>In early August, soon after joining the FDA, Tidmarsh announced actions that would effectively remove from the market a drug ingredient made by a company associated with Tang. Tidmarsh’s lawyer then sent a letter to Tang proposing that he extend a “service agreement” for “another 10 years,” which would see Tang making payments to a Tidmarsh-associated entity until 2044. The email was seen as attempted extortion, with such payments being in exchange for Tidmarsh rolling back the FDA’s regulatory change.

Straight up extortion.

Setting aside the entirely unprofessional and unnecessary insult language [1], this is trashy, partisan "journalism". An article about a singular scandal at the FDA buries the lede amongst complaints about the CDC, and a non-sequitur about Vinay Prasad that doesn't even mention anything specific.

Mods should switch the link to the much better article at Stat News [2], which this is just badly regurgitating anyway.

> Many of the scandals are tied to Vinay Prasad, the Trump administration’s top vaccine regulator, who also has the titles of chief medical officer and chief scientific officer. Prasad made a name for himself on social media during the pandemic as a COVID-19 response skeptic and, since joining the FDA, has been known for overruling agency scientists and sowing distrust, unrest, and paranoia among staff. He was pushed out of the agency in July only to be reinstated about two weeks later.

An honest journalist would note that Prasad was pushed out from the right (possibly from industry activism) because he had the temerity to reject a drug that had lousy evidence (the "scandals" in question, which were not actually scandals). The Wall Street Journal, Laura Loomer and a US Senator have made a coordinated vendetta against the guy, who is quite possibly one of the most principled actors in this administration.

[1] The "clown show" epithet came from an unnamed "venture captial investor". Come now. If you're going to fling that kind of petty invective, cite your sources, particularly when those sources come from investors in the regulated industry.

[2] https://www.statnews.com/2025/11/04/fda-in-disarray-expert-a...

“He had the temerity to reject a drug that had lousy data…”

Was that data really “lousy”? (Referencing the REPL data?) Was it a trial design issue? (which he has very strong and unconventional opinions on) Is it the role of his position to overrule his specialist review teams ? (in the absence of any clear safety risks or malfeasance)

At least clowns can be fun to watch

My ex works in QA for a biotech company and FDA audits are a regular thing and are taken very seriously.

There's plenty to criticize of the org (as with almost all others) but the rank and file are doing good work to help try to keep us safe.