4 ms·

I can't agree that drug regulation hasn't increased safety. Safety incidents are still quite common with unregulated "supplements". See https://en.m.wikipedia.o

I can't agree that drug regulation hasn't increased safety. Safety incidents are still quite common with unregulated "supplements". See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zicam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zicam and https://www.nature.com/articles/ajg2014131 https://www.nature.com/articles/ajg2014131 . That being said, clearly the current system has flaws. Perhaps the FDA could alter their requirements for sale to approximate "does not cause harm", with additional classes for "provides more benefit than harm", etc. The problem is, how do you get drug companies to pay for effectiveness studies if they don't have to? This would actually disincentivize such studies.

Nasrudith 8y ago
That already exists but for desperate subsets. Some chemotherapy drugs are themselves ironically carcinogenic - sometimes for the same area they are meant to treat. If they work better than the standard of care they get approved. Since if you already have cancer "might give you cancer in a decade" is an improvement over cancer now - especially since relapses are already a risk. I think the real issue with FDA regulations are monopolism related more than approval - not that they haven't made the occasional boneheaded move like being reluctant to approve superior sunscreens. Allowing reimportarion and government bulk purchase negotiations would cut margins and offer good safeguards against monopoly exploitation since if it is cheaper to ship something circularly you are getting ripped off.