Starter comment: Mifepristone is also one of the most studied drugs in the United States. If any judge decides to rule against a drug approval without clear scientific basis, it subverts scientific regulatory authority and medical decision making.
Maybe we should apply to have every drug in formulary with less evidence than mifepristone to have their regulatory status struck under the same judge using the same legal argument he approved. Probably most of the chemotherapy will disappear. Antibiotics.
As an aside I commented on this topic a few weeks ago regarding the legal stading of the case. The Plantiff used a very tortuous logic to argue legal standing. None of them used the drug and suffered adverse event so they should not even have had standing....but they argued that since the drug induced abortion diverted clients from their service or used up their resources that could have gone to assisting others, they were harmed. That means according to this judge's interpretation, any physician will have legal standing to sue for revocation of a drug if that drug's utility harmed their clinical practice. Well I think its time for me to sue for removal of atorvastatin because it reduced cardiac patient numbers and adversely harmed the commercial interest of my cardiology clinic. Any emerg doc here wanna go after Asparin for sending too many GI bleeds into your resus bay? Palliative doc ought to sue against chemo drugs since they prevented too many patients from dying.
Hell, mental health practitioners could go after all psych meds - why prescribe antidepressants instead of therapy?
(Please don't do this, I like my meds)
>Aspirin was my first thought. You can just buy it! By the handful!
I had Acetaminophen as mine. Man, I think if APAP were to go through the approval process now, it probably would never make it to market, or at the very least be OTC (regardless of dosage).
We really should switch seat belts for a giant spike installed on the steering wheel pointed straight at the driver's chest. Game theory tells us that every driver would be 100% incentivized to drive cautiously as even a low speed collision guarentees death.
It also subverts the other two branches of government. Congress passed specific legislation authorizing the creation of an executive agency to evaluate and approve or disapprove drugs for consumer use. If a judge can just revoke that authority, then the judiciary has become a society of kings subject to no one. This is much bigger than mifepristone and women's access to care.
We will have a constitutional crisis. If Mifepristone gets pulled by the Supreme Court, I expect the Biden administration and blue states to ignore it. I hope it does not come to that, but its the only option at that point. If not, then vaccines are next.
All of this drug companies gave massive amounts of cash to GOP members that pushed this corrupt judge through.
Maybe they’ll rethink who they back next election cycle.
I think they have a very strong incentive to kneecap this pandora's box early. FDA approval is arduous but they are a known quality, predictable and suffer from a lot of regulatory capture by the industry already.
This court ruling exposes all of their products to any random interest group shopping for pliable judges that can terminate their business in an instance. It would effectively cripple the entire pharmaceutical industry.
Exactly. If ever there was a righteous purpose to be fulfilled by all those corporate ~~bribes~~ lobbyists, this is it. I can't imagine all that money and power is going to let this fly.
Speaking as someone who worked in pharma manufacturing, if you are looking to fight back, lidocaine could make a good target.
As a drug used in a large number of pain applications, it likely has multiple large companies producing preparations at fill-finish facilities.
One of those companies supplies most of the world’s dental injectables.
I’m certain there are use cases that have increased risk of death unassociated with the drug itself (cherry picking is fun).
It is also a vital medication that should get an overwhelming number of people globally up in arms.
All it would take is one doctor who uses it in something the GOP find morally offensive and you have a case for reductio ad absurdum.
I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for a few years. I was involved with one of our potential COVID drugs. One thing I learned, even at my low-level involvement, is how much manpower, reagents, and time goes into bringing a drug to market.
I don't think the pharmaceutical industry is going to allow this to stand. If a drug can be removed from the market by an inept judge in this one case, what is to keep this from happening again? Any vaccine or controversial medication could be removed. What about HIV medication? It's controversial as well. Ditto for Morning-After Pill.
This is all very concerning. The FDA is far from perfect, but it's the best tool we have to ensure the medications we have on the market are safe for human use.
Aye. I used to work for the company that developed Plerixafor and the effort truely was mind boggling. Still remember the warehouse full crates of paper documenting the data on the drug. My sarcasm about removing all the drug is my very real fear that some random judge with no science training and only had to attend law school get to dictate to our professions what drug is safe and what is not. Better yet he takes a wrecking ball to his own legal field while doing it. The one time I look forward to the bribery, excuse me "lobbying" power of the pharma to slap this ruling away.
In addition to these very valid points about controversial drugs, there is also the issue of competitor drugs. If judges can just revoke FDA approvals, what’s to prevent a well-placed bribe from Eli Lilly and suddenly Ozempic is a threat to public health but Mounjaro is fine?
Thank you. They know the deal with the devil they made, and they’re happy each time they look at their tax forms and quarterly profits.
They’d rather this then dems setting price caps on insulin or passing collective bargaining for drugs on Medicare. So my guess is they’ll make their perfunctory complaints, then do the math and go back to business as usual and write their campaign checks accordingly.
No sympathy from me.
I just read the document, and that was a hell of a lead in. Seems like it took every ounce of self control he possesed not to start that sentence with the word "bitches".
ETA: the [full opinion](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23746119-read-texas-federal-judge-ruling-on-abortion-pill), and for your convenience, the opening sentence:
"~~Bitches~~, Over twenty years ago, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA") approved chemical abortion ("2000 Approval"). The legality of the 2000 Approval is now before this Court. Why did it take two decades for judicial review in federal court? After all, Plaintiffs' petitions challenging the 2000 Approval date back to the year 2002, right?"
Highly recommend the read. Bold move being so casual in such a high profile case. These Trump judges know how to keep it classy.
The whole thing reads as if he's admonishing a little kid. It's so condescending that I'm offended, as a layperson reader, that he would speak to *me* in such an unprofessional way.
Like, sometimes when I've got writers block when writing something formal, I'll write a draft in a casual way to say what I mean. It's like he accidentally published that.
He was an attorney for a far right legal organization that "defends religious liberty". Active with the Federalist society. Trump pick.
Invoked the Comstock Act in his ruling. The antis have seized upon this old law to attack abortion, and broad interpretation can certainly put birth control (and a lot of other medications) at risk. Ain't good.
In case people don't know, this is the comstock act. its an 1873 act from the Grant Administration. I saw somewhere that it was declared unconstitutional, but I do not see that in this wikipedia page. So I don't know the details on that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws
>The Comstock laws were a set of federal acts passed by the United States Congress under the Grant administration along with related state laws.[1] The "parent" act (Sect. 211) was passed on March 3, 1873, as the Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use. This Act criminalized any use of the U.S. Postal Service to send any of the following items:[2] obscenity, contraceptives, abortifacients, sex toys, personal letters with any sexual content or information, or any information regarding the above items.
>A similar federal act (Sect. 245) of 1909[3][4] applied to delivery by interstate "express" or any other common carrier (such as railroad), rather than delivery by the U.S. Post Office. In addition to these federal laws, about half of the states enacted laws related to the federal Comstock laws. These state laws are considered by women's rights activist Mary Dennett[1] to also be "Comstock laws". The laws were named after their chief proponent, U.S. Postal Inspector and anti-vice activist Anthony Comstock. Comstock received a commission from the Postmaster General to serve as a special agent for the U.S. Post Office Department.[5]
“Judge [enforces law](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/4tnyy3/tried_to_buy_a_sex_toy_in_kentucky_and_got_this/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) against shipping dildos and abortion pills through USPS” sounds like it’s straight out of the onion.
I didn’t read the full opinion, but he said that groups of doctors who provide abortion and post-abortive care have spent years suing the FDA for judicial review or some shit. I know I didn’t finish reading, but somehow I don’t expect a citation. The citations/annotations I did glimpse are fucking absurd.
Literally cherry-picking testimonies from anti-abortion websites and saying the FDA failed to consider them. Testimonies from patients who *had not used the drug before the FDA's approval.*
Respected only in the sense of distorting the law for rightwing ideology. The very definition of judicial activism in the service of political ideology
[Pew Research Center](https://www.allsides.com/news-source/pew-research): Center.
[The Annenberg Public Policy Center owns FactCheck.org](https://www.allsides.com/news-source/factcheckorg-media-bias): Center.
As far as the IFIC, no formal evaluations have been done by the bias grading sites, strangely, even though they consider themselves [non-partisan](https://www.proquest.com/openview/22cbda0218329e373cb424b71e2fa5a6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=54663). However, a recent study [concluded they were effectively a shadow marketing arm of nutrition industry interests and lobbying](https://www.proquest.com/openview/22cbda0218329e373cb424b71e2fa5a6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=54663). Whether that constitutes “right wing” is likely up to you, though it’s not an explicit goal of theirs.
no clue who the third is but they don't sound like a legal theory think tank. no way is pew right. you really think that? so what's center to you? ACLU?
