7 ms·

`...would rather lose a lot of good drugs than approve a bad drug.` Thanks for saying this, and rightfully so! Approving a bad drug in the world where distrib

`...would rather lose a lot of good drugs than approve a bad drug.` Thanks for saying this, and rightfully so! Approving a bad drug in the world where distribution channels are very well set up could have disastrous effects. We can point to things like the opioid crisis in the USA right now - a drug that is so addictive it should have never been put into use the way it was.

Chemranch2020 7y ago
There are many solutions especially the O2 respiratory mask which is very effective against airborne particles and viruses. You can get it here. http://chemexoticshop.com/product/buy-o2-breath-mask-online/ http://chemexoticshop.com/product/buy-o2-breath-mask-online/
mhb 7y ago
I don't understand the "rightfully so!" There is a real cost to not approving good drugs in order to avoid approving bad ones.
- metalliqaz 7y ago
  of course there is, it's just a lesser cost than the cost of approving bad ones
  - mhb 7y ago
    How can you possibly know that?
    - metalliqaz 7y ago
      It's about psychology, not numbers. the parent post referenced Thalidomide. a disaster like would seriously shake public confidence in medicine, across the board
      - mhb 7y ago
        The public seems able to understand that there is a cost/benefit tradeoff in driving cars. They could probably understand that idea in the case of drug approval also.
        cygx 7y ago
        The anti-vaxx movement would like a word...
        viklove 7y ago
        People accept the risk of driving because they feel like they're in control and can prevent a bad outcome. The same is not even remotely true about a drug.
        blobbers 7y ago
        I agree. I think this is why self driving cars will be difficult for society to accept. It's an odd topic because most people would never want to drive their own plane, yet willingly get on airplanes with some % chance they will crash. The notion that there is some % of cars that will crash seems more palatable when you're the one driving rather than some robot. Or maybe that's just because I pretend I'm a better driver than the self driving cars. This sort of "I could do it better..." psychology is probably what drives these behaviors. I can't build a better drug; .'. I trust that medical professionals will keep me safe. I can't fly the plane in a safer manner; .'. I trust that pilots will keep me safe. I might be able to drive in a safer manner; .'. I don't trust a self driving car.
- rjkennedy98 7y ago
  > There is a real cost to not approving good drugs in order to avoid approving bad ones. Do you have any evidence for this? Seems to me like a classic shibboleth of the pharma guild.
  - mhb 7y ago
    Not sure what sort of evidence you're looking for. There are certainly approved life-saving and other valuable drugs. If they had been approved sooner they would have had a greater benefit. There is an institutional bias towards avoiding costs due to approving a bad drug versus delaying approval and incurring unseen costs.
  - TearsInTheRain 7y ago
    This seems like a difficult thing to test maybe even unethical. In order to detect the rate of false negatives you would have to re-test drugs that were shut down for being too risky.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  It is a matter of diminishing returns already somewhat accounted for in the approval process. Cancer drugs are under far more lax standards given the alternative is death by cancer as even an ironically carcinogenic cancer treatment which gives it again later is preferred to dying of it now. As opposed to a slightly better allergy pill which more caution may be afforded. Not perfect by any means but it isn't totally blind.
radicaldreamer 7y ago
Also see thalidomide in Europe
- pkaye 7y ago
  Wow looks like there are still people around who suffered deformities because of the mistakes in approving thalidomide. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15536544 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15536544
  - dekhn 7y ago
    It's also still used successfully as a medicine for a number of uses.
    - pkaye 7y ago
      I sure they take more precautions like make sure women who take the medications are not pregnant.
      - dekhn 7y ago
        Yes, exactly. Seems better than a blanket ban. As pointed out elsewhere, the FDA is basically trying to keep dramatic risks/outcomes low, to maintain confidence in approved drugs, but tends to have a high false negative rate. What's interesting is that Vioxx was approved, but later appeared to have huge negative impact when it was given to large numbers of people (and apparently, it was also evident in the raw clinical trials data which was submitted to FDA). It's an entirely non-trivial, multi-dimensional, systemic problem.
        sarakayakomzin 7y ago
        >Yes, exactly. Seems better than a blanket ban. and yet somehow you don't concede that a non-blanket ban should have been the conclusion prior to opening it up to the public?
Psyladine 7y ago
>Thanks for saying this, and rightfully so! Approving a bad drug in the world where distribution channels are very well set up could have disastrous effects. Denialism's Michael Specter disagrees. Vioxx was one solution to the pain problem but 2.4% of participants showed heart problems when using it, so it was pulled off shelves. That's like saying no, 97.6% of the population can't have penicillin because 2.4% are allergic to it.
- mygo 7y ago
  That’s about the current death rate of Coronavirus and there is panic so yeah

