I mentioned not long ago how proud I am of Kathy for a new song and animation she ramrodded for Consumers Union to promote prescription drug reform in Congress. It's a truly cutting edge project combining podcasting, flash animation, and Consumers Unions e-action system to promote a reform message with an outrageously funny twist. (The above shot depicts "male lactation" as a possible side effect.) Called "The Drugs I Need," the song was written and performed by the Austin Lounge Lizards, with the video done by Austin's Animation Farm. It blasts big drug companies for pawning off products with deleterious side effects without making all their test results public.
Well, yesterday the New York Times covered it in their Science section, and they quoted Kathy! I'm glad she's getting some credit, because she deserves it. She tells me it's been plugged on over 50 blogs now, and is being promoted by Jib Jab.
Check out the song and animation (both are downloadable) at www.prescriptionforchange.org.
.jpg)
5 comments:
I'm surprised at you. America's drug approval process is already the slowest and most cumbersome in the civilized world, slower even than Europe's, and certainly kills more people by delaying the approval of lifesaving drugs than by approving drugs it shouldn't. And now, Consumers Union wants to worsen the problem. This zeal for overregulation is typical of Consumers Union -- but a sensible, anti-War-on-Drugs person such as yourself should know better.
Government overregulation of drugs is the problem. It can not solve any problem without creating a worse one. What we need is a private "Underwriters Labs" to tell us what drugs are safe, not more regulation by bureaucrats whose decisions are usually determined by politics rather than science (RU-486, anyone?) and who are immune from legal liability when they mess up.
I'm surprised at you. America's drug approval process is already the slowest and most cumbersome in the civilized world, slower even than Europe's, and certainly kills more people by delaying the approval of lifesaving drugs than by approving drugs it shouldn't. And now, Consumers Union wants to worsen the problem. This zeal for overregulation is typical of Consumers Union -- but a sensible, anti-War-on-Drugs person such as yourself should know better.
Government overregulation of drugs is the problem. It can not solve any problem without creating a worse one. What we need is a private "Underwriters Labs" to tell us what drugs are safe, not more regulation by bureaucrats whose decisions are usually determined by politics rather than science (RU-486, anyone?) and who are immune from legal liability when they mess up.
I'm surprised at you. America's drug approval process is already the slowest and most cumbersome in the civilized world, slower even than Europe's, and certainly kills more people by delaying the approval of lifesaving drugs than by approving drugs it shouldn't. And now, Consumers Union wants to worsen the problem. This zeal for overregulation is typical of Consumers Union -- but a sensible, anti-War-on-Drugs person such as yourself should know better.
Government overregulation of drugs is the problem. It can not solve any problem without creating a worse one. What we need is a private "Underwriters Labs" to tell us what drugs are safe, not more regulation by bureaucrats whose decisions are usually determined by politics rather than science (RU-486, anyone?) and who are immune from legal liability when they mess up.
John David,
Requiring drug companies to divulge to the public that they know that their drugs could kill people is "overregulation"? Come on. You're not really that dumb. Try thinking for yourself one day instead of trying to fit everything into a prepackaged stereotype of government programs.
I have to agree with thehim on this one, John David. Requiring disclosure of test results revealing potentially deadly side effects would be a pre-requisite for such a private entity to work. I don't see how anybody could make a solid judgment without that info. (After all, Consumers Reports IS such a private testing entity, and they say they don't have the information to tell which drugs are safe.)
Plus, most of the research they're concealing is taxpayer subsidized, which is how the companies like it (they're not for market solutions, after all, if it takes them off the government dole). If my taxes are going to pay for it, I don't see why they should get to conceal the results from me.
Post a Comment