A glimpse behind the cloak (and dagger)
Pssst Wanna buy a drug approval?
In the last Daily Dose, I broke a story I’d been sitting on for a month (the criminal proceedings against former FDA head Lester Crawford), waiting to see what the drug- and government-loving mainstream media was going to do with it before I weighed in with my thoughts. True to form, they under-reported the story – despite my hopes that it would prove too big for even them to ignore or downplay.
In my wrap-up for that last piece, I promised to reveal something even more disturbing than Crawford’s alleged securities violations and political game-playing to block drug approvals to suit President Bush’s agenda. But in order to understand the full import of what I’m talking about, a little background is necessary
Of course, no one could be so nave as to be unaware that a certain amount of off-the-books dealing goes on between opposing parties behind closed doors in Washington. It’s how most things get done on The Hill. But the truth is that before most things ever reach a vote in the House or Senate, their outcomes are already decided – bought and paid for by one party or another to appease the special interest groups that support them.
Basically, it’s like this: Concessions are made by one party in order to recruit enough of the opposition party’s support to ensure a bill’s passage or a nominee’s confirmation, and voila – new policies and new personnel appear, and we all have to live with the outcome, for better or worse
Such was the case with Lester Crawford’s confirmation on July 18, 2005.
According to the New York Times and AP reports, a deal was struck between the head of the division of Health and Human Services (which oversees the FDA) and two democratic Senators who clinched Crawford’s ascendancy to the agency’s helm. In exchange for their positive votes in the confirmation proceedings, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) were promised that once Crawford was confirmed, the FDA would render a decision on an over-the-counter version of RU 486 – the “morning after” birth control pill – by no later than September of 2005.
Without these two key votes, Crawford wouldn’t have been approved as head of the FDA.
But apparently, the deal went bad. Once he was safely confirmed, Crawford postponed this decision indefinitely, many (including some former FDA officials) claim for purely political reasons. This reversal prompted a lawsuit from an advocacy group in New York Federal court.
Now let me be clear – this essay isn’t even remotely about reproductive freedom or the availability of birth control drugs (I’d sooner see fewer of these hormone-based poisons, myself). It’s about how we’re all pawns in a political game. This illustration proves how there is NO SUCH THING as an impartial agent of the government. They’re all for sale.
Bottom line: If the price is right, the DHHS and FDA would sell both our rights to objective oversight of drugs and our very safety down the river to suit the agenda of whatever party is in power.
And the “watchdog” media is just as crooked and agenda-driven. Keep reading
If this story had been about political maneuvering by a Republican-appointed head of the FDA to stall the approval of ANYTHING other than a form of birth control, the major media would have jumped on this story with both feet
Think about it: If the drug Crawford was allegedly stalling for politico-moral reasons were some new anti-depressant, ADHD drug, vaccine or cancer treatment instead of an abortion-in-a-pill, the press would have crucified him.
But since “reproductive rights” are the modern raison d’etre of the all-powerful women’s movement in this country and the undisputed heavyweight champ of mainstream media agendas, the press has remained all but mum on the scandal for fear of raising the ire and resolve of the (majority) political right – or making a hero of Crawford in their eyes.
Remember, mid-term Congressional elections are just months away. It wouldn’t do to wave a red flag in front of the majority’s base, blockbuster scandal story or not.
That, plus the fact that the left-leaning media’s numero uno heroine, Hillary Clinton, cast the deciding vote in confirmation of an FDA head who seems determined to thwart easy access to heedless sex and chemical abortions (both staples of the Democratic party platform). The press is sweeping the story under the rug for fear of hurting their darling Hillary’s chances at the White House in 2008, should she throw her hat in the ring.
So as you can see, it once again falls to little ol’ me to shine a light on the REAL story here: That politics and profit – not prudence or protection – motivate our regulatory agencies and elected officials. As usual.
Always telling, never selling (out),
William Campbell Douglass II, MD
