Replies to post #46122 on Biotech Values

[gofishmarko]

>> Mr. Walker’s write-up in the WSJ is a highly biased view of the FDA, in my opinion. <<

Leaving aside the issue of the validity of Walker's arguments , I find it refreshing to see an opinion piece on drug development in the WSJ by an author whose disclosure statement reads as follows :


"Mr. Walker is co-founder and chief adviser for the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs . He receives no compensation for his work as an advocate, nor has he ever received compensation from any private or public-sector entity involved in drug development, approval or marketing."


It sounds like Mr.Walker's bias is based on his concern for patients , and little else.

I wish the same sort of disclosures were common for physician FDA AC panel members. Instead we get COI waiver documents that assure us that the panel member is not biased by the grant money they receive from [DELETED] and the speaking fees they receive from [DELETED].

I'll take Walker's brand of bias any day.

[iwfal]

Consider the source: Mr. Walker is co-founder and chief adviser for the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs.

Mr. Walker’s write-up in the WSJ is a highly biased view of the FDA, in my opinion.


I agree that the Abigail Allaince is a group that is dangerous as heck. And most WSJ articles about the FDA absolutely stink (I was appalled when, several years ago, I read the WSJ editorial that clinical trials in cancer were needless since historical comparison were obviously good enough.)

But you have to admit that is one of the more reasonable editorials - given the sources.