[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 50.16.52.237. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
April 14, 1975

Rebuttal

Author Affiliations

Washington, DC
From the House Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC.

JAMA. 1975;232(2):143-144. doi:10.1001/jama.1975.03250020017016
Abstract

THE preceding commentary by Drs. Louis Lasagna and William M. Wardell presents a distorted and unfair representation of hearings held earlier this year by the House Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee. Lasagna and Wardell state that at hearings in the House of Representatives chaired by Congressman Fountain, "FDA officials have been reprimanded for being 'soft' on industry and too ready to approve new drugs." They cite the hearing on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of propranolol for the relief of angina pectoris as a case in point, noting that cardiologists have for years accepted and used this drug in the management of severe angina.

First, I must state unequivocally that the Subcommittee hearing record does not support in any way the contention that FDA officials were reprimanded for being "soft" on industry. This is untrue. With respect to the approval of propranolol for angina, the Subcommittee was concerned solely and

×