Hooverville Blues

John Podhoretz isn’t impressed with Clint Eastwood’s latest movie:

If you make the mistake of going to see J. Edgar, you will emerge much older by the time the movie finishes, even though only two hours will have passed. Forget all that questionable talk about how those newly tested subatomic particles move so quickly that they violate the rules of time and can order a drink before they walk into the bar. It is Clint Eastwood, Hollywood’s only functioning octogenarian director, and not a subatomic particle, who has figured out a way to breach Einstein’s relativity theory. In the theaters in which his movies play, time literally slows down to the speed of an ant. I was so ancient by the time J. Edgar was done that I went home and watched five reruns of Law and Order.

There’s more, including a John Voight reference.

The Avastin Decision

Did the FDA do the right thing?

The Wall Street Journal, and others, have denounced the FDA’s move as “a chillingly blunt assertion of regulatory power.” But my Manhattan Institute colleague Paul Howard is the guy who gets it right, in a blog post for Medical Progress Today:

If you think (as I do) that the FDA should be expanding the accelerated approval pathway and allow more drugs to get to market based on promising early studies. rather than waiting for large Phase III clinical trials that can take years to complete, you can argue that this outcome actually strengthens AA. Critics have charged that AA is sop to industry, and that companies never do the follow up studies to support AA. Avastin proves them wrong.

This is exactly the point. If you want the FDA to approve more innovative, new drugs based on promising but early clinical results, you have to give the FDA a way to revoke those approvals later on, should larger trials prove that those drugs aren’t as safe or effective as they first seemed. This is why the FDA should be congratulated for the way it has handled the Avastin breast cancer saga, and why I hope we will see the FDA handle more cases like this one, not less.

Yes, this is better than the way they’ve done it in the past, but this argument presumes that the FDA should have such regulatory power in the first place. It’s one thing to provide data on efficacy. It’s another to prevent people from making their own decisions about what drugs to use for which ailments.

Don’t Believe The News

This is unintentionally hilarious:

Kerrick also spoke about the current status of the NASA Space Shuttle Program and its official retirement on Aug. 31. The media has caused a lot of worry and uncertainty about the future of NASA’s role in galactic travel, she said.

“Don’t believe the news,” she said. “Through this whole process, I learned not to trust the news.”

Although it is true that the program is gone, Kerrick said, NASA will be around until at least 2020. She also said Orbital, a private company based in Virginia, and SpaceX, a company based in California, are the primary sources of funding to continue the development of shuttles capable of going beyond low-Earth orbit.

It’s unclear whether she really said this stuff, or if the reporter just garbled whatever she actually did say, but there are at least four problems with that last paragraph.

[Via Jeff Foust]

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!