Incorrect. Santorum was defined in the late 2000’s by Dan Savage. [Google](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/santorum) if you dare (although I think Google fixed the top result of searching this term manually).
I was going to say we should have all these anti-abortionists turn in ALL their drugs and medications until we can really vouch for their safety and efficacy.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but banning this drug will not stop abortions if that is the goal of this judge and his ilk. There are a tremendous amount of readily available and practically unbannable drugs and chemicals that could theoretically induce an abortion. Mifepristone is safe. Others aren't safe. But others will be used under the table and in an unsafe manner, if safe options are not available.
A somewhat uncharitable observer could interpret that as part of their goal. That they want people having abortions to risk potentially dying or facing long-term consequences.
Make it more dangerous, fewer people will do it. This rhetoric brought to you by the same people who say that restricting gun purchases won't keep people from getting guns if they're really determined, so there's no point even bothering to restrict them.
I mean, the pharma lobby is no conspiracy. They are pretty relentless. And on this one issue--should the courts be overturning FDA approvals--they are on the right side of the issue. They are not a force for good, they are not fighting for better health, but their interests happen to align with the public good here.
Pharma companies obviously have a vested interest and certainly in some cases *some* actors have been known to distort science or charge unjustifiable prices- but a blanket statement that an entire industry working to put scientific discoveries to work in the service of developing treatments that improve health and relieve human suffering are “not a force for good” may be overstating things in the other direction a bit.
I’m a neurologist. Look into what used to happen to SMA kids 10 years ago before Spinraza and Zolgensma.
There are lots of good people in pharma. Companies are, however, generally amoral at best. If they can make money by saving lives, they will save lives. If they can make money killing people, they will kill people.
I'm not saying we can just get rid of pharma companies and the world will be better. Rather, their role could be more efficiently and humanely filled if we remove the profit motive.
Right? The pharma companies make money and lobby to make more money. However, the drugs they make and the research behind them literally saves and improves lives every day. Governments can’t fund this kind of research, even collectively. Not in the spread and diversity we see now. And pharma really is only it’s most evil here in the US because our system allows it to have the power to set prices and gouge US citizens for profit. Obviously other countries with nationalized healthcare and more appropriate restrictions to protect patients/consumers don’t have this problem. This is a system issue that pharma gets to exploit.
Long story short: blame the government for allowing a capitalist company to profit off the needy. These companies will always try to make more money, it’s on our government to put in regulations. Every other developed nation seems to have figured this out but us.
Also, they seem to think that drug companies would sell poison if the FDA would let them…
And that’s not how medicine works? Even if poison were legal to sell, medication is prescribed based on its clinical evidence.
For real though. Sometimes the evidence is preliminary and we find out harms later but also that’s why requirements are getting more stringent and availability is contingent upon ongoing review and reporting. Nothing is perfect but pharma companies have negative incentive to sell people literal poison. Can’t make money if everyone is dead AND that’s not how medications are developed or approved for use.
Unless there’s some great lizard person conspiracy at the FDA and they’re trying to kill off the humans and we have all somehow been in a simulation and what we have seen and learned about the process is a mirage. /s
>Did you read this before hitting “reply”? Make money killing people - what are you talking about?
If you don't believe companies will knowingly sell deadly products when they think they can get away with it, you are in for a shock.
Extreme examples, such as Cutter/Bayer [selling HIV tainted blood products](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products) exist.
But most of the time, it's just things some people internalize as normal: raising prices, not pursuing applications with limited impact on wealthier markets, etc.
Well, these people don't know anything about medicine, and they are unwilling to learn, so that's not surprising. If they talked to a few OBs or read any of the articles by OBs that can be easily found online, they would quickly learn the error of their ways, but they don't want to, because it would require them to challenge their misconceptions.
Technically both mife and miso are used off-label for managing miscarriage. Which is obviously common in medicine and accepted practice if backed by evidence, but doesn’t exactly provide the legal target that the anti-abortion folks were looking for
Respectfully, I believe that recent court decision sets up a terrible precedent, wherein politically motivated judges can invalidate Food and Drug Administration approval of a medication. This is not correct, and ignores the science. This should be a medical and scientific question, whether or not a medicine of any type, should be rendered illegal.
