Jerry Avorn, MD

I think we just need to hold the FDA to the standard that it was really expected to meet back in 1962 when its legislation was established, that it needs to make sure the manufacturer showed the drug is safe and effective before approving it. And one of the maybe scarier points is that because FDA has gotten lax on that and has accepted changes in lab tests,

I think we just need to hold the FDA to the standard that it was really expected to meet back in 1962 when its legislation was established, that it needs to make sure the manufacturer showed the drug is safe and effective before approving it. And one of the maybe scarier points is that because FDA has gotten lax on that and has accepted changes in lab tests,

I think we just need to hold the FDA to the standard that it was really expected to meet back in 1962 when its legislation was established, that it needs to make sure the manufacturer showed the drug is safe and effective before approving it. And one of the maybe scarier points is that because FDA has gotten lax on that and has accepted changes in lab tests,

And then as a marker for approving a drug, even though it doesn't show that it helps patients. And I think even worse, FDA has then failed to follow up on requiring that the companies do the follow-up studies that the law requires them to, which of course the companies are happy to forget doing if they have a drug that may not pass those tests and they can leave it on the market.

And then as a marker for approving a drug, even though it doesn't show that it helps patients. And I think even worse, FDA has then failed to follow up on requiring that the companies do the follow-up studies that the law requires them to, which of course the companies are happy to forget doing if they have a drug that may not pass those tests and they can leave it on the market.

And then as a marker for approving a drug, even though it doesn't show that it helps patients. And I think even worse, FDA has then failed to follow up on requiring that the companies do the follow-up studies that the law requires them to, which of course the companies are happy to forget doing if they have a drug that may not pass those tests and they can leave it on the market.

charge full freight for it, and then it may be years before we find out that it really doesn't help people. So I think all we need to really expect is that the FDA will do its job better than it has been doing, and that companies essentially have their feet held to the fire and be told, look, you can charge a lot for this drug, and if it's a great drug, that's okay, and we'll pay for it.

charge full freight for it, and then it may be years before we find out that it really doesn't help people. So I think all we need to really expect is that the FDA will do its job better than it has been doing, and that companies essentially have their feet held to the fire and be told, look, you can charge a lot for this drug, and if it's a great drug, that's okay, and we'll pay for it.

charge full freight for it, and then it may be years before we find out that it really doesn't help people. So I think all we need to really expect is that the FDA will do its job better than it has been doing, and that companies essentially have their feet held to the fire and be told, look, you can charge a lot for this drug, and if it's a great drug, that's okay, and we'll pay for it.

But you can't not study it adequately and then not do the follow-up studies that the law requires you to do and expect that somebody is going to come up with either $50,000 or in some cases $300,000 a year, as we see in the drugs for muscular dystrophy, for drugs that have not been shown to help.

But you can't not study it adequately and then not do the follow-up studies that the law requires you to do and expect that somebody is going to come up with either $50,000 or in some cases $300,000 a year, as we see in the drugs for muscular dystrophy, for drugs that have not been shown to help.

But you can't not study it adequately and then not do the follow-up studies that the law requires you to do and expect that somebody is going to come up with either $50,000 or in some cases $300,000 a year, as we see in the drugs for muscular dystrophy, for drugs that have not been shown to help.

So I think one of the things that I, when I teach doctors, I urge my colleagues to do is just because it's new and shiny and there's a tremendous sales pitch that you're presented, you know, maybe over a delicious dinner at the best restaurants in town. I think all of us as doctors ought to have a, just a high level of,

So I think one of the things that I, when I teach doctors, I urge my colleagues to do is just because it's new and shiny and there's a tremendous sales pitch that you're presented, you know, maybe over a delicious dinner at the best restaurants in town. I think all of us as doctors ought to have a, just a high level of,

So I think one of the things that I, when I teach doctors, I urge my colleagues to do is just because it's new and shiny and there's a tremendous sales pitch that you're presented, you know, maybe over a delicious dinner at the best restaurants in town. I think all of us as doctors ought to have a, just a high level of,

wanting to see more about the evidence and that doesn't mean that every doctor needs to study every drug but to not assume that if it's new and it's expensive and it's fda approved it's got to be better than what we've already got sometimes it is and we need to be very open to that but sometimes it isn't and you know you can just turn on the tv and see all the different psoriasis and eczema

wanting to see more about the evidence and that doesn't mean that every doctor needs to study every drug but to not assume that if it's new and it's expensive and it's fda approved it's got to be better than what we've already got sometimes it is and we need to be very open to that but sometimes it isn't and you know you can just turn on the tv and see all the different psoriasis and eczema

wanting to see more about the evidence and that doesn't mean that every doctor needs to study every drug but to not assume that if it's new and it's expensive and it's fda approved it's got to be better than what we've already got sometimes it is and we need to be very open to that but sometimes it isn't and you know you can just turn on the tv and see all the different psoriasis and eczema

drugs that are so lavishly advertised. And frankly, a lot of them are not a lot better than the older ones that we have that are way cheaper. So I think doctors and patients alike need to basically have a high level of scrutiny about how do we know it's better. And doctors can ask that of the sales reps that come to visit them from the companies.

drugs that are so lavishly advertised. And frankly, a lot of them are not a lot better than the older ones that we have that are way cheaper. So I think doctors and patients alike need to basically have a high level of scrutiny about how do we know it's better. And doctors can ask that of the sales reps that come to visit them from the companies.