6 ms·
I don't understand the "rightfully so!" There is a real cost to not approving good drugs in order to avoid approving bad ones.
by 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 agoof course there is, it's just a lesser cost than the cost of approving bad ones
- mhb 7y agoHow can you possibly know that?
- metalliqaz 7y agoIt'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 agoThe 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 agoThe anti-vaxx movement would like a word...
- viklove 7y agoPeople 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 agoI 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 agoNot 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 agoThis 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 agoIt 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.