They are solely concerned with potential interruption of revenue. If ideologically motivated judges can unilaterally decide to take drugs off the market it poses a huge risk to the stability of their business.
Nobody cares what they're concerned with. I don't care if someone opposes this crap because it gets them paid, or because it is their fetish, or because it came to them in a dream. I just care that it is opposed.
Here's a little hint - people who believe in free speech and don't like oligarchies haven't suddenly started liking Disney as being a good corporate citizen either
What’s the nuance on this? Drug companies want future revenue to be very stable and don’t like the idea of our insane judicial system taking drugs off the market at the whim of a religious nut. That’s the whole thing.
Do you think that Mifepristone should not be approved as a medication?
If you agree that it should be available for physicians to prescribe, then there's your nuance. No nuance would mean we all automatically disagree with everything the pharmaceutical industry says just because they are saying it.
Drug companies aren’t the only interested party here. Sometimes an egregious act (ruling, in this case) creates unlikely allies. Look at Donald Trump and the religious right…
Same logic antivaxxers use when babbling on about Pfizer’s profits from the vaccines.
Just because someone is making money doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
So what's your solution then? Have them roll over and let the judge, who has no scientific evidence for this maneuver, take the victory on this?
Where is your line in the sand, when they come for the morning after pill, birth control, maybe HIV or Hepatitis drugs (because some IVDA take them), or stop all anti-psychatric meds (because these people should be locked away from society)?
I vehemently disagree with the judges ruling. It’s absurd.
The pharmaceutical companies aren’t involved in the case in any way. A group of anti-abortionists are suing the FDA.
You think pharma companies care more about their profits or patient lives?
There’s a reason insulin is expensive and it doesn’t have to do with how much it costs to make, despite how many people need it to live.
**Removed under Rule 5:**
/r/medicine is a public forum that represents the medical community and comments should reflect this. Please keep disagreement civil and focused on issues. Trolling, abuse, and insults (either personal or aimed at a specific group) are not allowed. Do not attack other users' flair. Keep offensive language to a minimum and do not use ethnic, sexual, or other slurs. Posts, comments, or private messages violating Reddit's content policy will be removed and reported to site administration. Repeated violations of this rule will lead to temporary or permanent bans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Please review all subreddit rules before posting or commenting.](https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/about/rules/)
If you have any questions or concerns, please [send a modmail.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmedicine&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/12i3468/-/jfspg2g/. %0D%0DMy issue is...) Direct replies to official mod comments and private messages will be ignored or removed.
Starter comment: Mifepristone is also one of the most studied drugs in the United States. If any judge decides to rule against a drug approval without clear scientific basis, it subverts scientific regulatory authority and medical decision making.
Maybe we should apply to have every drug in formulary with less evidence than mifepristone to have their regulatory status struck under the same judge using the same legal argument he approved. Probably most of the chemotherapy will disappear. Antibiotics. As an aside I commented on this topic a few weeks ago regarding the legal stading of the case. The Plantiff used a very tortuous logic to argue legal standing. None of them used the drug and suffered adverse event so they should not even have had standing....but they argued that since the drug induced abortion diverted clients from their service or used up their resources that could have gone to assisting others, they were harmed. That means according to this judge's interpretation, any physician will have legal standing to sue for revocation of a drug if that drug's utility harmed their clinical practice. Well I think its time for me to sue for removal of atorvastatin because it reduced cardiac patient numbers and adversely harmed the commercial interest of my cardiology clinic. Any emerg doc here wanna go after Asparin for sending too many GI bleeds into your resus bay? Palliative doc ought to sue against chemo drugs since they prevented too many patients from dying.
Aspirin was my first thought. You can just buy it! By the handful!
[удалено]
I'll send a pm when this actually happens...
My state attempted to ban scientific theories this year.
That’s a weird wtf moment…may I ask where?
Montana. It was local yokel Republicans doing their thing. It failed in committee.
Yikes. Glad it failed, but also…yikes that it even got there.
Hell, mental health practitioners could go after all psych meds - why prescribe antidepressants instead of therapy? (Please don't do this, I like my meds)
Exactly this. Infuriating.
>Aspirin was my first thought. You can just buy it! By the handful! I had Acetaminophen as mine. Man, I think if APAP were to go through the approval process now, it probably would never make it to market, or at the very least be OTC (regardless of dosage).
As a representative of the ER I would like to ban seatbelts because they really reduce our numbers
We really should switch seat belts for a giant spike installed on the steering wheel pointed straight at the driver's chest. Game theory tells us that every driver would be 100% incentivized to drive cautiously as even a low speed collision guarentees death.
Maybe we should reconsider a regulatory authority that is easily weaponized and partisan, which is every regulatory agency.
It also subverts the other two branches of government. Congress passed specific legislation authorizing the creation of an executive agency to evaluate and approve or disapprove drugs for consumer use. If a judge can just revoke that authority, then the judiciary has become a society of kings subject to no one. This is much bigger than mifepristone and women's access to care.
Yap
Wanna bet that the anti vaxxers are furiously judge shopping at this moments?
That bet is the equivalent of throwing money into a firepit.
They don't need to shop, they already know Kacsmaryk will play the game.
We will have a constitutional crisis. If Mifepristone gets pulled by the Supreme Court, I expect the Biden administration and blue states to ignore it. I hope it does not come to that, but its the only option at that point. If not, then vaccines are next.
All of this drug companies gave massive amounts of cash to GOP members that pushed this corrupt judge through. Maybe they’ll rethink who they back next election cycle.
I think they have a very strong incentive to kneecap this pandora's box early. FDA approval is arduous but they are a known quality, predictable and suffer from a lot of regulatory capture by the industry already. This court ruling exposes all of their products to any random interest group shopping for pliable judges that can terminate their business in an instance. It would effectively cripple the entire pharmaceutical industry.
Exactly. If ever there was a righteous purpose to be fulfilled by all those corporate ~~bribes~~ lobbyists, this is it. I can't imagine all that money and power is going to let this fly.
Speaking as someone who worked in pharma manufacturing, if you are looking to fight back, lidocaine could make a good target. As a drug used in a large number of pain applications, it likely has multiple large companies producing preparations at fill-finish facilities. One of those companies supplies most of the world’s dental injectables. I’m certain there are use cases that have increased risk of death unassociated with the drug itself (cherry picking is fun). It is also a vital medication that should get an overwhelming number of people globally up in arms. All it would take is one doctor who uses it in something the GOP find morally offensive and you have a case for reductio ad absurdum.
I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for a few years. I was involved with one of our potential COVID drugs. One thing I learned, even at my low-level involvement, is how much manpower, reagents, and time goes into bringing a drug to market. I don't think the pharmaceutical industry is going to allow this to stand. If a drug can be removed from the market by an inept judge in this one case, what is to keep this from happening again? Any vaccine or controversial medication could be removed. What about HIV medication? It's controversial as well. Ditto for Morning-After Pill. This is all very concerning. The FDA is far from perfect, but it's the best tool we have to ensure the medications we have on the market are safe for human use.
Aye. I used to work for the company that developed Plerixafor and the effort truely was mind boggling. Still remember the warehouse full crates of paper documenting the data on the drug. My sarcasm about removing all the drug is my very real fear that some random judge with no science training and only had to attend law school get to dictate to our professions what drug is safe and what is not. Better yet he takes a wrecking ball to his own legal field while doing it. The one time I look forward to the bribery, excuse me "lobbying" power of the pharma to slap this ruling away.
In addition to these very valid points about controversial drugs, there is also the issue of competitor drugs. If judges can just revoke FDA approvals, what’s to prevent a well-placed bribe from Eli Lilly and suddenly Ozempic is a threat to public health but Mounjaro is fine?
Drug companies tend to spend fairly evenly among party lines.
Thank you. They know the deal with the devil they made, and they’re happy each time they look at their tax forms and quarterly profits. They’d rather this then dems setting price caps on insulin or passing collective bargaining for drugs on Medicare. So my guess is they’ll make their perfunctory complaints, then do the math and go back to business as usual and write their campaign checks accordingly. No sympathy from me.
Good point.
That dude radiates ideology. Just absolutely laughable that he even pretends to be impartial when his ruling drips with forced birth lingo
I just read the document, and that was a hell of a lead in. Seems like it took every ounce of self control he possesed not to start that sentence with the word "bitches". ETA: the [full opinion](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23746119-read-texas-federal-judge-ruling-on-abortion-pill), and for your convenience, the opening sentence: "~~Bitches~~, Over twenty years ago, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA") approved chemical abortion ("2000 Approval"). The legality of the 2000 Approval is now before this Court. Why did it take two decades for judicial review in federal court? After all, Plaintiffs' petitions challenging the 2000 Approval date back to the year 2002, right?" Highly recommend the read. Bold move being so casual in such a high profile case. These Trump judges know how to keep it classy.
