Thabo Mbeki Quotes

On the third stage is used for medicine, it is not known to the public.

Well, because lots of questions had been raised about the toxicity of the drug, which is very serious.

Drug discovery is terribly expensive, just to find out how one drug could or could not work and all its side effects.

We all want our drugs to be safe - and so an essential part of the pathway to the development of a new drug is approval by a regulator.

To start with, pharma was an industry based on innovation, drug discovery.

I agree, the world would be a better place if doctors were less enthusiastic about adopting very new drugs.

When you prescribe a new drug, often you are prescribing something that has only been tested in a few thousand people for a very short period of time, perhaps only six months, and that's not long enough to know whether there are any medium- or long-term side effects.

Now, what tends to happen is that the stories get hyped. And the medicines are not quite as revolutionary and as dramatic as they seem to be. But, certainly, various phases of this problem are being attacked by the pharmaceutical companies.

In general, drug companies are reasonably good at developing new treatments, and there's also a lot of good in the industry.

And while we are on the subject of medication you always need to look at risk versus benefit.

Nowadays, my mood ungoverned, I'm free to think the most outrageous things, such as: might it not be a good idea to insist that drug companies give their preparations names that tell the user what they really do?

The United States has an active pharmaceutical industry that has brought huge benefits to the U.S. public. Most Americans, who benefit from these advances, have little understanding of how difficult it is to create an important new medical therapy and make it available to improve public health.

All I ever promised was that I was sure I could develop a new pharmacological agent which might answer a physiological question. Any utility would be implicit in that answer.

We need to be able to make decisions even though part of the information that we have is incorrect and wrong.

Efforts to approach zero risk through exhaustive pre-release testing are extremely expensive and time-consuming. New drugs are delayed in reaching those who need them, and marginal drugs may not be developed at all.

The FDA serves a real purpose: To protect public health.

The Food and Drug Administration works to protect the interests of all patients and provide them with reliable information about the potential effects of treatments. But government rules should not stand in the way of potentially lifesaving therapies for those who do not have much time or any other options.

Once an effective drug is approved to treat a deadly condition, introducing a second drug to treat the same disease can be hard. It's tough to recruit patients with a debilitating disease for a clinical trial when a proven medicine is already available.

While I am prepared to look at all options and to think 'outside the box' for effective treatments, I rightly resisted efforts to provide an unproven drug on demand to the American public.

The very first pharmaceutical commercial I ever heard was 15 seconds of the product and 45 seconds of side effects, so I know that this cannot be good for you.

Even then, Vanderbilt was the premiere place for clinical pharmacology.

As population susceptibilities are better understood, we will be in a better position than we are in today to make informed decisions about risk management.

I don't believe that you can make decisions on anything without having all of the details.

Less intelligence capacity equals less safety.

Among a great many other things that chess teaches you is to control the initial excitement you feel when you see something that looks good. It trains you to think before grabbing and to think just as objectively when you're in trouble.