4 ms·
This is a popular idea: Just put someone in charge! It ignores the incentives for those gatekeepers, who are now part of the system. In practice I don't think y
by stickfigure 8y ago
This is a popular idea: Just put someone in charge! It ignores the incentives for those gatekeepers, who are now part of the system. In practice I don't think you're going to get better updates, you're going to get "almost no updates".
See also: The FDA and drug approvals.
- amelius 8y agoSo you want to do away with the FDA? Put BigPharma in charge and let them regulate themselves? That sounds a lot less appealing to me.
- wooter 8y agofdareview.org - the fda kills more people in late/non approvals than it saves through denials. this is why compassionate use has been on the rise
- TeMPOraL 8y agoIt does not, in any way, imply that pharmaceutical companies would do a better job if left to their own devices and market pressure.
- dnautics 8y agoThere's a lot of sunlight between letting pharma companies run rampant and having the FDA. One could imagine private non-profit testing and qualifications standards organizations along the lines of the underwriters laboratories
- ekianjo 8y agoIt is not completely out of this world to imagine multiple private entities involved in pharma dossier reviews instead of having the FDA. The FDA employs tons of private consultants anyway so they bring virtually no value.
- ekianjo 8y agoIt took years for the FDA to investigate Theranos in case you are not aware. And they only did when the press started digging up. Poor, poor track record.