9 ms·

"Eban advises consumers to research who manufactures their generics and look up any problems that regulators have found out about them." The whole point of gov

"Eban advises consumers to research who manufactures their generics and look up any problems that regulators have found out about them." The whole point of government agencies like the FDA is to perform inspections that consumers lack the ability, time or resources to do on their own. I get that we're in a complicated interconnected world and you've got to look out for yourself, but that's me. There's about 300 million Americans out there and a good portion of them are busy raising kids and busting their ass working and CAN'T spend hours investigating their prescription meds and inspecting their food. Also, it's politically incorrect to say this, but a smaller number of consumers aren't intelligent enough to even begin taking care of themselves. They need the FDA more than anyone.

chrismeller 7y ago
I would actually take it a step further. I’ve done my research and I’ve decided that drug x my doctor recommended is possibly right for me. There should be absolutely no more research required. “The generic is the same thing, just cheaper” is taken as gospel. If it turns out that’s not the case... that’s it, full stop. I’m all for a lack of regulation, but once the FDA says it’s clear for anyone to make it they still have to check to make sure that’s what they’re making. Edit: and this is, of course, assuming that any of this is true.
duxup 7y ago
That strikes me as useful as the "security expert" who shows up on TV and tells people to "only download apps you trust". Who really knows anything about ANY of the apps they download? Nobody has the required knowledge / time to make that determination with any amount of success. Anyway the FDA situation reminds me of a libertarian blogger who a while back wrote a great blog that went something like "Guys, libertarians aren't supposed to hate the FDA / EPA!" His point being that libertarians are supposed to get riled up when government gets involved in protecting people from decisions that they should make on their own, such as preventing people from jumping off anything because jumping off a cliff is bad (overly simple example but that's the idea). Situations like telling good medicine from bad where you need huge amounts of testing and industry knowledge, or having someone dump toxic waste next to your house that you can't tell ... you're permanently hurt by the time you figure it out is something libertarians should want a government involved in. Life is complex, we can't figure everything out ourselves.
- throwayEngineer 7y ago
  Consider that the alternative, is expensive drugs that only the ultra wealthy can afford. What is better? A situation where the poor sometimes get ineffective drugs, or a situation where the poor get no drugs? If you picked G.) Other. You don't understand how the world works. It's the "cheap, fast, good", you picked 3 instead of 2. Edit, would love to hear solutions.
  - orhmeh09 7y ago
    I’m sorry , why are you presenting these as if they are the only options? And did you just defer to a common saying to make an assertion about how the world works instead of making a genuine argument?
    - throwayEngineer 7y ago
      That is the genuine argument. Not Everything is cheap. Did you want a third option where old people get medicine, but young people pay higher taxes? Pick your solution, someone loses.
  - evandev 7y ago
    Pick two, cheap and good. If the FDA is correctly doing their job, it should take some time to process if the generic drugs are effective. And for non-generic drugs, the R&D involved specifies that it doesn't come fast.
  - duxup 7y ago
    At least in the US it appears the costs of drugs is not tied to any real market forces / competition type forces, and I don't think when drug prices were lower the FDA was doing less testing.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  There's a free-market answer to the FDA problem, I don't think any real libertarian would argue otherwise (note: I'm not a libertarian). The solution is having a brand, and building that brand based on trust. Additionally, 3rd parties you subscribe to could verify the claims of brands and their integrity. This is similar to things like Fair Trade [1] certifications, or Kosher certifications. I often buy brand-name drugs OTC for QA purposes. I know that for the most part, Tylenol is going to contain 500mg of the primary ingredient when I buy it. Those portions are likely to be of good purity and uniform size. The off brand, might have more or less, of similar or dissimilar quality. I trust that US-based business for the most part actually care about their customers. It's a web of trust. Do I trust non-US business with manufacturing operations overseas? Not really when it comes to medication, no. 1: https://www.fairtradecertified.org/ https://www.fairtradecertified.org/
dillonmckay 7y ago
Also, good luck finding out what the enteric coating of the particular generic is made of.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
EliRivers 7y ago
Also, it's politically incorrect to say this... That is interesting. Usually when people say this, it's from the opposite perspective. I don't often see people casting the idea that there are people who do need extra help as "politically incorrect"; I'd guess the particular political stance that doesn't like this would be a strong individualist, strong personal responsibility, small government stance.
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
  Well, saying "some people are stupid" is definitely politically incorrect (even though factually correct - as happens in most cases where PC is involved). "Some people might need help" is perfectly safe though.

