted 13 to 4 that there was "substantial evidence" the drug worked, and 17-0 that it was safe.
But later that year, the FDA delayed approval, ruling that the trial did not meet its criteria for statistical significance and that the patient sample was too small. So Dendreon agreed to complete another double-blind trial to FDA specifications, and Dendreon officials say the results have now met those benchmarks. The detailed results will be presented later this month.
The larger question is why Provenge wasn't made available sooner to the 30,000 American men who die each year from prostate cancer. The FDA regularly -- and pointlessly -- slow-walks potentially revolutionary therapies, relying on overly simplistic and unscientific statistical models that don't take into account the fact that some drugs may work better in certain subgroups than in others. Its regulatory blockade is especially cruel to terminally ill patients for whom drugs like Provenge may mean extra months or years of life.
And the even larger question is are we citizens or subjects? Must we go quietly die in the corner while we wait for our goverment to "approve" a treatment that was voted 17-0 for safety?
Pharmaceuticals
Posted by John Kranz at April 20, 2009 12:38 PM
The other shoe, the dropping of which we breathlessly await, will be fanatics in the streets and on The View screaming out dire, apocalyptic warnings of "Laetrile!" and "Thalidomide!" But we need the careful, deliberate slow hand of the nannystate to protect us from the evil drug companies, they will tell us; after all, if Big Tobacco can't even be truthful about the addictive nature of nicotine, how can we expect Big Pharma to be honest about the dangerous side effects of their products when there's big bucks to be made?
Seems to me that if my doctor simply tells me "well, Keith, I can prescribe this medication for you; known side effects in a minority of test patients include coma, blindness, projectile vomiting, breaking out in a thousand itchy pustules, flaming urination, hair loss, and club foot - " well, once he says that, I can make an informed decision on just what I'm willing to risk in order to conquer my hay fever, can't I?
If we were free men, we'd be able to make that decision for ourselves.
The other shoe, the dropping of which we breathlessly await, will be fanatics in the streets and on The View screaming out dire, apocalyptic warnings of "Laetrile!" and "Thalidomide!" But we need the careful, deliberate slow hand of the nannystate to protect us from the evil drug companies, they will tell us; after all, if Big Tobacco can't even be truthful about the addictive nature of nicotine, how can we expect Big Pharma to be honest about the dangerous side effects of their products when there's big bucks to be made?
Seems to me that if my doctor simply tells me "well, Keith, I can prescribe this medication for you; known side effects in a minority of test patients include coma, blindness, projectile vomiting, breaking out in a thousand itchy pustules, flaming urination, hair loss, and club foot - " well, once he says that, I can make an informed decision on just what I'm willing to risk in order to conquer my hay fever, can't I?
If we were free men, we'd be able to make that decision for ourselves.
Posted by: Keith at April 20, 2009 3:57 PM"IF"
Posted by: johngalt at April 21, 2009 1:04 PMjg, your facility with the laconic phrase is a thing of beauty.
Yes, , you're right - but remember: great men can't be ruled.
Posted by: Keith at April 21, 2009 1:10 PMJK might remember my older blog entries that mentioned my now-gone father's stroke.
About 11 years ago, a certain wonderful "clot-buster" drug was very new. I don't know the name, but the FDA had approved it for limited testing. When my father had a stroke one night, he was "fortunate" enough that the FDA allowed these doctors to ask him if he wanted to try this drug.
The doctors had nothing else strong enough. They said with anything else they had, it was a 100% chance he'd die. With no treatment, it was a 100% chance he'd die. With the drug, it was a 10% chance he'd live, and a 90% chance he'd develop a brain hemorrhage and die during the night.
He made it. Cancer later on ate him down to the bone, but he survived the stroke.
Gotta love that FDA. They couldn't let my father try the drug, it might kill him!
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 21, 2009 2:42 PMNo, I don't remember that, Perry, and I'm certain I would not have forgotten. We all go on about marginal tax rates and library records and the like -- and I am glad of it. But we forget that Locke and Jefferson both listed "life" first and that we have so willingly ceded to the government the right to protect our life. Though it came in with FDR nobody I know (except ThreeSourcers) can even imagine a world without the FDA.
Subjects.
Posted by: jk at April 21, 2009 3:11 PMWell, I did cheat a little by omitting the period.
And in reply to your latest comment, let's see what you think of another one that's been rattling around in my brain box:
"There are no great men only great ideas and the men who promulgate them."
Posted by: johngalt at April 21, 2009 3:44 PMjg: I confess I don't recognize that one, and it would be cheating to google it, so either it's an original jg epigram, or you're going to have to edumacate me. BUT - and this is a critical but - if, as you assert, "there are no great men," then Howard Roark's statement that great men can't be ruled becomes moot.
There's a syllogism in there, and one worthy of Shaw.
I'll confess the quotation is in response to jk's chosen title for this post, "Citizen or Subject?" and the question of whether we are free citizens, or vassals of a state bent on commanding us.
"I am not a number! I am a free man!" Anyone want to take a stab at that one?
Posted by: Keith at April 21, 2009 5:56 PMAs for "There are no great men only great ideas and the men who promulgate them," I would propose that great ideas require great men to originate them, wise men to recognize them, and good men to support them.
No offense intended to any ladies among the readership...
Posted by: Keith at April 21, 2009 5:59 PM"we have so willingly ceded to the government the right to protect our life. Though it came in with FDR nobody I know (except ThreeSourcers) can even imagine a world without the FDA."
You may have ceded that to government, and I did once upon a time, but I have taken back what I mistakenly gave away. Let me put it this way. If there's a certain medicine I want, I'm going to get and use it, and there's not a damn thing the government can do to stop me. But I guess I'm just a "radical" like Jefferson when it comes to freedom.
I can most certainly imagine a world without the FDA. It existed only a matter of several decades ago. Our foods and preparation methods are far superior than ever, but that isn't because of the FDA or health departments. It's because of technology.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 22, 2009 12:03 PMYou're right Keith, it's an original, and loosely based on Admiral Bull Halsey's "There are no great men. Just great challenges that ordinary men, out of necessity, are force by circumstance to meet."
My contention was that the greatness of one's ideas is what makes him great, but this leaves out his actions. Not very profound after all.
Posted by: johngalt at April 22, 2009 3:42 PMRE: "I am not a number! I am a free man!"
dagny's guess is 'Les Miserables'
jg's guess is 'THX-1138' (For which, incidentally, jg thinks Lucas "borrowed" the theme from Rand's "Anthem."
Posted by: johngalt at April 23, 2009 12:17 PMjg and dagny: both fine guesses, but not quite. I should pay tribute here to Mr. Beck, my seventh-grade science teacher, who, once a week, would read to his science class a section of Anthem (and when that book was finished, Animal Farm). I couldn't wait for the next week to come, and after Anthem, I couldn't get enough of Ayn Rand. Hard to believe I can thank a California public schoolteacher for planting the first seeds of my Weltanschauung.
No, "I am not a number! I am a free man!" comes from a British television series about government and individualism: The Prisoner (1967 - before your time, young'uns):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061287/
Posted by: Keith at April 23, 2009 1:35 PM | What do you think? [12]