Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, January 31, 2012

The Food and Drug Administration secretly monitored the personal email of its own scientists and doctors after they warned Congress the agency was approving medical devices posing unacceptable risks to patients, the Washington Post reports. The surveillance was detailed in emails and memos unearthed by six of the scientists and doctors, who filed a lawsuit against the FDA in U.S. District Court in Washington last week. "Who would have thought that they would have the nerve to be monitoring my communications to Congress?" said plaintiff Robert C. Smith, a former radiology professor who reviewed devices at the FDA until his contract was not renewed in July 2010.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Diablo

MORE STORIES

Special Features

More

This is why I rarely trust government scientists: they are subject to political coercion. Just ask anyone who is afraid to lose grant money by disagreeing with man-made global warming myths.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

The Food and Drug Addicts have 1/3 the USA is on OPIUM pills - and sure love their fucking wars on terrorists so they can get that opium straight from the farm - farmed by our boys. Soon they'll be worshiping King Obamanation - or getting executed for not going along with their beast marks.

#1 | Posted by reitze at 2012-01-30 04:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hope and Change.
Funny how the ACLU is nowhere to be found. I guess it's ok to trample on civil liberties as long as you're a black liberal President.

#2 | Posted by dr_dude2 at 2012-01-31 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting.

After President Obama’s election, the FDA scientists and doctors wrote to his transition team in 2009, alleging corruption at the agency and warning about risks posed by the breast-cancer screening device.

And amazingly obama didn't do anything other than continue harassing the scientist so the companies could give him more funds.

#3 | Posted by moneywar at 2012-01-31 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't worry, I'm sure Obama's lawyers wrote a secret memo detailing why this practice is legally, constitutionally and ethically okay. Sight unseen, the memo is proof that what the FDA did is just fine.

#4 | Posted by JOE at 2012-01-31 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Facebook spies. I knew they picked the ads on the side of your page based on websites you go to, but did you know they also customize them based on CONVERSATIONS YOU HAVE ON YOUR WALL? Neither did I. My mother and I were talking about pain medication and the very next day, every ad I saw was related to pain and medicine.

Cutting back on my Facebook use now.

#5 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-01-31 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

they're watching you watching you watching you watching you

#6 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD at 2012-01-31 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm sure Obama's lawyers wrote a secret memo detailing why this practice is legally, constitutionally and ethically okay."

Joe-if you read the article, you'd know the scientists had to sign on to letting their shit be read before they accessed their files. I'm betting it is standard practice in the great free market private sector, too. You should be thrilled.

Having said that, it sure sounds like the managers at the FDA were more than happy to ignore the workers' concerns in order to get those products on the shelf. Probably will all end up working for those very same companies at some point. Either than or the workers were unionized, and thus, untrustworthy.

#7 | Posted by northguy3 at 2012-01-31 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

the scientists had to sign on to letting their shit be read before they accessed their files

They never signed anything. The computer had a warning on it that wasn't signed by anyone. And the lawsuit is about the information being shared afterwards, not being read initially.

But you're a fucking idiot, so I don't expect you to understand any of that.

#8 | Posted by JOE at 2012-01-31 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Isn't also interesting the scientist didn't start getting monitored until they complained about upper management making approvals of products after they had rejected them.

Shows how well our dollar is being used by obama and company.

#9 | Posted by moneywar at 2012-01-31 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Who would have thought that they would have the nerve to be monitoring my communications to Congress?" said plaintiff Robert C. Smith, a former radiology professor who reviewed devices at the FDA until his contract was not renewed in July 2010."

They had the "nerve" because you worked for them and were "reporting" information that was most likely under a non-disclosure agreement and was obtained while you were paid by them to gather the information for them.

#10 | Posted by YouHateMe at 2012-01-31 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#9 | POSTED BY MONEYWAR AT 2012-01-31 02:57 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Are you referring to the scientist that could have rejected a product after being paid by a competitor to reject the product?

#11 | Posted by YouHateMe at 2012-01-31 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

They had the "nerve" because you worked for them and were "reporting" information that was most likely under a non-disclosure agreement and was obtained while you were paid by them to gather the information for them.

Yeah. I'm sure if Bush was spying on FDA employees' personal email accounts and harassing them for daring to report on the approval of dangerous medical devices, you'd point to a non-disclosure agreement and admonish the scientists.

Fucking douche.

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2012-01-31 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Who would have thought that they would have the nerve to be monitoring my communications to Congress?"