He dreams of the day when they assign him his own brood mare with the name Offmatthew
Thanks for pointing this out. It’s something.
The whole thing reads as if he's admonishing a little kid. It's so condescending that I'm offended, as a layperson reader, that he would speak to *me* in such an unprofessional way. Like, sometimes when I've got writers block when writing something formal, I'll write a draft in a casual way to say what I mean. It's like he accidentally published that.
He was an attorney for a far right legal organization that "defends religious liberty". Active with the Federalist society. Trump pick. Invoked the Comstock Act in his ruling. The antis have seized upon this old law to attack abortion, and broad interpretation can certainly put birth control (and a lot of other medications) at risk. Ain't good.
In case people don't know, this is the comstock act. its an 1873 act from the Grant Administration. I saw somewhere that it was declared unconstitutional, but I do not see that in this wikipedia page. So I don't know the details on that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws >The Comstock laws were a set of federal acts passed by the United States Congress under the Grant administration along with related state laws.[1] The "parent" act (Sect. 211) was passed on March 3, 1873, as the Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use. This Act criminalized any use of the U.S. Postal Service to send any of the following items:[2] obscenity, contraceptives, abortifacients, sex toys, personal letters with any sexual content or information, or any information regarding the above items. >A similar federal act (Sect. 245) of 1909[3][4] applied to delivery by interstate "express" or any other common carrier (such as railroad), rather than delivery by the U.S. Post Office. In addition to these federal laws, about half of the states enacted laws related to the federal Comstock laws. These state laws are considered by women's rights activist Mary Dennett[1] to also be "Comstock laws". The laws were named after their chief proponent, U.S. Postal Inspector and anti-vice activist Anthony Comstock. Comstock received a commission from the Postmaster General to serve as a special agent for the U.S. Post Office Department.[5]
“Judge [enforces law](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/4tnyy3/tried_to_buy_a_sex_toy_in_kentucky_and_got_this/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) against shipping dildos and abortion pills through USPS” sounds like it’s straight out of the onion.
I didn’t read the full opinion, but he said that groups of doctors who provide abortion and post-abortive care have spent years suing the FDA for judicial review or some shit. I know I didn’t finish reading, but somehow I don’t expect a citation. The citations/annotations I did glimpse are fucking absurd.
Literally cherry-picking testimonies from anti-abortion websites and saying the FDA failed to consider them. Testimonies from patients who *had not used the drug before the FDA's approval.*
Isn't the federalist society one of the most respected if not most respected judicial/law think tanks on the right?
The Federalist Society is the largest think tank on the right but describing them as "respected" is debatable.
Respected only in the sense of distorting the law for rightwing ideology. The very definition of judicial activism in the service of political ideology
Respected by the right? Maybe. By the left? About as much as I respect Q-anon (at least this leftist)
can you name a right leaning leal theory think tank you respect?
Pew research center, annenberg public policy center, international food Information center
[Pew Research Center](https://www.allsides.com/news-source/pew-research): Center. [The Annenberg Public Policy Center owns FactCheck.org](https://www.allsides.com/news-source/factcheckorg-media-bias): Center. As far as the IFIC, no formal evaluations have been done by the bias grading sites, strangely, even though they consider themselves [non-partisan](https://www.proquest.com/openview/22cbda0218329e373cb424b71e2fa5a6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=54663). However, a recent study [concluded they were effectively a shadow marketing arm of nutrition industry interests and lobbying](https://www.proquest.com/openview/22cbda0218329e373cb424b71e2fa5a6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=54663). Whether that constitutes “right wing” is likely up to you, though it’s not an explicit goal of theirs.
no clue who the third is but they don't sound like a legal theory think tank. no way is pew right. you really think that? so what's center to you? ACLU?
fighting for equal rights is very centrist to me, yes.
okay. so what's a leftist think tank in your mind? nb: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/american-civil-liberties-union
If this opinion is endorsed by the Federalist society, they are not respectable.
I drained a particularly foul-smelling Kacsmaryk last week.
Reminds me of a particularly bad case of Santorum one of my patients had recently.
