5 ms·

You would also have to consider whether the drug companies would choose an alternate route for validating safety. I think they would care at least some amount a

You would also have to consider whether the drug companies would choose an alternate route for validating safety. I think they would care at least some amount about their reputation for safe products.

noir_lord 9y ago
The Dutch (iirc) have a saying "The butcher certifies the meat". Given the commercial pressures on a new drug, vast expenditure I'm happy another body is in the loop.
makmanalp 9y ago
Or, perhaps they might find it cheaper to instead launch massive PR and discrediting campaigns, deny there is any issue, settle lawsuits to silence complaints from individuals who don't have money and time to legally fight a billion dollar business. I'm not saying this'll definitely happen, but it has happened many times in the past, right?
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
I'm totally sure Mylan,Turing Pharmaceuticals or Theranos would seek third party validation of their respective products.
cc439 9y ago
The free market has made this work in the realm of electronics and electrical devices (UL), as well as the automobile industry (TS16949). The risks posed by bad products in the healthcare sector are perceived as far more dangerous but the sheer ubiquity of theoretically dangerous, yet completely trusted products produced with nothing but private party testing lends credence to the argument that we wouldn't be worse off without the FDA. The safety of US made nutraceuticals is also a testament to that fact although they have become increasingly regulated by the FDA and FTC despite a lack of prominent examples to back the need for further regulation.
- rayiner 9y ago
  The difference between UL and a automobiles and drugs is that it's obvious if an electronic product or automobile works. It's very hard to tell if a drug works--and most don't. Nutraceuticals are a great example of the problem: they're safe because they're bogus and don't do anything. But because they're not regulated people waste tons of money (and suffer because they don't take drugs that do actually work). The
  - omarchowdhury 9y ago
    Saying nutraceuticals don't do anything is quite a claim on your behalf.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
It's a cost of doing business. They know there will be "error" and they accept that. That said, most are not in health business. They are in the manufacturing, distribution, and sales business. That is what they do. And they will act in ways that fulfill that model. That's just human (business) nature.
- orblivion 9y ago
  > They know there will be "error" and they accept that. But that's always the case. The OP is about an amount of error the FDA is accepting. The only question is the right amount of acceptable error.

noir_lord 9y ago

The Dutch (iirc) have a saying "The butcher certifies the meat". Given the commercial pressures on a new drug, vast expenditure I'm happy another body is in the loop.

makmanalp 9y ago

Or, perhaps they might find it cheaper to instead launch massive PR and discrediting campaigns, deny there is any issue, settle lawsuits to silence complaints from individuals who don't have money and time to legally fight a billion dollar business. I'm not saying this'll definitely happen, but it has happened many times in the past, right?

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

I'm totally sure Mylan,Turing Pharmaceuticals or Theranos would seek third party validation of their respective products.

cc439 9y ago

The free market has made this work in the realm of electronics and electrical devices (UL), as well as the automobile industry (TS16949). The risks posed by bad products in the healthcare sector are perceived as far more dangerous but the sheer ubiquity of theoretically dangerous, yet completely trusted products produced with nothing but private party testing lends credence to the argument that we wouldn't be worse off without the FDA. The safety of US made nutraceuticals is also a testament to that fact although they have become increasingly regulated by the FDA and FTC despite a lack of prominent examples to back the need for further regulation.

rayiner 9y ago
The difference between UL and a automobiles and drugs is that it's obvious if an electronic product or automobile works. It's very hard to tell if a drug works--and most don't. Nutraceuticals are a great example of the problem: they're safe because they're bogus and don't do anything. But because they're not regulated people waste tons of money (and suffer because they don't take drugs that do actually work). The
- omarchowdhury 9y ago
  Saying nutraceuticals don't do anything is quite a claim on your behalf.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

It's a cost of doing business. They know there will be "error" and they accept that. That said, most are not in health business. They are in the manufacturing, distribution, and sales business. That is what they do. And they will act in ways that fulfill that model. That's just human (business) nature.

orblivion 9y ago
> They know there will be "error" and they accept that. But that's always the case. The OP is about an amount of error the FDA is accepting. The only question is the right amount of acceptable error.