3 ms·
You didn't show any evidence of the FDA being a net benefit. You only showed that the FDA probably could have reduced that specific type of liver injury by regu
by baddox 10y ago
You didn't show any evidence of the FDA being a net benefit. You only showed that the FDA probably could have reduced that specific type of liver injury by regulating those specific supplements. But the government is not magic, and the FDA almost certainly has also caused injuries by overly or erroneously regulating other things. I have no idea what the net effect is, but you certainly haven't shown it to be positive.
- ejstronge 10y agoI'm curious about your assertion of 'overly' regulating things leading to a net negative effect. Are there specific examples you're considering?
- baddox 10y agoMarijuana would be the most obvious example.
- ejstronge 10y agoSorry to reply so late. I think we would do well to separate concerns about recreational drugs from the FDA's regulation of pharmaceuticals. I totally agree that our regulation of marijuana (when compared to similar substances like cigarettes) has been problematic. Are there examples of pharmaceuticals you were considering?
- baddox 10y agoI meant medical marijuana.