Senator Scott Brown joined 10 other senators in sending a July letter to the US Drug Enforcement Administration advocating a top legislative priority of the compounding pharmacy industry, which is under scrutiny following a deadly meningitis outbreak.
The July 24 letter did not directly relate to the injectable steroids that have been blamed for 14 deaths and at least 185 sicknesses nationwide. But it addressed an issue central to that controversy: how these lightly regulated pharmacies can deliver their drugs and who can receive them.
Comments
No chance that the donations had anything to do with lax regulation of NECC? The owners of NECC were just trying to say that they were "good people" (and the best "good people" are the ones who give you money)!
Interesting that this pharmacy was attracted to Brown. Now he can show-off and grasp the opportunity to donate this money. Anyone with common sense would do the same (or else) so it's not worth a headline.
I don't see any connection at this point, but this is certainly something the public should know about and possibly draw their own conclusions. That's what newspapers are for.
So Scott Brown joined a group of senators who wanted to loosen what the FDA considered a safety issue. When an individual patient presents to the pharmacy the patient receives just a few doses, possibly as individual doses or with a small number of doses in each vial. Most of these compounds sterily prepared may not need refrigeration but should be used promptly. Patients properly instructed by their physicians or nurses overwhelmingly heed this medical advice. Insulin is an example of a medication that can be kept at room temperature. Both these measures, single or small injections and individual delivery from the source, help to limit risk and also any pathogen load. When it is sold to physician offices it may be in multi-dose vials and sits for longer periods of time increasing pathogen growth and if contaminated has a greater chance of infecting more people. The rules are made for a reason. Safety is first, profit is second. In fact most injectables today are delivered to doctor's offices as single doses. It seems this group of 10 senators that included Brown at least did not look into what was in the best interest of the patient and also they were not familiar with epidemiological considerations. Again as with women's issues, tax reform, voting rights Republicans favor their donors or backtracking on carefully devised regulations before protecting the general public. It is also an example where government should play an important role in people's lives. This is just one of many things goverment does to ensure our products are as harm free as possible. Maybe the Fed needs trimming in certain areas but the ramifications of each cut must be carefully considered by its intention not by some political label.
Brown's spin that the kind of drugs that were emphasized in his July advocacy letter were not steroids, completely misses the point. The deaths were caused by aspergillosis CONTAMINATION. The same thing can happen again with other drugs. Probably this issue won't faze the Scott Brown idol worshipping zealots, but this should give strong pause to anyone who thinks that Republican Brown is really FOR US.
Unlike the saintly Elizabeth Warren, who promised Massachusetts medical instrument makers that she would exempt them from a new ObamaCare tax on the industry.
blisterpeanuts Are you trying to claim that is equivalent? Brown--exempt from regulations; Warren--exempt from tax on medical issues.
Wouldn't even the most inexperienced journalist attach the letter to the article? Who were the other senators and what specifically did the letter say? Isn't this yet another example of the Globe trying to tell us what to think rather than giving us the letter so that we have the information to think for ourselves? Isn't this yet another example of more "fact checking" by the Globe?
Selective enforcement by the DEA is a very bad thing. Who do you pursue and who do you not? It opens up all kinds of possibilities for the DEA to only crack down on those who aren't "protected" -- ie, have political influence and contacts. It sets up a norm where most of the participates are beaking the law. You beak one here, you beak one there, pretty soon you are assessing which ones to beak.
By the way, I knew, in my last post, it was "whom do you pursue, and whom do you not?" (and, arrrrrr, I seem to be missing an "r" in certain places). You might say "my amount of errors is too high". But it would be wrong to say that, even if that was what you were thinking. Anyway, I don't give a toss pot. If you don't like it you can go straight to buggery.
Buggery, Maine? Or Buggery, Rhode Island? You're sure you don't mean Heck-in-a-Handbasket, New Hampshire?
Who said, "this is a bunch of Malarky"? Hmmm.
This comment has been removed.
Ten thousand bucks for a letter! Not bad Colonel Brown! Did ya' see any combat during your 7 days in Afghanistan?
Another Democrat slithers from under the rock, this one doing a Biden by insulting a National Guard officer who served (even though for a short time) in a combat zone. Has any of the Obama gang gone to Afghanistan in uniform? And what does this Potlemac see relating a campaign donation to Sen. Brown's week in Afghanistan? Is he insinuating that some kind of bribe kept Brown in that miserable country for only a week? That would be the kind of nasty, offensive stuff that Biden's debate behavior showed plainly characterizes most of the Obama campaign, including far too often the President's own doings.
Ten thousand bucks for a letter -- yeah. And yesterday we learned that the "soldier" Brown also got a combat medal for giving a speech back in the USA! Ah, but he's so very, very handsome, and around his house, he's just called "Dad". Keep believing, right-wingers; Brown's got you completely bamboozled.
This comment has been removed.
We get days of front page 'Tomahawk Chop' coverage, despite Brown's immediate declaration that it wasn't going to be tolerated. Warren paid Union 'volunteers' yell insults at a gay Brown supporter ... nothing. Of course this is a third rail for the Globe ... paid Union sign holders? Gay Brown supporters? Can't go near that one!
His declaration WAS NOT immediate. The people who did it are still employed in the same senior roles in the campaign.
Union Sign holders were NOT paid.
Geoffrey - you are technically correct on the Union members. They were not PAID, they would be DOCKED $250 for not showing up to fake enthusiastic support for Warren.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KQjh3mv0w14
Couldn't send the check back fast enough, eh, Brownie? Unthinking support of "deregulation," whether it's Wall Street or the pharmaceutical industry, is just reflexive for Republicans. Will they ever learn? Can they ever learn?