Chemranch2020 7y ago

There are many solutions especially the O2 respiratory mask which is very effective against airborne particles and viruses. You can get it here. http://chemexoticshop.com/product/buy-o2-breath-mask-online/ http://chemexoticshop.com/product/buy-o2-breath-mask-online/

mhb 7y ago

I don't understand the "rightfully so!" There is a real cost to not approving good drugs in order to avoid approving bad ones.

metalliqaz 7y ago
of course there is, it's just a lesser cost than the cost of approving bad ones
- mhb 7y ago
  How can you possibly know that?
  - metalliqaz 7y ago
    It's about psychology, not numbers. the parent post referenced Thalidomide. a disaster like would seriously shake public confidence in medicine, across the board
    - mhb 7y ago
      The public seems able to understand that there is a cost/benefit tradeoff in driving cars. They could probably understand that idea in the case of drug approval also.
      - cygx 7y ago
        The anti-vaxx movement would like a word...
      - viklove 7y ago
        People accept the risk of driving because they feel like they're in control and can prevent a bad outcome. The same is not even remotely true about a drug.
        blobbers 7y ago
        I agree. I think this is why self driving cars will be difficult for society to accept. It's an odd topic because most people would never want to drive their own plane, yet willingly get on airplanes with some % chance they will crash. The notion that there is some % of cars that will crash seems more palatable when you're the one driving rather than some robot. Or maybe that's just because I pretend I'm a better driver than the self driving cars. This sort of "I could do it better..." psychology is probably what drives these behaviors. I can't build a better drug; .'. I trust that medical professionals will keep me safe. I can't fly the plane in a safer manner; .'. I trust that pilots will keep me safe. I might be able to drive in a safer manner; .'. I don't trust a self driving car.
rjkennedy98 7y ago
> There is a real cost to not approving good drugs in order to avoid approving bad ones. Do you have any evidence for this? Seems to me like a classic shibboleth of the pharma guild.
- mhb 7y ago
  Not sure what sort of evidence you're looking for. There are certainly approved life-saving and other valuable drugs. If they had been approved sooner they would have had a greater benefit. There is an institutional bias towards avoiding costs due to approving a bad drug versus delaying approval and incurring unseen costs.
- TearsInTheRain 7y ago
  This seems like a difficult thing to test maybe even unethical. In order to detect the rate of false negatives you would have to re-test drugs that were shut down for being too risky.
Nasrudith 7y ago
It is a matter of diminishing returns already somewhat accounted for in the approval process. Cancer drugs are under far more lax standards given the alternative is death by cancer as even an ironically carcinogenic cancer treatment which gives it again later is preferred to dying of it now. As opposed to a slightly better allergy pill which more caution may be afforded. Not perfect by any means but it isn't totally blind.

radicaldreamer 7y ago

Also see thalidomide in Europe

pkaye 7y ago
Wow looks like there are still people around who suffered deformities because of the mistakes in approving thalidomide. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15536544 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15536544
- dekhn 7y ago
  It's also still used successfully as a medicine for a number of uses.
  - pkaye 7y ago
    I sure they take more precautions like make sure women who take the medications are not pregnant.
    - dekhn 7y ago
      Yes, exactly. Seems better than a blanket ban. As pointed out elsewhere, the FDA is basically trying to keep dramatic risks/outcomes low, to maintain confidence in approved drugs, but tends to have a high false negative rate. What's interesting is that Vioxx was approved, but later appeared to have huge negative impact when it was given to large numbers of people (and apparently, it was also evident in the raw clinical trials data which was submitted to FDA). It's an entirely non-trivial, multi-dimensional, systemic problem.
      - sarakayakomzin 7y ago
        >Yes, exactly. Seems better than a blanket ban. and yet somehow you don't concede that a non-blanket ban should have been the conclusion prior to opening it up to the public?

Psyladine 7y ago

>Thanks for saying this, and rightfully so! Approving a bad drug in the world where distribution channels are very well set up could have disastrous effects. Denialism's Michael Specter disagrees. Vioxx was one solution to the pain problem but 2.4% of participants showed heart problems when using it, so it was pulled off shelves. That's like saying no, 97.6% of the population can't have penicillin because 2.4% are allergic to it.

mygo 7y ago
That’s about the current death rate of Coronavirus and there is panic so yeah