4 ms·

I think I'm a pretty average consumer and I can say without a doubt that I would not trust my ability to make a well reasoned choice with regard to unapproved d

I think I'm a pretty average consumer and I can say without a doubt that I would not trust my ability to make a well reasoned choice with regard to unapproved drugs. I'm not a pharmacist.

Declanomous 10y ago
"The other reviewers saying you can't drink while taking Tylenol have no idea what they are talking about. I do it all the time and it's totally safe."
- baddox 10y ago
  I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. I was under the impression that normal doses of Tylenol taken infrequently after drinking alcohol is not measurably dangerous.
  - Declanomous 10y ago
    Taking acetaminophen after drinking is extremely dangerous. It's potentially the leading cause of liver damage in the United States. The thing is that the damage only occurs in a specific instance, that is somewhat rare even if taken with alcohol. It occurs when the typical biochemical pathway for processing tylenol is saturated, which typically doesn't happen, but when it does it causes a lot of damage very quickly. A lot of drugs are extremely dangerous when not taken as prescribed, but the danger exists only in edge cases. So you could have 99 people saying "this drug is fine" and the drug will kill that 100th person every single time because of a particular mutation in a biochemical pathway. The Yelp method is a stupid way to regulate drugs because making correct risk assessments isn't something non-professionals can do. It's not like Amazon, where a buying a charger that mysteriously doesn't work with your phone is an inconvenience -- people are risking their health and their life. The site would be a bad idea even the power to review was limited to MDs. MDs are not all equally qualified to review drugs. Even if they know a lot about their specialty, they don't understand everything they need to know to prescribe drugs safely. This is why we have pharmacists. Their job is to basically understand all of the ways drugs work to predict novel interactions. Dumping a bunch of mystery drugs on the market is going to destroy that safety net. Furthermore, it's insane to think you can properly measure the efficacy of a drug by having doctors write reviews about it. Double-blind studies are a necessity for a reason.
    - baddox 10y ago
      I don't disagree with your broader point that "Yelp for drugs" is insufficient, but I'd still like to see some sources for your specific claims about Tylenol. From what I can tell from quick Googling, liver damage is quite rare unless the dosages are well beyond the recommendation, or taken habitually, or combined with an already extreme and dangerous dose of alcohol.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
coredog64 10y ago
One argument is that the FDA is too conservative. Take the example of a terminal cancer patient. There might be an experimental treatment that would offer them another month or three, or it could kill them immediately. If they are okay with that gamble, then why not let them? If it works out then we as a society have gained valuable information about a new treatment option. If it doesn't work out, we have also gained valuable information. Or, for a less life-and-death example, the FDA shouldn't be overly concerned with sunscreen ingredients [0]. I don't think the FDA should go away, but I think there is room for improvement. Maybe we could have some harmonization with similar agencies in EU countries, automatically granting approval for drugs available there. Crap, maybe if we just did it for sunscreen it would be a win for consumers. [0] http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i20/Decade-FDA-Still-Wont-Allow.html http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i20/Decade-FDA-Still-Wont-All...
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/howdrugsaredevelopedandapproved/approvalapplications/investigationalnewdrugindapplication/default.htm http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/howdrugs...
- mrjoeblack 10y ago
  You've actually made an argument for the FDA, not against it. Otherwise patients with cancer would have to decide between thousands of chemical concoctions which will either kill them, let them live, or do nothing, in which case they will still only live or die. Why would there only be one experimental drug on the market if any one is allowed to market to patients independent of efficacy or risk?

I think I'm a pretty average consumer and I can say without a doubt that I would not trust my ability to make a well reasoned choice with regard to unapproved drugs. I'm not a pharmacist.

Declanomous 10y ago

"The other reviewers saying you can't drink while taking Tylenol have no idea what they are talking about. I do it all the time and it's totally safe."

baddox 10y ago
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. I was under the impression that normal doses of Tylenol taken infrequently after drinking alcohol is not measurably dangerous.
- Declanomous 10y ago
  Taking acetaminophen after drinking is extremely dangerous. It's potentially the leading cause of liver damage in the United States. The thing is that the damage only occurs in a specific instance, that is somewhat rare even if taken with alcohol. It occurs when the typical biochemical pathway for processing tylenol is saturated, which typically doesn't happen, but when it does it causes a lot of damage very quickly. A lot of drugs are extremely dangerous when not taken as prescribed, but the danger exists only in edge cases. So you could have 99 people saying "this drug is fine" and the drug will kill that 100th person every single time because of a particular mutation in a biochemical pathway. The Yelp method is a stupid way to regulate drugs because making correct risk assessments isn't something non-professionals can do. It's not like Amazon, where a buying a charger that mysteriously doesn't work with your phone is an inconvenience -- people are risking their health and their life. The site would be a bad idea even the power to review was limited to MDs. MDs are not all equally qualified to review drugs. Even if they know a lot about their specialty, they don't understand everything they need to know to prescribe drugs safely. This is why we have pharmacists. Their job is to basically understand all of the ways drugs work to predict novel interactions. Dumping a bunch of mystery drugs on the market is going to destroy that safety net. Furthermore, it's insane to think you can properly measure the efficacy of a drug by having doctors write reviews about it. Double-blind studies are a necessity for a reason.
  - baddox 10y ago
    I don't disagree with your broader point that "Yelp for drugs" is insufficient, but I'd still like to see some sources for your specific claims about Tylenol. From what I can tell from quick Googling, liver damage is quite rare unless the dosages are well beyond the recommendation, or taken habitually, or combined with an already extreme and dangerous dose of alcohol.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

coredog64 10y ago

One argument is that the FDA is too conservative. Take the example of a terminal cancer patient. There might be an experimental treatment that would offer them another month or three, or it could kill them immediately. If they are okay with that gamble, then why not let them? If it works out then we as a society have gained valuable information about a new treatment option. If it doesn't work out, we have also gained valuable information. Or, for a less life-and-death example, the FDA shouldn't be overly concerned with sunscreen ingredients [0]. I don't think the FDA should go away, but I think there is room for improvement. Maybe we could have some harmonization with similar agencies in EU countries, automatically granting approval for drugs available there. Crap, maybe if we just did it for sunscreen it would be a win for consumers. [0] http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i20/Decade-FDA-Still-Wont-Allow.html http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i20/Decade-FDA-Still-Wont-All...

anigbrowl 10y ago
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/howdrugsaredevelopedandapproved/approvalapplications/investigationalnewdrugindapplication/default.htm http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/howdrugs...
mrjoeblack 10y ago
You've actually made an argument for the FDA, not against it. Otherwise patients with cancer would have to decide between thousands of chemical concoctions which will either kill them, let them live, or do nothing, in which case they will still only live or die. Why would there only be one experimental drug on the market if any one is allowed to market to patients independent of efficacy or risk?