It is likely that homedel wouldn't even have known about this link of Sen. Brown to the NECC if it were not for the tragedy of the steroid-caused illnesses and deaths. Now he and other reflexive Democrats follow the Glob's editorial listing to the left, giving little evidence of understanding what the Glob is preaching about.
This was a bi-partisan group of 10 Senators, 6 Republicans and 4 Democrats. As a Globe reader you are to be forgiven for you lack of this knowledge. Your news if filtered here, dude!
http://www.wcvb.com/blob/view/-/16951016/data/1/-/r5pun0z/-/Brown-pharmacy-regulation-letter.pdf
And from the story on wcvb.com ...
Speaking in Hudson Thursday, Brown said the letter "speaks for itself as a bipartisan effort that is completely unrelated to what happened to these people."
The letter criticizes the DEAâs current practice that "requires intrathecal drugs (and all controlled substances) to be routed to patients before their physicians can administer them." Of the 11 senators who signed the letter, six, including Brown, are Republicans. Five are Democrats.
Read more: http://www.wcvb.com/news/politics/Senator-Scott-Brown-defends-letter-on-pharmacy-regulations/-/9848766/16950402/-/hixcdez/-/index.html#ixzz29EdztaUF
This isn't news. NOBODY cares. Shame on the Globe for not reporting that one of Professor "boxchecker" Warren's supporters hurled gay slurs at one of Brown's supporters. If it was the other way around, it would be front page news. The bias reporting in this paper is INCREDIBLE!
You post variations of this daily. Why not put your money where your mouth is and ooze back to the Herald comments section?
OK, why don't you provide a link to this nonsense? Why don't you argue with the over two dozen professors who have said there was no "Box checked", there was no consideration of "Minority Status", nothing. Scott Brown has not produced a single witness or document to support his ludicrous claim that the most prestigious law school in the country would risk their reputation for hiring anything other than MERIT. With over a dozen books she has written, well known research, it's obvious that Elizabeth Warren was hired on her merit.
Still you go on with your inane conspiracy theories and not a single shred of evidence to support your silly, inane allegations.
Meanwhile, people are dying as a consequence of deregulation. Scott Brown took campaign money to discourage the DEA from enforcing the law. Scott Brown runs a robo-signing operation. He ripped off the Ameican tax payer for a 5 day photo op in Kabul where he stayed in a hotel and DID NOTHING. How did he get promoted to Colonel? Can you explain that? could it be Gov. Romney?
Your headline and deliberately confusing article is clearly intended to give the casual reader the impression that Brown supported the pharmacies instead of regulating them properly. Your bias is showing again....
The Boston Globe has become a hideous joke against the people of Massachusetts. They build a headline around a non-story but bury Liz Warren's people abusing a gay supporter of Scott Brown! The Globe increasingly makes clear they aren't selling us news, they are selling us propaganda.
This comment has been removed.
Another cheap shot by the Globe. The real headline should be "Patrick Administration Failed To Enforce Regulations on Drug Compounding Firm"
Tell the people whose loved ones have died or themselves have fungus infections in their spines because of Scott Brown's friends and the very deregulation that his party promotes.
Patrick administration has no authority to regulate the firm. This is Federal and that is why the firm bribed a Senator to write a letter to the DEA.
This comment has been removed.
Brown said there was absolutely no connection between his signing the letter and his fund-raising from industry officials. There is a connection, and it is Brown.
This comment has been removed.
"System" -- How come you haven't worked in a connection or at least a reference to your really favorite whipping boy, Bill Maher? C'mon, I'll bet if you think hard enough, you can manage to connect Maher to the injection scandal. I bet Maher has been using the "C-word" a lot lately; you know, "compounding". LOL! LOL! Toooo funny!
This comment has been removed.
A bi-partisan list of 10 Senators? Why wouldn't that list of Senators be included in this story?
Amazing! I wonder what's next? How about, "Brown purchased fishing rod while cod stock crumbles."
Brown votes against casino in obvious anti-Native American rage! Senator Brown daughter takes non-Union babysitting position!
Bye Scott. Don't close the door on your way out and oh let me introduce Senator Elizabeth Warren from the great state of Massachusetts she'll be taking your place! Love my price above rubies Elizabeth!! :)
Who were the 10 other senators who sent the letter? The article should really have included that -- it is an important part of the context.
Yes, an important piece of the story that's missing. Just like whenever they mention Scott Brown didn't vote for the 'paycheck fairness act' they omit that the Boston Globe Editorial board said it was a bad idea.
For those interested, here is the letter, with the 10 signatures.
http://www.wcvb.com/blob/view/-/16951016/data/1/-/r5pun0z/-/Brown-pharmacy-regulation-letter.pdf
And from the story on wcvb.com ...
Speaking in Hudson Thursday, Brown said the letter "speaks for itself as a bipartisan effort that is completely unrelated to what happened to these people."
The letter criticizes the DEA’s current practice that "requires intrathecal drugs (and all controlled substances) to be routed to patients before their physicians can administer them." Of the 11 senators who signed the letter, six, including Brown, are Republicans. Five are Democrats.
Read more: http://www.wcvb.com/news/politics/Senator-Scott-Brown-defends-letter-on-pharmacy-regulations/-/9848766/16950402/-/hixcdez/-/index.html#ixzz29EdztaUF