3 ms·

* Having a special court isn't "extra-judicial". Special courts can very useful, if you get judges which are versed in the subject matter. * None of your examp

by yyyk 7y ago

* Having a special court isn't "extra-judicial". Special courts can very useful, if you get judges which are versed in the subject matter. * None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust. Or vaccines in particular. * That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though. Big Corporates are bad, supported by Arrogant Science that can sometimes be flawed, therefore something related to them must be Bad too. To fix the unspecific Bad, the area needs some unspecified Reform (reform is always Good of course, and can never be Bad).

zer00eyz 7y ago
> Having a special court isn't "extra-judicial" One that has no president or case law is. One without the ability to contest (your award) is. The moment that you leave special masters rather than experts before a judge you end up with a very different set of outcomes. > None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust. I didn't question the FDA approval process for drugs, or biologics. I just said it is different and you need to approach the situation with a very different mental model. There is good and bad in the process and consumers should be aware of what they are putting into their bodies. If you want to question the FDA, and on the topic of biologics, then look no further than Chiron corporation. The UK government had to shut down their plant, and the FDA knew what was up. Peoples lives are on the line and a "miscommunication" by the FDA is an unacceptable excuse. The examples I listed had NOTHING to do with the FDA, and everything to do with the players involved, Doctors and large corporations. History is a good indicator that we have problematic interactions between these groups and science that harms profits or changes long held (and sometimes wrong) beliefs. > That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though.. I didn't say "big corporations are bad", I didn't say "science was arrogant". Sciences has its problems - reproduction, trusted elders, corporate interests and the ego of humans. I think science is aware of its issues and is the tides are shifting on punishing and replication, money and ego's are harder to solve but the former will do much to address the problem. Again history is a great indicator of how we treat change when money and long held ideology are on the line, it is a place where we should be MORE cautious not less.
- yyyk 7y ago
  * One can contest the vaccine award, and there's a pretty fixed law behind it[0]. Basically, if it's on the adverse list the claim wins automatically. If not, the claimant must show that the harm was done by the vaccine. The result can be appealed to civil courts. * The FDA did screw up once in 2004 with a flu vaccine - and it was caught in time. I doubt a single miscommunication 15 years ago is representative of the process. * I stand by my summary. Sure, your original post didn't use the same exact words, but it's pretty typical rhetoric: greedy corporations ("corporate profits", "$600 epipens") and arrogant flawed science ("Barry Marshall.. after getting a Nobel prize some Dr doubt his results"). * After all that, you're not really saying what "reform" you have in mind. If history is any guide, the misEducation of the last twenty years did a lot more harm than good. [0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168 I did not know that the vaccine court was established after an earlier vaccine scare in the UK...

by yyyk 7y ago

zer00eyz 7y ago

> Having a special court isn't "extra-judicial" One that has no president or case law is. One without the ability to contest (your award) is. The moment that you leave special masters rather than experts before a judge you end up with a very different set of outcomes. > None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust. I didn't question the FDA approval process for drugs, or biologics. I just said it is different and you need to approach the situation with a very different mental model. There is good and bad in the process and consumers should be aware of what they are putting into their bodies. If you want to question the FDA, and on the topic of biologics, then look no further than Chiron corporation. The UK government had to shut down their plant, and the FDA knew what was up. Peoples lives are on the line and a "miscommunication" by the FDA is an unacceptable excuse. The examples I listed had NOTHING to do with the FDA, and everything to do with the players involved, Doctors and large corporations. History is a good indicator that we have problematic interactions between these groups and science that harms profits or changes long held (and sometimes wrong) beliefs. > That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though.. I didn't say "big corporations are bad", I didn't say "science was arrogant". Sciences has its problems - reproduction, trusted elders, corporate interests and the ego of humans. I think science is aware of its issues and is the tides are shifting on punishing and replication, money and ego's are harder to solve but the former will do much to address the problem. Again history is a great indicator of how we treat change when money and long held ideology are on the line, it is a place where we should be MORE cautious not less.

yyyk 7y ago
* One can contest the vaccine award, and there's a pretty fixed law behind it[0]. Basically, if it's on the adverse list the claim wins automatically. If not, the claimant must show that the harm was done by the vaccine. The result can be appealed to civil courts. * The FDA did screw up once in 2004 with a flu vaccine - and it was caught in time. I doubt a single miscommunication 15 years ago is representative of the process. * I stand by my summary. Sure, your original post didn't use the same exact words, but it's pretty typical rhetoric: greedy corporations ("corporate profits", "$600 epipens") and arrogant flawed science ("Barry Marshall.. after getting a Nobel prize some Dr doubt his results"). * After all that, you're not really saying what "reform" you have in mind. If history is any guide, the misEducation of the last twenty years did a lot more harm than good. [0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168 I did not know that the vaccine court was established after an earlier vaccine scare in the UK...