>In early August, soon after joining the FDA, Tidmarsh announced actions that would effectively remove from the market a drug ingredient made by a company associated with Tang. Tidmarsh’s lawyer then sent a letter to Tang proposing that he extend a “service agreement” for “another 10 years,” which would see Tang making payments to a Tidmarsh-associated entity until 2044. The email was seen as attempted extortion, with such payments being in exchange for Tidmarsh rolling back the FDA’s regulatory change.
“He had the temerity to reject a drug that had lousy data…”
Was that data really “lousy”? (Referencing the REPL data?)
Was it a trial design issue? (which he has very strong and unconventional opinions on)
Is it the role of his position to overrule his specialist review teams ? (in the absence of any clear safety risks or malfeasance)
We need to get rid of this system where these bureaucrats have the power to decide what medicine people have access to. Just make the data public and let people decide for themselves.
They really aren’t, it’s the work of more than one human to keep up with this stuff.
So you need a government agency or a private group doing the same functions while facing huge lawsuits and thus requiring the same or more data. Granted US doctors could use European etc guidelines, but that’s a different discussion.
That’s how you end up with snake oil, traditional medicine, herbal medicine, and people trying to cure their cancer with supplements instead of surgery and chemo.
Such lax rules are invariably exploited to death (literally!) by unscrupulous profit-seekers.
Even if you’re smarter than the average bear and “do your own research”, your relatives won’t all be of the same intellectual calibre and you’ll occasionally lose a loved one to a huckster selling mercury compounds as a cure all.
> That’s how you end up with snake oil, traditional medicine, herbal medicine, and people trying to cure their cancer with supplements instead of surgery and chemo.
So no different than with the current FDA approvals?
Setting aside the entirely unprofessional and unnecessary insult language [1], this is trashy, partisan "journalism". An article about a singular scandal at the FDA buries the lede amongst complaints about the CDC, and a non-sequitur about Vinay Prasad that doesn't even mention anything specific.
Mods should switch the link to the much better article at Stat News [2], which this is just badly regurgitating anyway.
> Many of the scandals are tied to Vinay Prasad, the Trump administration’s top vaccine regulator, who also has the titles of chief medical officer and chief scientific officer. Prasad made a name for himself on social media during the pandemic as a COVID-19 response skeptic and, since joining the FDA, has been known for overruling agency scientists and sowing distrust, unrest, and paranoia among staff. He was pushed out of the agency in July only to be reinstated about two weeks later.
An honest journalist would note that Prasad was pushed out from the right (possibly from industry activism) because he had the temerity to reject a drug that had lousy evidence (the "scandals" in question, which were not actually scandals). The Wall Street Journal, Laura Loomer and a US Senator have made a coordinated vendetta against the guy, who is quite possibly one of the most principled actors in this administration.
[1] The "clown show" epithet came from an unnamed "venture captial investor". Come now. If you're going to fling that kind of petty invective, cite your sources, particularly when those sources come from investors in the regulated industry.
Yes, that's one scandal, from one person. It has nothing to do with Vinay Prasad, certainly nothing to do with the CDC, and whatever you think of the administration, connecting this event to "everything else" is political hackery.
How is it political hackery? There is a clear pattern of this administration appointing inept leadership to public health positions. The article is not C-SPAN dry, but it's not New York Post hackery either.
It's an article about a single corrupt individual. Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first.
I don't care what your opinions are of the administration. This is crappy journalism. I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan.
I don’t think these are ad hominem attacks. The article seems to just state the (perhaps biased) facts: people are calling it a clown show, Prasad was ousted, Prasad did gain popularity on social media as a COVID-skeptic. It doesn’t become an ad hominem just because you don’t like the way the facts are stated or the inferences your own brain makes.
What about the nearly everyone else in the administration that is also a blatantly corrupt, unqualified, and incompetent bootlicker, many of which are even self described Nazis?
Laura Loomer affecting staffing decisions because one of their stooges isn't the right flavor of corrupt and incompetent for her is what a clown show is. Pretending this deserves the same dignity as a competent and good faith administration would be the ultimate participation trophy.
Having a stance is not the same thing as bias and it's not the same thing as partisanship.
Straight up extortion.
Was that data really “lousy”? (Referencing the REPL data?) Was it a trial design issue? (which he has very strong and unconventional opinions on) Is it the role of his position to overrule his specialist review teams ? (in the absence of any clear safety risks or malfeasance)
So you need a government agency or a private group doing the same functions while facing huge lawsuits and thus requiring the same or more data. Granted US doctors could use European etc guidelines, but that’s a different discussion.
Such lax rules are invariably exploited to death (literally!) by unscrupulous profit-seekers.
Even if you’re smarter than the average bear and “do your own research”, your relatives won’t all be of the same intellectual calibre and you’ll occasionally lose a loved one to a huckster selling mercury compounds as a cure all.
You’ll get mad and “demand something be done.”
That something looks like the FDA.
So no different than with the current FDA approvals?
It is also incredibly saddening to see great institutions of expertise be treated as playthings by the ignorant.
There's plenty to criticize of the org (as with almost all others) but the rank and file are doing good work to help try to keep us safe.
Mods should switch the link to the much better article at Stat News [2], which this is just badly regurgitating anyway.
> Many of the scandals are tied to Vinay Prasad, the Trump administration’s top vaccine regulator, who also has the titles of chief medical officer and chief scientific officer. Prasad made a name for himself on social media during the pandemic as a COVID-19 response skeptic and, since joining the FDA, has been known for overruling agency scientists and sowing distrust, unrest, and paranoia among staff. He was pushed out of the agency in July only to be reinstated about two weeks later.
An honest journalist would note that Prasad was pushed out from the right (possibly from industry activism) because he had the temerity to reject a drug that had lousy evidence (the "scandals" in question, which were not actually scandals). The Wall Street Journal, Laura Loomer and a US Senator have made a coordinated vendetta against the guy, who is quite possibly one of the most principled actors in this administration.
[1] The "clown show" epithet came from an unnamed "venture captial investor". Come now. If you're going to fling that kind of petty invective, cite your sources, particularly when those sources come from investors in the regulated industry.
[2] https://www.statnews.com/2025/11/04/fda-in-disarray-expert-a...
Why? The cost of citation is very high, so you'd simply not report on valuable sentiment
I don't care what your opinions are of the administration. This is crappy journalism. I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan.
Having a stance is not the same thing as bias and it's not the same thing as partisanship.