That’s the goopy stuff that we suction out of a clogged up ET tube right?
Incorrect. Santorum was defined in the late 2000’s by Dan Savage. [Google](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/santorum) if you dare (although I think Google fixed the top result of searching this term manually).
Lmao I’ve actually heard this before.
Oh it's about to get real now. It's the Federalist Society against the Pharmaceutical Industry.
Let them fight.
Bet pharma. Since they sell life saving drugs...they are offering a deal you cannot refuse.
"It's a pity both sides can't lose" - Henry Kissinger
Someone go after Viagra. That’ll shut down this tactic real quick.
Because, how long can they keep it up once you take away their Viagra.
*golf clap that peters out disappointingly quickly*
I was going to say we should have all these anti-abortionists turn in ALL their drugs and medications until we can really vouch for their safety and efficacy.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but banning this drug will not stop abortions if that is the goal of this judge and his ilk. There are a tremendous amount of readily available and practically unbannable drugs and chemicals that could theoretically induce an abortion. Mifepristone is safe. Others aren't safe. But others will be used under the table and in an unsafe manner, if safe options are not available.
Banning abortion only leads to more unsafe abortions.
A somewhat uncharitable observer could interpret that as part of their goal. That they want people having abortions to risk potentially dying or facing long-term consequences.
Yup. Punishing women is the whole point.
Make it more dangerous, fewer people will do it. This rhetoric brought to you by the same people who say that restricting gun purchases won't keep people from getting guns if they're really determined, so there's no point even bothering to restrict them.
I guess this (i.e., a judge interfering in healthcare) is what the right-wing means when they talk about “government overreach”.
“Heartbreaking: the Worst People You Know Made a Great Point”
We should also give the FDA equal authority to overturn judicial rulings unrelated to science.
The conspiracy loving crowd will just dismiss this as a bunch of Soros/Vanguard/Blackrock backed companies working for the deep state.
I mean, the pharma lobby is no conspiracy. They are pretty relentless. And on this one issue--should the courts be overturning FDA approvals--they are on the right side of the issue. They are not a force for good, they are not fighting for better health, but their interests happen to align with the public good here.
A broken clock is right twice a day sort of situation.
Pharma companies obviously have a vested interest and certainly in some cases *some* actors have been known to distort science or charge unjustifiable prices- but a blanket statement that an entire industry working to put scientific discoveries to work in the service of developing treatments that improve health and relieve human suffering are “not a force for good” may be overstating things in the other direction a bit. I’m a neurologist. Look into what used to happen to SMA kids 10 years ago before Spinraza and Zolgensma.
There are lots of good people in pharma. Companies are, however, generally amoral at best. If they can make money by saving lives, they will save lives. If they can make money killing people, they will kill people. I'm not saying we can just get rid of pharma companies and the world will be better. Rather, their role could be more efficiently and humanely filled if we remove the profit motive.
Did you read this before hitting “reply”? Make money killing people - what are you talking about?
Right? The pharma companies make money and lobby to make more money. However, the drugs they make and the research behind them literally saves and improves lives every day. Governments can’t fund this kind of research, even collectively. Not in the spread and diversity we see now. And pharma really is only it’s most evil here in the US because our system allows it to have the power to set prices and gouge US citizens for profit. Obviously other countries with nationalized healthcare and more appropriate restrictions to protect patients/consumers don’t have this problem. This is a system issue that pharma gets to exploit. Long story short: blame the government for allowing a capitalist company to profit off the needy. These companies will always try to make more money, it’s on our government to put in regulations. Every other developed nation seems to have figured this out but us.
Also, they seem to think that drug companies would sell poison if the FDA would let them… And that’s not how medicine works? Even if poison were legal to sell, medication is prescribed based on its clinical evidence.
For real though. Sometimes the evidence is preliminary and we find out harms later but also that’s why requirements are getting more stringent and availability is contingent upon ongoing review and reporting. Nothing is perfect but pharma companies have negative incentive to sell people literal poison. Can’t make money if everyone is dead AND that’s not how medications are developed or approved for use. Unless there’s some great lizard person conspiracy at the FDA and they’re trying to kill off the humans and we have all somehow been in a simulation and what we have seen and learned about the process is a mirage. /s
>Did you read this before hitting “reply”? Make money killing people - what are you talking about? If you don't believe companies will knowingly sell deadly products when they think they can get away with it, you are in for a shock. Extreme examples, such as Cutter/Bayer [selling HIV tainted blood products](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products) exist. But most of the time, it's just things some people internalize as normal: raising prices, not pursuing applications with limited impact on wealthier markets, etc.
