There's something very interesting about the unfolding story of the possible FDA cefquinome approval (I've covered it here). After doing a Technorati search, virtually all of the blogs that discuss this issue are either non-partisan or progressive/liberal (I say 'virtually' because I might have missed one, but I actually didn't see any). The rightwing bloggysphere is nowhere to be found. Any thoughts on why that might be? Maybe they are just slow off the mark on this one? Infections don't check political affiliation....
- Log in to post comments
More like this
This is just odd. When I spent a month writing for the Detroit News blog, one of the other bloggers there was a woman named Libby Spencer. She has a blog called Last One Speaks. When I hosted the Carnival of the Vanities a few weeks ago, she left the following post on her blog:
Ed Brayton at…
First the scientific story, then the journalist, then my thoughts.
Part 1: The scientific story
From the Daily News:
Spanking makes kids perform better in school, helps them become more successful: study
The research, by Calvin College psychology professor Marjorie Gunnoe, found that kids…
A few weeks ago, an FDA expert panel by a vote of 6-4 decided against the approval of the use of the antibiotic cefquinome in cattle. Unfortunately, I've heard through the grapevine that the political appointees at the FDA plan to overrule the expert panel and approve the use of cefquinome. The…
This is an adaptation of the talk I gave at Westminster Skeptics in the Pub on Monday 2nd August. You can hear an audio transcript of the talk at the Pod Delusion website.
I was invited to stage the talk again at the Winchester SITP, a recording of which is here.
I'm very much a child of the…
Mike - did you see the NY Times editorial on this today?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/opinion/09fri3.html
It's science, Mike--part of that thing called "reality" that the empire-based community doesn't want to give any legitimacy to. If they start accepting microbiology, won't evolution and climate change be close behind? A slippery slope they dare not put a toe on...
Sari,
I saw the editorial. A little tepid and mealy-mouthed (and pretty science-free), but definitely in the right spirit.
They are also closer to big pharma. I assume big pharma is pushing this as a market opportunity... and if well infections do result, well thats also good for business.
To understand the problem with the FDA decision, one must accept Evilution.
Not only is the Right closer to big business and therefore pharmaceutical companies, but it's also historically closer to the farmer and rancher... and let's not forget that at current, most of our food animals are raised by big business.
As a vet student myself, we are constantly inundated with the importance of regulations and judicious use of antibiotics from the ivory tower of academia only to have many of us stop heeding that call once we enter the working world and encounter Joe Q. Rancher, who wants to find a cheaper way to raise feed efficiency and productivity in his herd. This drug, which treats "shipping fever," may lower the price to him, but at what cost?
The FDA's actions again show that their first (and only) loyalty is not to human or even animal safety, but to business and politics.
One more reason:
A common belief of some religious right-wingers is that if they do as God wants, they won't get sick. So, why should they worry about antibiotic resistance when they won't get sick because they are following the letter of God's word as set out in the Bible?