4 ms·

It's just you. Things have changed enormously from the "let's put radium in everything" era. Nowadays there's a good case to be made that we've swung too far i

It's just you. Things have changed enormously from the "let's put radium in everything" era. Nowadays there's a good case to be made that we've swung too far in the opposite direction and we're letting people die because the FDA is too conservative in approving new medications (and old Russian medications with a proven track record that's impossible to patent therefore nobody has the incentive to spend millions on getting through the FDA vetting process, but that's a different issue).

ajna91 7y ago
I think sadly we may live in the worst of both worlds. Overly burdensome regulation on medical innovation, yet free hand in other areas like lead in gasoline, microbeads in our hair gel, and who knows what else. A cynical take might be that they are two sides of the same coin. Regulation meant to protect big business and at the same time choke out any competition.
weq 7y ago
IMO this a consequence of Capitalism. At some point, when companies get to large, buying regulations becomes the new ball game. This can go both ways, once u buy your regulation, making it harder for others becomes the next ball game...
- x3n0ph3n3 7y ago
  What you described is called "corporatism", and we can agree that it's a major problem. Assigning the flaws of corporatism to all of capitalism is to miss all of the good capitalism has done for the world.
  - majormajor 7y ago
    We called what we have today capitalism before we realized the bad parts. Now that we've realized the bad parts, we need to change things to address those bad parts. The more logical recipient of a new name is the new, fixed-capitalism you should be pushing for. Saying "oh the bad parts aren't capitalism, that's corporatism, that's different" is just playing word games to try to hide the fact that what we're doing isn't working as-is.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      "Corporatism" is a new word to me, so I'm inclined to agree that it's probably not a good idea to push for its use. On the other hand, there are some much better established words for a close partnership between the state and a set of established major businesses: "crony capitalism" and "fascism". "Fascism" isn't really a good idea either; in modern use it appears to be nothing more than a synonym for "badness".
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    > Assigning the flaws of corporatism to all of capitalism is to miss all of the good capitalism has done for the world. At what cost, though? Sure: us Westerners are way better off than 50 years ago, but the effects that capitalism has had on the environment (especially global warming and natural resource exploitation) are on the best way to totally wreck the planet for our children, and I don't want to get started on the plight of those in the poorest regions of the world that have gotten even poorer in the same timeframe.
    - agent008t 7y ago
      Which regions are poorer now than they were 50 years ago?
      - mschuster91 7y ago
        Have you ever looked at the sad state of African textile and agriculture industry? All but wrecked thanks to Europeans dumping old cloths and overproduced food in Africa disguised as "help".
        JetSpiegel 7y ago
        The African market for "African"-style wax print fabric (the stereotypical African clothing style) is dominated by a Dutch company called Vlisco. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/fashion-gains-a-foothold-in-africa-a-1273447.html#ref=rss https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/fashion-gains-a-f...
latchkey 7y ago
The whole anti-vax movement. There is bad things in the vaccinations that are saving us!
- latchkey 7y ago
  I'm getting downvoted a lot on this and I'd love to know why. To be clear, I'm not for the anti-vax movement. My point is just to say that this topic is very similar to that movement.
- skocznymroczny 7y ago
  How do you verify the content of a vaccine? It's not much different to using proprietary software. Yes, it seems to be good for us, but can you trust it fully without being able to verify it's contents and confirm that it wasn't tampered with along the way?
  - krapp 7y ago
    It's not reasonable to expect every individual to have the time, resources or expertise to personally run a full chemical analysis on every dose of vaccine or medicine that enters their body. So... you don't. You don't verify it, because you can't. You can't verify all of science from first principles. You can't inspect every building you enter and verify that it meets code. You can't inspect every electronic device for NSA taps. You can't inspect all of your food, drinking water, or even all of the FOSS code you use. Society is too large, and the domains of knowledge and expertise that feed into it are too complex for any individual to fully comprehend. You can't eliminate risk or trust from life. As far as vaccines go, you just have to trust that they work and are not likely to be poison and take the shot.
vkou 7y ago
> Nowadays there's a good case to be made that we've swung too far in the opposite direction No. Absolutely not. Maybe in a few particulars, but not in the general case. The reason that FDA approval is difficult is because we aren't discovering any more wonder drugs. The low hanging fruit has all been picked. In the meantime, we are stuffing our farm animals with antibiotics, growth hormones, covering our fields with pesticides and herbicides that have not proven to be safe, stuff our furniture with all sorts of wonderful fireproof substances that, twenty years down the road, we discover to be carcinogenic, and in general, rely on victims to prove that what they have been sold is dangerous. If we were actually prudent about this sort of thing, we'd require producers of goods to prove that what they are doing is safe - instead of waiting for people to be hurt or killed, followed by decades of studies and litigation. We can't even effectively hold companies accountable for selling dangerous product, when they know their products are dangerous. There are barely any controls for harm that they inflict out of ignorance.

