Bart Stupak had his little show trial on drug safety yesterday with his sidecar of disgruntled FDA numbers crunchers who see an industry-agency conspiracy behind every adverse event. That includes the increasingly insufferable and self-righteous David Graham who, according to USA Today, "more than two years after (telling) a Senate panel that the Food and Drug Administration was "incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx," the FDA scientist was back on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to tell a House panel that "nothing has really changed." Graham made it sound as if he is the sole repository of truth on whether a drug is safe and indeed claimed that the entire class
Actually, Graham has gotten more hypocritical. Here he is on Vioxx before real scientists at the FDA Advisory Committee hearing on COX-2 safety back in Feb 2005 instead of the self-aggrandizing Stupak:
Dr. Abrahamson: There are data that we have seen that ibuprofen might increase risk. We didn't talk about the McDonald and Way paper that in cardiovascular discharge patients, people give ibuprofen had a higher mortality 2-fold. So, as the smoke clears, I am not sure that the simple answer that the coxibs were different was actually supported by your data, nor
your ultimate explanation. Can you defend that?
Dr. Graham: I think you are accurate. I think what you are saying is fair. Maybe a better thing to say is, in the end, that you do need to look at it drug by drug.
Maybe the better thing is to actually run a balanced hearing instead of phoney three-ring circus that bears no relationship to the science.
Actually, Graham has gotten more hypocritical. Here he is on Vioxx before real scientists at the FDA Advisory Committee hearing on COX-2 safety back in Feb 2005 instead of the self-aggrandizing Stupak:
Dr. Abrahamson: There are data that we have seen that ibuprofen might increase risk. We didn't talk about the McDonald and Way paper that in cardiovascular discharge patients, people give ibuprofen had a higher mortality 2-fold. So, as the smoke clears, I am not sure that the simple answer that the coxibs were different was actually supported by your data, nor
your ultimate explanation. Can you defend that?
Dr. Graham: I think you are accurate. I think what you are saying is fair. Maybe a better thing to say is, in the end, that you do need to look at it drug by drug.
Maybe the better thing is to actually run a balanced hearing instead of phoney three-ring circus that bears no relationship to the science.