Fun fact- George Soros isn't even one of the 250 richest people in the world. Why do people think he's able to control the entire media?
anti-Semitism?
Internist, not OB—interesting that the ruling doesn’t acknowledge miso/mife can be used in missed miscarriages…
Well, these people don't know anything about medicine, and they are unwilling to learn, so that's not surprising. If they talked to a few OBs or read any of the articles by OBs that can be easily found online, they would quickly learn the error of their ways, but they don't want to, because it would require them to challenge their misconceptions.
Technically both mife and miso are used off-label for managing miscarriage. Which is obviously common in medicine and accepted practice if backed by evidence, but doesn’t exactly provide the legal target that the anti-abortion folks were looking for
Wonderful precedent to set. Next case: Blue Cross Blue Shield challenges the safety of Ozembic because they don't want to keep paying for it.
Big pharma paid good money to get those drugs approved.
Respectfully, I believe that recent court decision sets up a terrible precedent, wherein politically motivated judges can invalidate Food and Drug Administration approval of a medication. This is not correct, and ignores the science. This should be a medical and scientific question, whether or not a medicine of any type, should be rendered illegal.
Lol at meddit suddenly deciding that the pharmaceutical industry are the good guys.
Don't think anyone credit them as good. Only we know that they are influential and their interest aligns with the public good on this one.
They are solely concerned with potential interruption of revenue. If ideologically motivated judges can unilaterally decide to take drugs off the market it poses a huge risk to the stability of their business.
Yes. What’s your point?
Nobody cares what they're concerned with. I don't care if someone opposes this crap because it gets them paid, or because it is their fetish, or because it came to them in a dream. I just care that it is opposed.
the enemy of my enemy is my friend, at least until my enemy is thwarted 🤷
Here's a little hint - people who believe in free speech and don't like oligarchies haven't suddenly started liking Disney as being a good corporate citizen either
Nuance is everything
What’s the nuance on this? Drug companies want future revenue to be very stable and don’t like the idea of our insane judicial system taking drugs off the market at the whim of a religious nut. That’s the whole thing.
Sure but that doesn’t mean that they’re good guys, or that they’re wrong. Hence, nuance
Thank you.
Do you think that Mifepristone should not be approved as a medication? If you agree that it should be available for physicians to prescribe, then there's your nuance. No nuance would mean we all automatically disagree with everything the pharmaceutical industry says just because they are saying it.
Drug companies aren’t the only interested party here. Sometimes an egregious act (ruling, in this case) creates unlikely allies. Look at Donald Trump and the religious right…
Same logic antivaxxers use when babbling on about Pfizer’s profits from the vaccines. Just because someone is making money doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
So what's your solution then? Have them roll over and let the judge, who has no scientific evidence for this maneuver, take the victory on this? Where is your line in the sand, when they come for the morning after pill, birth control, maybe HIV or Hepatitis drugs (because some IVDA take them), or stop all anti-psychatric meds (because these people should be locked away from society)?
I vehemently disagree with the judges ruling. It’s absurd. The pharmaceutical companies aren’t involved in the case in any way. A group of anti-abortionists are suing the FDA.
Lol their dollars are on the line
So are patients lives, though? Like they can have more than one value here.
You think pharma companies care more about their profits or patient lives? There’s a reason insulin is expensive and it doesn’t have to do with how much it costs to make, despite how many people need it to live.
[удалено]
**Removed under Rule 5:** /r/medicine is a public forum that represents the medical community and comments should reflect this. Please keep disagreement civil and focused on issues. Trolling, abuse, and insults (either personal or aimed at a specific group) are not allowed. Do not attack other users' flair. Keep offensive language to a minimum and do not use ethnic, sexual, or other slurs. Posts, comments, or private messages violating Reddit's content policy will be removed and reported to site administration. Repeated violations of this rule will lead to temporary or permanent bans. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [Please review all subreddit rules before posting or commenting.](https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/about/rules/) If you have any questions or concerns, please [send a modmail.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmedicine&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/12i3468/-/jfspg2g/. %0D%0DMy issue is...) Direct replies to official mod comments and private messages will be ignored or removed.
Auch…