I'll tell you what is recent--the Supreme Court case that was decided two months ago that says the FDA can't get out of being sued when people are harmed by the drugs they approve. If the drugs they prove now, today are so beneficial and effective why is the FDA so afraid of lawsuits? Answer me that one? Sounds to me like the conclusions from the 1978 report haven't change much down through the years.

The Supreme Court dealt a defeat to the pharmaceutical industry and the Bush administration Wednesday, ruling that federal approval of a prescription drug does not provide a shield against lawsuits from injured patients.

The 6-3 decision upholds the traditional right of U.S. consumers to sue the manufacturer if they are harmed by a defective product.

*******archives.chicagotribune****/2009/mar/05/nation/chi-court-drugs_05mar05

Taking a shot at Big Pharma is equally disingenuous. If these companies have the FDA in their pockets, why does it cost nearly $1 billion to bring a drug to the market? Shouldn't the FDA be lax and let these companies slide and bring drugs to the masses at a lower cost? I do want to see the proof that most of the execs in the FDA have come from pharma companies. Polka, I'm sorry Rebif didn't work. However, all drugs don't work for all people and your case is a good example.

We talked to the Mayo numerous time about the headaches and the fact that she never seem to be getting better but that her version of better seemed to be a getting a little worse month by month. The Mayo advice never changed "keep taking Ribif". By January of this year her quality of life a kind of had bottomed out, the migraines were constant her vision was so bad that she had trouble reading and she could not walk without a severe limp. She decided (against my wishes) to try a Homeopathic Doctor that she had read about. We saw him in late January. He made some suggestions, gave her a diet and got her on some alternative medicines(most of which he has taken her off of aready) She now walks without a limp, her legs are stronger than they have been since before diagnosis. Her vision is better than it has bee in years and she has not had one headache since she quit taking the Rebif.

My example is my fiance, she was diagnosed with MS two and a half years ago. After we found out we went to the Mayo Clinic to find out the best way to fight the MS. They put her on a drug called Rebif, she was to inject it three times a week never in the same place twice within two weeks. During the two years she was on Rebif she had three major relapses. During a relapse she had trouble walking without support, and lost most of her vision in her left eye. When she had a relapse she had to get steroid IVs for five days. Even at her best she walked with a limp and her vision was cloudy. I think the worst part for her was the headaches. Major migraines three to five days a week from the injections, the kind that leave you laying on the floor in pain.

What's next? Are you going to be watching all your neighbors to determine if that woman over there is incapable of being a mother and get the complicit authorities to force her to become sterile or have an abortion?

The ignorant one is he who shoots his mouth off without having anything of substance to back up his statements.

What's next? Are you going to be watching all your neighbors to determine if that woman over there is capable of being a mother and get the complicit authorities to force her to become sterile or have an abortion?

While my own views generally tend to line up on the libertarian side of things, I think this is a case where reason needs to prevail. While I’ll agree that big, intrusive government is harmful in principle, people shouldn’t advance the libertarian cause at the expense of a boy’s life. No treatment is guaranteed to be effective, but I’ll take the wisdom of five doctors over shams like high-PH water and pseudo-Native America medicine, which, according to a Star Tribune article that quotes a few real Native Americans, is nothing more than multi-level marketing bunk. I truly feel for the family and pray that Danny is able to recover. And another good use of our big, bad government would be to start putting the hurt on these borderline fraudulent organizations that peddle alkaline water and other crap on vulnerable people searching for rays of hope.

The FDA was formed to oversee the research on drugs that are approved for the masses to use. Chemotherapy for hodgkins disease has been studied in thousands of patients and has been proven with great rigor to work on cancer patients like Daniel Hauser. In fact, he stands a 90% chance of living with this treatment. The reason doctors won't testify on nutritional medicine is that there are no data to prove it's better than the standard of care which is chemo. The affirmative evidence you speak of is anecdotal at best, and until studied in a blinded, randomized trial of thousands of patients, it can't be compared to what we know works. I applaud the judge et al for having the common sense to see that a young man will die unless this standard is adhered to fully.