2 ms·

> we're still reeling from thalidomide Wasn't that one of the FDA's big victories? Perhaps you mean the FDA is far to powerful because of that win. I can see

by jfoutz 9y ago

> we're still reeling from thalidomide Wasn't that one of the FDA's big victories? Perhaps you mean the FDA is far to powerful because of that win. I can see some argument for abandoning the efficacy requirement, and only going with "safe" but so few drugs actually do anything - isn't it something like a 95% attrition rate? only 1 in 50 actually have a measurable effect? Maybe the bar is too high. Seems like the bigger challenge, and far far greater win is just making testing cheaper.

wyager 9y ago
It wasn't a victory at all; existing medical procedure failed to stop huge numbers of deformities. As a reactionary knee-jerk response, the US instated vastly overwrought medical restrictions.
serf 9y ago
>Wasn't that one of the FDA's big victories? Perhaps you mean the FDA is far to powerful because of that win. depends who you ask. Milton Friedman used the thalidomide reaction as a case-book example of government meddling in the private sector where it needn't be, causing vast delay in possible new therapeutics, which basically created an unquantifiable loss of value due to us being unaware of "what could have been without bureaucratic delay". Friedman believed that if a company does sufficient harm to a population that the negative market signal will eventually destroy the 'bad-actor' company, without the need for anything like the FDA and the delays it imposes[0] I don't know whether or not he's right. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDV0YII6lk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDV0YII6lk