I am not sure what you're saying. Two
edges? One is payment from big pharma? The other, the funds allow the FDA
to do its job?
If so, no reason for the funds from big pharma.
A submitted budget reasonably close to need
(think trailing 5-year expenses and current projections) can always be ushered
in every year by the Congress with any unexpected needs met with a line of
credit like any other business, guaranteed by the Congress till next budget's payment.
No need of 2/3 or ANY money coming from the
regulated as 'user fees'. BS total conflict of interest, like the revolving
door with the executives and FDA employees allowed to buy into what they
regulate on the exchanges (or their kin).
And then again, the FDA holds what it gets close
to its chest to protect the regulated and itself from unnecessary prying eyes
while it is trying to do its business. At least that's the story and they're
sticking to it. It makes sense, of course, until the special interests have something to hide and then it is incredibly useful. Power corrupts.
Any other thoughts as to
what Dr. Aseem Mahotra had to say in the Tucker interview? Like I say, I'm not sure
what you meant.
And I also like the part where the Dr. says,
“Fear clouds critical thinking……this problem now is
something called willful blindness…so it’s human beings turning a blind eye to
the truth in order to feel safe, to avoid conflict, reduce anxiety, and to
protect prestige. How do we combat
that? It has to be done with cold hard facts and in a compassionate but