Jerry Avorn, MD

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I think that is exactly, and I think you said it perfectly, that if we have a system in which any drug can show, all it really has to show is that it's better than placebo or better than nothing. That is the legal standard that unless it's a condition where you've got a treatment, you know, like HIV or cancer, where you have a drug you know works,

Yeah, I think that is exactly, and I think you said it perfectly, that if we have a system in which any drug can show, all it really has to show is that it's better than placebo or better than nothing. That is the legal standard that unless it's a condition where you've got a treatment, you know, like HIV or cancer, where you have a drug you know works,

Yeah, I think that is exactly, and I think you said it perfectly, that if we have a system in which any drug can show, all it really has to show is that it's better than placebo or better than nothing. That is the legal standard that unless it's a condition where you've got a treatment, you know, like HIV or cancer, where you have a drug you know works,

You can't test your new drug against just a sugar pill. But for a condition like eczema, which is not going to kill anybody, or psoriasis, it is okay. I mean, it's allowed by the law to test the drug against nothing. And the legal standard is that if you're a drug company and you can show your new drug works better than a placebo, the FDA is kind of legally obliged to approve it.

You can't test your new drug against just a sugar pill. But for a condition like eczema, which is not going to kill anybody, or psoriasis, it is okay. I mean, it's allowed by the law to test the drug against nothing. And the legal standard is that if you're a drug company and you can show your new drug works better than a placebo, the FDA is kind of legally obliged to approve it.

You can't test your new drug against just a sugar pill. But for a condition like eczema, which is not going to kill anybody, or psoriasis, it is okay. I mean, it's allowed by the law to test the drug against nothing. And the legal standard is that if you're a drug company and you can show your new drug works better than a placebo, the FDA is kind of legally obliged to approve it.

And that is problem one. Problem two is that the company then gets to decide what it wants to charge for it, and it can charge whatever in the world it wants to charge.

And that is problem one. Problem two is that the company then gets to decide what it wants to charge for it, and it can charge whatever in the world it wants to charge.

And that is problem one. Problem two is that the company then gets to decide what it wants to charge for it, and it can charge whatever in the world it wants to charge.

They would say we are under a ton of political pressure to not make enemies in high places. And this is the case for both the Democrats and the Republicans. This is an equal opportunity problem we've got. Most people don't know that about half of the salary that FDA pays to the doctors and other scientists who review the drugs that it's evaluating are actually paid by the drug industry.

They would say we are under a ton of political pressure to not make enemies in high places. And this is the case for both the Democrats and the Republicans. This is an equal opportunity problem we've got. Most people don't know that about half of the salary that FDA pays to the doctors and other scientists who review the drugs that it's evaluating are actually paid by the drug industry.

They would say we are under a ton of political pressure to not make enemies in high places. And this is the case for both the Democrats and the Republicans. This is an equal opportunity problem we've got. Most people don't know that about half of the salary that FDA pays to the doctors and other scientists who review the drugs that it's evaluating are actually paid by the drug industry.

And that... has a long history where the congress has not given fda enough money and that was before the current cutbacks hasn't got given fda enough money to hire enough people to review the drugs and back in 1992 the drug industry came along and said well That's a problem for us, too, because we want our drugs approved quickly. Why don't you let us pay something that's known as user fees?

And that... has a long history where the congress has not given fda enough money and that was before the current cutbacks hasn't got given fda enough money to hire enough people to review the drugs and back in 1992 the drug industry came along and said well That's a problem for us, too, because we want our drugs approved quickly. Why don't you let us pay something that's known as user fees?

And that... has a long history where the congress has not given fda enough money and that was before the current cutbacks hasn't got given fda enough money to hire enough people to review the drugs and back in 1992 the drug industry came along and said well That's a problem for us, too, because we want our drugs approved quickly. Why don't you let us pay something that's known as user fees?

And we will simply pay the FDA a huge amount of money for each drug that it reviews. And that's how you can meet salary for your scientists to review the drugs.

And we will simply pay the FDA a huge amount of money for each drug that it reviews. And that's how you can meet salary for your scientists to review the drugs.

And we will simply pay the FDA a huge amount of money for each drug that it reviews. And that's how you can meet salary for your scientists to review the drugs.