>In early August, soon after joining the FDA, Tidmarsh announced actions that would effectively remove from the market a drug ingredient made by a company associated with Tang. Tidmarsh’s lawyer then sent a letter to Tang proposing that he extend a “service agreement” for “another 10 years,” which would see Tang making payments to a Tidmarsh-associated entity until 2044. The email was seen as attempted extortion, with such payments being in exchange for Tidmarsh rolling back the FDA’s regulatory change.
To be fair, that was always conservative position.
Edit: I do not mean it cynically or as a joke. I think that is exactly what conservative position was for years. The only difference now is that it is not possible to euphemism away or plausible deniality away out of it.
“He had the temerity to reject a drug that had lousy data…”
Was that data really “lousy”? (Referencing the REPL data?)
Was it a trial design issue? (which he has very strong and unconventional opinions on)
Is it the role of his position to overrule his specialist review teams ? (in the absence of any clear safety risks or malfeasance)
Profoundly misguided take. "These bureaucrats" are subject matter experts regarding the topics about which they have input. It's fine for people to do their own research about what car to drive. Which compounds they might consume to affect health issues? Not so much.
That’s how you end up with snake oil, traditional medicine, herbal medicine, and people trying to cure their cancer with supplements instead of surgery and chemo.
Such lax rules are invariably exploited to death (literally!) by unscrupulous profit-seekers.
Even if you’re smarter than the average bear and “do your own research”, your relatives won’t all be of the same intellectual calibre and you’ll occasionally lose a loved one to a huckster selling mercury compounds as a cure all.
No I won't. I know that trying to keep idiots from screwing themselves over is an impossible task and would never demand that. I'm not willing to be treated like a child just because some idiot might benefit from the same.
> That’s how you end up with snake oil, traditional medicine, herbal medicine, and people trying to cure their cancer with supplements instead of surgery and chemo.
So no different than with the current FDA approvals?
They really aren’t, it’s the work of more than one human to keep up with this stuff.
So you need a government agency or a private group doing the same functions while facing huge lawsuits and thus requiring the same or more data. Granted US doctors could use European etc guidelines, but that’s a different discussion.
Absolutely nothing suggests op talks about adults only.
Also, there is difference between individual dumb choice and market where bad actors are enabled and normal person have zero chance to distinguish them.
It would not be just dubm choices. It would be people in set up to fail situation.
Let's be honest for a moment: for all the dubious and erratic decisions of Trump's government, you're reading an article by https://arstechnica.com/author/beth/ who even proudly display her Bluesky account.
Yes, that's one scandal, from one person. It has nothing to do with Vinay Prasad, certainly nothing to do with the CDC, and whatever you think of the administration, connecting this event to "everything else" is political hackery.
How is it political hackery? There is a clear pattern of this administration appointing inept leadership to public health positions. The article is not C-SPAN dry, but it's not New York Post hackery either.
It's an article about a single corrupt individual. Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first.
I don't care what your opinions are of the administration. This is crappy journalism. I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan.
I don’t think these are ad hominem attacks. The article seems to just state the (perhaps biased) facts: people are calling it a clown show, Prasad was ousted, Prasad did gain popularity on social media as a COVID-skeptic. It doesn’t become an ad hominem just because you don’t like the way the facts are stated or the inferences your own brain makes.
Not "people" -- a single, unnamed, VC. It's right there in the article. Read it.
> Prasad was ousted
No, he wasn't. He voluntarily resigned pre-emptively after the WSJ editorials, then he was re-hired almost immediately. You are just misinformed. You'd know this if you read a better source.
What about the nearly everyone else in the administration that is also a blatantly corrupt, unqualified, and incompetent bootlicker, many of which are even self described Nazis?
Laura Loomer affecting staffing decisions because one of their stooges isn't the right flavor of corrupt and incompetent for her is what a clown show is. Pretending this deserves the same dignity as a competent and good faith administration would be the ultimate participation trophy.
Having a stance is not the same thing as bias and it's not the same thing as partisanship.
>In early August, soon after joining the FDA, Tidmarsh announced actions that would effectively remove from the market a drug ingredient made by a company associated with Tang. Tidmarsh’s lawyer then sent a letter to Tang proposing that he extend a “service agreement” for “another 10 years,” which would see Tang making payments to a Tidmarsh-associated entity until 2044. The email was seen as attempted extortion, with such payments being in exchange for Tidmarsh rolling back the FDA’s regulatory change.
Straight up extortion.
it's crazy how much of the current regime's position is "crime is legal if it's my guys doing it."
To be fair, that was always conservative position.
Edit: I do not mean it cynically or as a joke. I think that is exactly what conservative position was for years. The only difference now is that it is not possible to euphemism away or plausible deniality away out of it.
“He had the temerity to reject a drug that had lousy data…”
Was that data really “lousy”? (Referencing the REPL data?) Was it a trial design issue? (which he has very strong and unconventional opinions on) Is it the role of his position to overrule his specialist review teams ? (in the absence of any clear safety risks or malfeasance)
[flagged]
Profoundly misguided take. "These bureaucrats" are subject matter experts regarding the topics about which they have input. It's fine for people to do their own research about what car to drive. Which compounds they might consume to affect health issues? Not so much.
It's a risk / reward tradeoff. There is no objectively correct decision or subject matter expert in that.
this would lead to a whole lot of bleach drinking…
I hear bleach kills cancer in a petri dish.
It's a free country
USA is everything but a “free country” is absolutely not - you are too funny!
That’s how you end up with snake oil, traditional medicine, herbal medicine, and people trying to cure their cancer with supplements instead of surgery and chemo.
Such lax rules are invariably exploited to death (literally!) by unscrupulous profit-seekers.
Even if you’re smarter than the average bear and “do your own research”, your relatives won’t all be of the same intellectual calibre and you’ll occasionally lose a loved one to a huckster selling mercury compounds as a cure all.
You’ll get mad and “demand something be done.”
That something looks like the FDA.
No I won't. I know that trying to keep idiots from screwing themselves over is an impossible task and would never demand that. I'm not willing to be treated like a child just because some idiot might benefit from the same.
> That’s how you end up with snake oil, traditional medicine, herbal medicine, and people trying to cure their cancer with supplements instead of surgery and chemo.
So no different than with the current FDA approvals?
Those are all of the things exempt from their scope, hence the relentless useless and downright dangerous products in those categories.
Most people aren't equipped to be making such a decision.
It's a risk reward tradeoff which is fundamentally not an objective decision. Nobody is equipped to make it.
Doctors are supposed to be.
They really aren’t, it’s the work of more than one human to keep up with this stuff.
So you need a government agency or a private group doing the same functions while facing huge lawsuits and thus requiring the same or more data. Granted US doctors could use European etc guidelines, but that’s a different discussion.
Yeah they loved giving people oxy
This is a terrible idea. A lot of people would certainly die if we got rid of drug certifications
They are adults, and adults should have the right to make dumb choices.
Absolutely nothing suggests op talks about adults only.
Also, there is difference between individual dumb choice and market where bad actors are enabled and normal person have zero chance to distinguish them.
It would not be just dubm choices. It would be people in set up to fail situation.
At least clowns can be fun to watch
From another country, it is mildly amusing in one sense of schadenfreude.
It is also incredibly saddening to see great institutions of expertise be treated as playthings by the ignorant.
Let's be honest for a moment: for all the dubious and erratic decisions of Trump's government, you're reading an article by https://arstechnica.com/author/beth/ who even proudly display her Bluesky account.
I mean, look at wonderful articles such as https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/09/trumps-cdc-brings-bac...
But yeah, "obvious bias doesn't exist when it goes my way" has always been the overwhelming norm, I shouldn't feign surprise.
My ex works in QA for a biotech company and FDA audits are a regular thing and are taken very seriously.
There's plenty to criticize of the org (as with almost all others) but the rank and file are doing good work to help try to keep us safe.
I work in biotech and the FDA is openly reviewing our submissions with LLMs now. The shark has been jumped.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-anno...
[dead]
[flagged]
Singular scandal? It is about the top dog using his position to settle a personal vendetta for financial gain.
Yes, that's one scandal, from one person. It has nothing to do with Vinay Prasad, certainly nothing to do with the CDC, and whatever you think of the administration, connecting this event to "everything else" is political hackery.
How is it political hackery? There is a clear pattern of this administration appointing inept leadership to public health positions. The article is not C-SPAN dry, but it's not New York Post hackery either.
It's an article about a single corrupt individual. Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first.
I don't care what your opinions are of the administration. This is crappy journalism. I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan.
I don’t think these are ad hominem attacks. The article seems to just state the (perhaps biased) facts: people are calling it a clown show, Prasad was ousted, Prasad did gain popularity on social media as a COVID-skeptic. It doesn’t become an ad hominem just because you don’t like the way the facts are stated or the inferences your own brain makes.
> people are calling it a clown show
Not "people" -- a single, unnamed, VC. It's right there in the article. Read it.
> Prasad was ousted
No, he wasn't. He voluntarily resigned pre-emptively after the WSJ editorials, then he was re-hired almost immediately. You are just misinformed. You'd know this if you read a better source.
put the one person for that one scandal into a federal prison - problem solved
What about the nearly everyone else in the administration that is also a blatantly corrupt, unqualified, and incompetent bootlicker, many of which are even self described Nazis?
not much different from any other asministration in the last 20-ish years. some are criming privately and some publicly but they are all criminals
> If you're going to fling that kind of petty invective, cite your sources
Why? The cost of citation is very high, so you'd simply not report on valuable sentiment
Laura Loomer affecting staffing decisions because one of their stooges isn't the right flavor of corrupt and incompetent for her is what a clown show is. Pretending this deserves the same dignity as a competent and good faith administration would be the ultimate participation trophy.
Having a stance is not the same thing as bias and it's not the same thing as partisanship.
[flagged]
[flagged]