chrismeller 7y ago

I would actually take it a step further. I’ve done my research and I’ve decided that drug x my doctor recommended is possibly right for me. There should be absolutely no more research required. “The generic is the same thing, just cheaper” is taken as gospel. If it turns out that’s not the case... that’s it, full stop. I’m all for a lack of regulation, but once the FDA says it’s clear for anyone to make it they still have to check to make sure that’s what they’re making. Edit: and this is, of course, assuming that any of this is true.

duxup 7y ago

That strikes me as useful as the "security expert" who shows up on TV and tells people to "only download apps you trust". Who really knows anything about ANY of the apps they download? Nobody has the required knowledge / time to make that determination with any amount of success. Anyway the FDA situation reminds me of a libertarian blogger who a while back wrote a great blog that went something like "Guys, libertarians aren't supposed to hate the FDA / EPA!" His point being that libertarians are supposed to get riled up when government gets involved in protecting people from decisions that they should make on their own, such as preventing people from jumping off anything because jumping off a cliff is bad (overly simple example but that's the idea). Situations like telling good medicine from bad where you need huge amounts of testing and industry knowledge, or having someone dump toxic waste next to your house that you can't tell ... you're permanently hurt by the time you figure it out is something libertarians should want a government involved in. Life is complex, we can't figure everything out ourselves.

throwayEngineer 7y ago
Consider that the alternative, is expensive drugs that only the ultra wealthy can afford. What is better? A situation where the poor sometimes get ineffective drugs, or a situation where the poor get no drugs? If you picked G.) Other. You don't understand how the world works. It's the "cheap, fast, good", you picked 3 instead of 2. Edit, would love to hear solutions.
- orhmeh09 7y ago
  I’m sorry , why are you presenting these as if they are the only options? And did you just defer to a common saying to make an assertion about how the world works instead of making a genuine argument?
  - throwayEngineer 7y ago
    That is the genuine argument. Not Everything is cheap. Did you want a third option where old people get medicine, but young people pay higher taxes? Pick your solution, someone loses.
- evandev 7y ago
  Pick two, cheap and good. If the FDA is correctly doing their job, it should take some time to process if the generic drugs are effective. And for non-generic drugs, the R&D involved specifies that it doesn't come fast.
- duxup 7y ago
  At least in the US it appears the costs of drugs is not tied to any real market forces / competition type forces, and I don't think when drug prices were lower the FDA was doing less testing.
linuxftw 7y ago
There's a free-market answer to the FDA problem, I don't think any real libertarian would argue otherwise (note: I'm not a libertarian). The solution is having a brand, and building that brand based on trust. Additionally, 3rd parties you subscribe to could verify the claims of brands and their integrity. This is similar to things like Fair Trade [1] certifications, or Kosher certifications. I often buy brand-name drugs OTC for QA purposes. I know that for the most part, Tylenol is going to contain 500mg of the primary ingredient when I buy it. Those portions are likely to be of good purity and uniform size. The off brand, might have more or less, of similar or dissimilar quality. I trust that US-based business for the most part actually care about their customers. It's a web of trust. Do I trust non-US business with manufacturing operations overseas? Not really when it comes to medication, no. 1: https://www.fairtradecertified.org/ https://www.fairtradecertified.org/

dillonmckay 7y ago

Also, good luck finding out what the enteric coating of the particular generic is made of.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

EliRivers 7y ago

Also, it's politically incorrect to say this... That is interesting. Usually when people say this, it's from the opposite perspective. I don't often see people casting the idea that there are people who do need extra help as "politically incorrect"; I'd guess the particular political stance that doesn't like this would be a strong individualist, strong personal responsibility, small government stance.

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
Well, saying "some people are stupid" is definitely politically incorrect (even though factually correct - as happens in most cases where PC is involved). "Some people might need help" is perfectly safe though.