3 ms·
Based on what? What deaths is the lack of regulation preventing? How would they be more dangerous if they were regulated?
by davidcbc 9y ago
Based on what? What deaths is the lack of regulation preventing? How would they be more dangerous if they were regulated?
- smokeyj 9y ago> How would they be more dangerous if they were regulated? Not necessarily more dangerous, but more expensive. Medical tourism anyone?
- jack9 9y agoThere's lots of unintended, expected, negative outcomes from regulation. The counter culture is unregulated experimentation like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298919/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298919/ An impetus to circumvent these regulations, in the extreme case to save lives (or just to be deviant). Regulation is like a wet blanket that can mold, but is effective at putting out a fire in a pinch, if it's big enough. Regulatory bodies never seem to have a path-to-dissolution process (the core of my problem with regulation) and are largely implemented in such a manner that they grow, self-perpetuate, morph and fester corruption for countless generations (e.g. FDA vs smoking tobacco). Admittedly, I'm biased by my beliefs. Despite being heavily regulated, I think much of the cancer epidemic is caused by auto and oil/fuel, with some contribution by Monsanto Roundup-like products. The independent studies, in these heavily regulated industries, are consistently squelched, influenced, or made unavailable (trade secrets!). Regulation is not a silver bullet.