Who would have thought obama would monitor those who may impede the money machine.

#13 | Posted by moneywar at 2012-01-31 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They never signed anything."

Joe, they had to agree to this before they could use the computer. That's what that little "OK" button means. and I know reading is difficult for you, but I said they "signed on", not that they signed anything, though I expcet they did, in their employment contracts.

"And the lawsuit is about the information being shared afterwards, not being read initially."

also, get somebody to read you the bottom line of that screen grab.

"But you're a fucking idiot"

Joe, before you go around insulting people's intelligence, try to beg, borrow, or steal some for your own use.

#14 | Posted by northguy3 at 2012-01-31 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

...
The computer had a warning on it that wasn't signed by anyone.
...
#8 | Posted by JOE

This is a standard on any government computer. You have to click the OK box that says you are about to use a gov. comp. and clicking OK means you agree to ...

About as useful and read as user agreements that are pages long, with lots of legaleze that no one reads. They just click OK, to get rid of the stupid box blocking their path.

A good lawyer should make it all OK for the scientists, unless Obama has a drone take them out as enemy combatants.

#15 | Posted by Marty at 2012-01-31 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

they had to agree to this before they could use the computer. That's what that little "OK" button means

There is a difference between signing a document in an arms' length transaction and being required to click "OK" to log into a computer that you are required to use at work. Under your logic, their employer could have forced them to consent to any potentially illegal act and they would have no recourse afterward.

get somebody to read you the bottom line of that screen grab

Get somebody to read you the last five words of it.

It's hilarious to watch the DR libtards defend the harassment of government scientists who blew the whistle on the approval of dangerous medical devices. Again, I'm sure if Bush were running the FDA you'd have the same attitude here.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2012-01-31 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

unless Obama has a drone take them out as enemy combatants.

Nah, they'll just end up in one of those internment camps in the Sonora desert the righties go on about.
###
Joe-I read and re-read that darned last line and all it says is the "information may be disclosed or used for any legal government purpose." What's your point?

and I'm not supporting Obama on this, I already said the managers were okaying the products, likely for fat contracts with the manufacturers, later. It's called capitalism.

I really doubt Obama approved the info gathering. Then again, Bush did approved the Haditha cover-up, right?

"Again, I'm sure if Bush were running the FDA you'd have the same attitude here."

"The FDA scientists and doctors, all of whom worked for the agency’s Office of Device Evaluation, said they first made internal complaints beginning in 2007

Three times, a team of experts, including Smith, recommended against approval, and middle managers agreed in each case, he said. After the third rejection, a senior manager approved the device in 2008, he said."

Umm, Joe, Bush was running the FDA then.

#17 | Posted by northguy3 at 2012-01-31 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Joe-if you read the article, you'd know the scientists had to sign on to letting their shit be read before they accessed their files. I'm betting it is standard practice in the great free market private sector, too. You should be thrilled.

#7 | Posted by northguy3 at 2012-01-31 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Guess if rcade had a "I own your asses" disclaimer entering the website, that means we sign all our rights over to him and all laws against it at are null and void :(.

#18 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2012-01-31 11:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#5 | POSTED BY KANREI

Here's news for you Kan. This site does it, too. Some of the ads I see are related to searches I've done in the last two months, and they're pretty specific, so I have to bet they're correlated. Rcade?

#19 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2012-02-01 08:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Employees have NO expectation of privacy on a company computers, it is that simple.

On the other hand, they may have done some good.

#20 | Posted by glasshouse at 2012-02-01 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Employees have NO expectation of privacy on a company computers, it is that simple."

Apparently it's not actually that simple. See www.securityfocus.com

That said, I assume everything I have put or will put on my computer at work and everything generated from it (including emails), while not public in the sense of open to everyone, can be read by my employer.

I also assume everything I have put or will put on my computer at home and everything generated from it (including emails), while not public in the sense of open to everyone, can be read by my someone, someplace.

#21 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2012-02-01 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

reviewed documents they saved on the hard drives of their government computers.

Legal. As I understand it, your employer owns the computer and therefore owns everything on it. If you don't want your boss reading your emails, don't check them from a work computer or use the address they provided to you.

#22 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-02-01 09:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

I read and re-read that darned last line and all it says is the "information may be disclosed or used for any legal government purpose." What's your point?

That nobody consented to disclosure of info for illegal purposes.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2012-02-01 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

this site uses google ads.

its not the retort.. its google...

take it up with them..

#24 | Posted by klifferd at 2012-02-01 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable