An absolute horror story, which could have been completely avoided, but went on for years beyond when the harms became obvious. Once again the MHRA have been shown to be enablers, vassals of Big Pharma/The State, not fit for their stated purpose of protecting the public from those who place profit over that protection. Hopefully the one positive thing to come out of your evidence will be that they will be defunded, disbanded and dispatched.
I see the argument that pharma funding MHRA causes bias, as false.
If there were two alternate MHRA's both funded by pharma I can see that argument would stand ie the one with the less critical authorisation could charge more, but this argument fails when there is only one route to authorisation ie a monopoly.
MHRA's move to enabler status is surely tied into the Govt's objective to have a life science industry. Nothing to do with funding it's all about the economy.
NHS is not for the people, it's all about a market for pharma. Why else do we consistently have long waiting lists for so called elective surgery, that use few pharma products yet we have 2 week targets etc for cancer that uses high cost pharma products. And we have the next generation of mass medication of mRNA 'vaccines' aka as gene therapy being prepared as we speak to maintain pharma profits..
I was not suggesting more than one regulator but for that regulator to be totally under the control of the government. It is not clear to me why you do not think that pharma funding the MHRA does not cause incorrect approvals.
The regulator IS under the total control of the Govt.
Enabler status rather than regulatory is a Govt decision - it maybe pharma has influenced Govt to move to enabler as a lever to invest in UK, but it is a Govt decision after looking at the matters in the round.
Having MHRA funded by Govt would achieve precisely nothing wrt more effective approvals. If Govt want a light touch that is what will happen regardless of who pays, so let pharma pay as it is now.
At age of 76 I hope I live long enough to at least have it acknowledged and finally admitted that these 2 Pills,Primodos, handed to me by my family Doctor in her surgery, caused the Stillbirth of my daughter, born with her brain missing. With the grief of having to leave hospital with empty arms, and having the heartbreak of arranging her funeral. The year .. 1975. 😌😌
An absolute horror story, which could have been completely avoided, but went on for years beyond when the harms became obvious. Once again the MHRA have been shown to be enablers, vassals of Big Pharma/The State, not fit for their stated purpose of protecting the public from those who place profit over that protection. Hopefully the one positive thing to come out of your evidence will be that they will be defunded, disbanded and dispatched.
One can only pray you will not be standing there ten years from now, talking about a covid vaccination scandal that already seems worse.
Keep going until the government funds the MHRA itself. Even that does not guarantee an unbiased regulator but it would be a good start.
I see the argument that pharma funding MHRA causes bias, as false.
If there were two alternate MHRA's both funded by pharma I can see that argument would stand ie the one with the less critical authorisation could charge more, but this argument fails when there is only one route to authorisation ie a monopoly.
MHRA's move to enabler status is surely tied into the Govt's objective to have a life science industry. Nothing to do with funding it's all about the economy.
NHS is not for the people, it's all about a market for pharma. Why else do we consistently have long waiting lists for so called elective surgery, that use few pharma products yet we have 2 week targets etc for cancer that uses high cost pharma products. And we have the next generation of mass medication of mRNA 'vaccines' aka as gene therapy being prepared as we speak to maintain pharma profits..
I was not suggesting more than one regulator but for that regulator to be totally under the control of the government. It is not clear to me why you do not think that pharma funding the MHRA does not cause incorrect approvals.
The regulator IS under the total control of the Govt.
Enabler status rather than regulatory is a Govt decision - it maybe pharma has influenced Govt to move to enabler as a lever to invest in UK, but it is a Govt decision after looking at the matters in the round.
Having MHRA funded by Govt would achieve precisely nothing wrt more effective approvals. If Govt want a light touch that is what will happen regardless of who pays, so let pharma pay as it is now.
HTH.
At age of 76 I hope I live long enough to at least have it acknowledged and finally admitted that these 2 Pills,Primodos, handed to me by my family Doctor in her surgery, caused the Stillbirth of my daughter, born with her brain missing. With the grief of having to leave hospital with empty arms, and having the heartbreak of arranging her funeral. The year .. 1975. 😌😌