5 ms·
I don't see how one follows from the other. If what you said is true, we would expect the rate at which efficacy in supplements to have already increased, but i
by scott_s 8y ago
I don't see how one follows from the other. If what you said is true, we would expect the rate at which efficacy in supplements to have already increased, but it has not.
The effect that I think the original article is missing is that sometimes when you radically change the rules in an industry, different actors take over the industry. If drugs don't have to prove efficacy, companies willing to sell drugs with no hope of ever being effective will massively outcompete those that even try a little - it's just massively easier and more profitable.
- CryptoPunk 8y agoIt follows that more human data increases the rate of discovery, ceteris paribus. The medical profession would need to hold itself, or be held, to a higher standard than supplement marketers are, for the negative outcomes you describe to not materialize. We can't have a repeat of the surge in opioid prescriptions since the 1990s, where doctors have been compensated by pharmaceuticals for prescribing opioids. Something a long the lines of Bartley Madden's proposal of requiring doctors to document the results of the use of this class of drugs (those proven safe but not proven effective) in an open access database could go a long way in producing useful information.
- scott_s 8y agoMore data is not the same as more good data. And there certainly is such a thing as bad data. And I don't trust all doctors enough to rely on them to sift through the real versus the fake. Doctors are not scientists. Further, since drug makers can market directly to consumers, they will start asking for the fake stuff because the fake stuff will make fantastical claims. You're also side-stepping the issue of over-the-counter drugs. With no efficacy required, we will see a proliferation of sugar pills making specific claims about pain, inflammation, fever suppression, decongestion and allergy reduction that don't require a prescription.
- 1_over_n 8y ago"Doctors are not scientists." This is more of a key insight than most people appreciate. There are some doctors who are scientists (e.g. researcher-clinicians). Having asked many average members of the public "would you consider a doctor to be a scientist?" it's not intuitive for them to answer No. As someone involved in translating something from the leading edge of research right now, if you speak to straight up practicing Oncologists you have to do a lot of education in terms of bringing them up to speed in the field. We have found researcher-clinicians are easier to speak to and engage with as they are in touch with experimentation and more open minded.
- CryptoPunk 8y agoThis isn't going to be general physicians doing to the prescribing. It's going to be oncologists, who are generally up to date on the latest developments in oncological drugs. The idea that enough good data wouldn't be generated from laxening rules, to make it a net benefit for progress on developing/discovering effective new cancer drugs, seems farfetched to me. It requires completely discounting the unpredictability of drug discovery, and the role luck plays in it.
- scott_s 8y agoWhy would it only be oncologists? Repealing this act would remove the efficacy requirement for the entire pharmaceutical industry, not just cancer treatment.
- CryptoPunk 8y agoSo you'd be okay with repealing the act only for cancer treatment? My argument is only limited to serious conditions for which specialists become the main point of contact for the patient.