3 ms·

> All of this doesn't include the effects of making drug companies more careful about which drugs they try out, which really might go either way in its effect.

> All of this doesn't include the effects of making drug companies more careful about which drugs they try out, which really might go either way in its effect. Let's not underestimate the magnitude of this effect... the FDA is the way it is for a reason. As incredibly and hair-pullingly frustrating as the approval process can be, it's necessary. I'd rather have an FDA that errs on the side of caution than one that relies on the good will and stringent standards of the pharma industry. Not to disparage the drug companies too heavily- most of the people who work in the industry developing and testing drugs have their heads on straight, and would be in favor of doing things the right way even without the FDA looking over their shoulders... but companies are companies, and ensuring drug safety is not something that should be left up to profit-maximizing entities. The story about the scorpion and the frog comes to mind...

Symmetry 16y ago
I think you believe I'm trying to get rid of the FDA here. I'm not, I just want it to approve new drugs more quickly. Generally I'm in favor of things like the late 80s/early 90s reform which reduced the gap in approval speed between the US and Europe * , or like HR.6270 (which never made it to vote) which would let terminally ill patients use drugs that haven't been proven safe yet. There's no reason to get rid of the FDA, its probably both better and politically easier to reform it. *Europe generally approved drugs much more quickly than the US (well, United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany at least) and there wasn't any statistically significant difference in the number of bad drugs let through. People noticed that and hence the reforms in the early 90s. For instance, you could use propranolol to treat hypertnsion in most of Europe by '68, but not in the US until '78. That cost 10,000s of lives right there. Luckily the modern FDA is better - though it still needs improvement.

Symmetry 16y ago

I think you believe I'm trying to get rid of the FDA here. I'm not, I just want it to approve new drugs more quickly. Generally I'm in favor of things like the late 80s/early 90s reform which reduced the gap in approval speed between the US and Europe * , or like HR.6270 (which never made it to vote) which would let terminally ill patients use drugs that haven't been proven safe yet. There's no reason to get rid of the FDA, its probably both better and politically easier to reform it. *Europe generally approved drugs much more quickly than the US (well, United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany at least) and there wasn't any statistically significant difference in the number of bad drugs let through. People noticed that and hence the reforms in the early 90s. For instance, you could use propranolol to treat hypertnsion in most of Europe by '68, but not in the US until '78. That cost 10,000s of lives right there. Luckily the modern FDA is better - though it still needs improvement.