ajna91 7y ago

I think sadly we may live in the worst of both worlds. Overly burdensome regulation on medical innovation, yet free hand in other areas like lead in gasoline, microbeads in our hair gel, and who knows what else. A cynical take might be that they are two sides of the same coin. Regulation meant to protect big business and at the same time choke out any competition.

weq 7y ago

IMO this a consequence of Capitalism. At some point, when companies get to large, buying regulations becomes the new ball game. This can go both ways, once u buy your regulation, making it harder for others becomes the next ball game...

x3n0ph3n3 7y ago
What you described is called "corporatism", and we can agree that it's a major problem. Assigning the flaws of corporatism to all of capitalism is to miss all of the good capitalism has done for the world.
- majormajor 7y ago
  We called what we have today capitalism before we realized the bad parts. Now that we've realized the bad parts, we need to change things to address those bad parts. The more logical recipient of a new name is the new, fixed-capitalism you should be pushing for. Saying "oh the bad parts aren't capitalism, that's corporatism, that's different" is just playing word games to try to hide the fact that what we're doing isn't working as-is.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    "Corporatism" is a new word to me, so I'm inclined to agree that it's probably not a good idea to push for its use. On the other hand, there are some much better established words for a close partnership between the state and a set of established major businesses: "crony capitalism" and "fascism". "Fascism" isn't really a good idea either; in modern use it appears to be nothing more than a synonym for "badness".
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > Assigning the flaws of corporatism to all of capitalism is to miss all of the good capitalism has done for the world. At what cost, though? Sure: us Westerners are way better off than 50 years ago, but the effects that capitalism has had on the environment (especially global warming and natural resource exploitation) are on the best way to totally wreck the planet for our children, and I don't want to get started on the plight of those in the poorest regions of the world that have gotten even poorer in the same timeframe.
  - agent008t 7y ago
    Which regions are poorer now than they were 50 years ago?
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      Have you ever looked at the sad state of African textile and agriculture industry? All but wrecked thanks to Europeans dumping old cloths and overproduced food in Africa disguised as "help".
      - JetSpiegel 7y ago
        The African market for "African"-style wax print fabric (the stereotypical African clothing style) is dominated by a Dutch company called Vlisco. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/fashion-gains-a-foothold-in-africa-a-1273447.html#ref=rss https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/fashion-gains-a-f...

latchkey 7y ago

The whole anti-vax movement. There is bad things in the vaccinations that are saving us!

latchkey 7y ago
I'm getting downvoted a lot on this and I'd love to know why. To be clear, I'm not for the anti-vax movement. My point is just to say that this topic is very similar to that movement.
skocznymroczny 7y ago
How do you verify the content of a vaccine? It's not much different to using proprietary software. Yes, it seems to be good for us, but can you trust it fully without being able to verify it's contents and confirm that it wasn't tampered with along the way?
- krapp 7y ago
  It's not reasonable to expect every individual to have the time, resources or expertise to personally run a full chemical analysis on every dose of vaccine or medicine that enters their body. So... you don't. You don't verify it, because you can't. You can't verify all of science from first principles. You can't inspect every building you enter and verify that it meets code. You can't inspect every electronic device for NSA taps. You can't inspect all of your food, drinking water, or even all of the FOSS code you use. Society is too large, and the domains of knowledge and expertise that feed into it are too complex for any individual to fully comprehend. You can't eliminate risk or trust from life. As far as vaccines go, you just have to trust that they work and are not likely to be poison and take the shot.

vkou 7y ago

> Nowadays there's a good case to be made that we've swung too far in the opposite direction No. Absolutely not. Maybe in a few particulars, but not in the general case. The reason that FDA approval is difficult is because we aren't discovering any more wonder drugs. The low hanging fruit has all been picked. In the meantime, we are stuffing our farm animals with antibiotics, growth hormones, covering our fields with pesticides and herbicides that have not proven to be safe, stuff our furniture with all sorts of wonderful fireproof substances that, twenty years down the road, we discover to be carcinogenic, and in general, rely on victims to prove that what they have been sold is dangerous. If we were actually prudent about this sort of thing, we'd require producers of goods to prove that what they are doing is safe - instead of waiting for people to be hurt or killed, followed by decades of studies and litigation. We can't even effectively hold companies accountable for selling dangerous product, when they know their products are dangerous. There are barely any controls for harm that they inflict out of ignorance.