22 ms·

> I'm selling you this drug, but the FDA hasn't agreed that it is effective. This sort of labeling is already ok. Have you been in a drug store lately? A qua

by steego 11y ago

> I'm selling you this drug, but the FDA hasn't agreed that it is effective. This sort of labeling is already ok. Have you been in a drug store lately? A quarter of the cold medicine is basically placebo garbage. They literally have no active ingredients that are recognized by the FDA, but their cleverly worded boxes sit close to real cold medicine with active ingredients tested by science. While you're on your drug store field trip, look for the homeopathic cold medicine and look for the active ingredients. Note how it's not measured in milligrams.

HarryHirsch 11y ago
With supplements, it's different, thanks to Orrin Hatch and his "Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act". In that field you can sell next to everything, provided you label it correctly. Buyer beware! If your supplement contains any elixir of sulfanilamide it's your fault, you should have educated yourself on what this elixir of sulfanilamide actually is. After all, it contains what it says on the tin. Diagnostics are thankfully more tightly regulated.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  (Shrug) I don't see the problem with this. The opposite scenario, in which everthing that's not explicitly permitted is forbidden, is worse. That's how you get a War on Drugs. Regulation of certain medical lab tests may be more reasonable. That seems like a case where informed consent on the part of each individual consumer is impractical.
  - HarryHirsch 11y ago
    The opposite scenario, in which everthing that's not explicitly permitted is forbidden, is worse With the degree of information asymmetry in medicine it makes sense to regulate medicinal drugs tightly. Before anyone screams: "But FDA stifles innovation" let's say that the FDA exists since the 1960s and the pharma troubles started in the early 2000s. An alternative theory is overfinancialization. Just the other day the merger between Dow and DuPont was announced. Why compete in the market when you can just buy up the competition? No expensive R & D needed!
bitwize 11y ago
Zinc throat lozenges are a weird case: there's evidence that they're effective but they haven't passed FDA muster (and arguably don't have to, being zinc supplements under US law). Note that they are marked as homeopathic, but the active ingredients are not listed as having been diluted to "basically just water" levels.
- gohrt 11y ago
  The term "homeopathic" has been diluted. It used to mean "a lie dissolved in water", but now, because (ugh) it got popular in some circles, or to try to steal some of the relative legitimacy of natural non-water supplements, "naturopathic" remedies are labeled homeopathic.
erispoe 11y ago
One big difference is that placebo effect doesn't make any sense for blood tests. You want to cure your cold with placebo? Sure, go ahead. But measuring cholesterol levels or detecting HIV with an inaccurate test is a real health hazard, and a liability for the company.
- HarryHirsch 11y ago
  You are pointing a way forward for Theranos' investors to save their bacon: indemnify the lab testing service. Within short order the market will offer two kinds of tests: Theranos for the plebs, Labquest for the patricians.
rayiner 11y ago
I keep almost accidentally buying homeopathic teething gel.

by steego 11y ago

HarryHirsch 11y ago

With supplements, it's different, thanks to Orrin Hatch and his "Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act". In that field you can sell next to everything, provided you label it correctly. Buyer beware! If your supplement contains any elixir of sulfanilamide it's your fault, you should have educated yourself on what this elixir of sulfanilamide actually is. After all, it contains what it says on the tin. Diagnostics are thankfully more tightly regulated.

CamperBob2 11y ago
(Shrug) I don't see the problem with this. The opposite scenario, in which everthing that's not explicitly permitted is forbidden, is worse. That's how you get a War on Drugs. Regulation of certain medical lab tests may be more reasonable. That seems like a case where informed consent on the part of each individual consumer is impractical.
- HarryHirsch 11y ago
  The opposite scenario, in which everthing that's not explicitly permitted is forbidden, is worse With the degree of information asymmetry in medicine it makes sense to regulate medicinal drugs tightly. Before anyone screams: "But FDA stifles innovation" let's say that the FDA exists since the 1960s and the pharma troubles started in the early 2000s. An alternative theory is overfinancialization. Just the other day the merger between Dow and DuPont was announced. Why compete in the market when you can just buy up the competition? No expensive R & D needed!

bitwize 11y ago

Zinc throat lozenges are a weird case: there's evidence that they're effective but they haven't passed FDA muster (and arguably don't have to, being zinc supplements under US law). Note that they are marked as homeopathic, but the active ingredients are not listed as having been diluted to "basically just water" levels.

gohrt 11y ago
The term "homeopathic" has been diluted. It used to mean "a lie dissolved in water", but now, because (ugh) it got popular in some circles, or to try to steal some of the relative legitimacy of natural non-water supplements, "naturopathic" remedies are labeled homeopathic.

erispoe 11y ago

One big difference is that placebo effect doesn't make any sense for blood tests. You want to cure your cold with placebo? Sure, go ahead. But measuring cholesterol levels or detecting HIV with an inaccurate test is a real health hazard, and a liability for the company.

HarryHirsch 11y ago
You are pointing a way forward for Theranos' investors to save their bacon: indemnify the lab testing service. Within short order the market will offer two kinds of tests: Theranos for the plebs, Labquest for the patricians.

rayiner 11y ago

I keep almost accidentally buying homeopathic teething gel.