4 ms·

>Even if I'm in the first group, I still need to know things like correct dosage, drug interactions, purity, etc in order to safely self-administer. Nothing pr

>Even if I'm in the first group, I still need to know things like correct dosage, drug interactions, purity, etc in order to safely self-administer. Nothing prevents one from asking for help, does it?

jdmichal 7y ago
That argument is just turtles all the way down. How did those people get educated? How was correct dosage and drug interactions determined in the first place? How was purity enforced? At some point, you're either trusting unverified word of mouth, or you're verifying with the same type of data that the FDA is responsible for collecting and verifying. There's groups that advocate feeding bleach solutions to cure autism. [0] Should I ask those people? How about the ones that believe vaccines cause autism? We already know we get an opioid crises and overdoses when people self-administer those... [0] Seriously, I wish I was joking. Search for "autism mms".
- dennis_jeeves 7y ago
  jdmichal, what you are mentioning is a fundamental problem of deciding as to who is correct? Am I getting that right? Well there is no clear answer as to who has the right answer. Most people tend to rely on the first licensed MD that will give them advise. Someone like me will may go in for a second and third opinion, and sometimes based solely on my existing knowledge and opinion of an MD at all. As with with all hard decisions, the answer is: 'it depends' >At some point, you're either trusting unverified word of mouth, Mostly, yes. But there are nuances. >or you're verifying with the same type of data that the FDA is responsible for collecting and verifying. What makes you think that FDA is the only source of truth? It could be my blood letting friendly barber for me. Well, I'm exaggerating, but you do get the point?
  - jdmichal 7y ago
    I think the fundamental problem is that, when you say "my blood-letting barber", you're exaggerating. Others could say the exact same thing, and be deadly serious. My argument is exactly this variance. When scientific method starts being replaced by web of trust, people get hurt. And it's not because they're being stupid, like your original assertion. It's because they trusted the wrong person with the wrong information. This happens now, as my last comment made pretty clear. But at least in the FDA we have a relatively good source of information which was gathered using scientific methods to educate ourselves with. Just to be clear: Other than this point surrounding education, I generally agree that prescription law is too restrictive in the US. I wish we had a layout closer to doctors diagnose and pharmacists prescribe, instead of doctors doing both. Pharmacists are supposed to be the expert in the drugs, but other than drug interaction screening and equivalent / generic replacement, that job has been stripped from them.
    - dennis_jeeves 7y ago
      >And it's not because they're being stupid, like your original assertion We are on to something, You think all people have essentially the same fundamental capacity to reason? And all that differs from person to person is information, experience and knowledge? >But at least in the FDA we have a relatively good source of information which was gathered using scientific methods to educate ourselves with. Wrong, _you_ think it's a good source of information. I don't. Anyway we probably are essentially talking one and the same thing.
      - jdmichal 7y ago
        > You think all people have essentially the same fundamental capacity to reason? And all that differs from person to person is information, experience and knowledge? I think that decision making is a skill. And like all skills, having those things will improve it. It's also a very difficult skill to judge, because value systems range so broadly. Just because it doesn't look like a "reasonable" choice to you -- which is pretty much defined by "the set of things I would have picked" -- doesn't mean that it wasn't for that person. For instance, I would not care to inject myself with unknown-to-myself drugs, because I'm naturally risk adverse and don't have a need compelling enough to take the risks I associate with such an action. But I also acknowledge that others have different aversions and needs than myself. > Wrong, _you_ think it's a good source of information. I don't. OK. Is it because you don't trust their methods? Or their implementation? Regardless, I agree that this seems to be the end of the conversation. If it's the former, than that's a irreparable disconnect in our ideologies. If it's the latter, then I'm undereducated and won't attempt to discuss. Do keep in mind that I'm separating the FDA's evaluations from things that hinge on that evaluation. The FDA could still be doing its thing, even if drugs could be sold without their approval. (Though they would certainly not get the level of cooperation that they currently enjoy.)
        dennis_jeeves 7y ago
        >I think that decision making is a skill. And like all skills, having those things will improve it. We have a very fundamental difference of opinion, and we will have to leave the discussion at that. And the difference is this: my opinion is that people will significantly vary in their decision making skill, everything else being equal (training, knowledge, experince etc.) >Is it because you don't trust their methods? Or their implementation? Both. It's because the vast majority of people in my (subjective) analysis are worse decision makers than me. The FDA is no exception. The FDA is also prone to being corruptible, as is any human enterprise. It's a fundamental difference of opinion I have with you. Look through my profile, and you will see a cynic. Josiah Zayner, the guy who's article is posted would be a guy of similar disposition.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

jdmichal 7y ago

That argument is just turtles all the way down. How did those people get educated? How was correct dosage and drug interactions determined in the first place? How was purity enforced? At some point, you're either trusting unverified word of mouth, or you're verifying with the same type of data that the FDA is responsible for collecting and verifying. There's groups that advocate feeding bleach solutions to cure autism. [0] Should I ask those people? How about the ones that believe vaccines cause autism? We already know we get an opioid crises and overdoses when people self-administer those... [0] Seriously, I wish I was joking. Search for "autism mms".

dennis_jeeves 7y ago
jdmichal, what you are mentioning is a fundamental problem of deciding as to who is correct? Am I getting that right? Well there is no clear answer as to who has the right answer. Most people tend to rely on the first licensed MD that will give them advise. Someone like me will may go in for a second and third opinion, and sometimes based solely on my existing knowledge and opinion of an MD at all. As with with all hard decisions, the answer is: 'it depends' >At some point, you're either trusting unverified word of mouth, Mostly, yes. But there are nuances. >or you're verifying with the same type of data that the FDA is responsible for collecting and verifying. What makes you think that FDA is the only source of truth? It could be my blood letting friendly barber for me. Well, I'm exaggerating, but you do get the point?
- jdmichal 7y ago
  I think the fundamental problem is that, when you say "my blood-letting barber", you're exaggerating. Others could say the exact same thing, and be deadly serious. My argument is exactly this variance. When scientific method starts being replaced by web of trust, people get hurt. And it's not because they're being stupid, like your original assertion. It's because they trusted the wrong person with the wrong information. This happens now, as my last comment made pretty clear. But at least in the FDA we have a relatively good source of information which was gathered using scientific methods to educate ourselves with. Just to be clear: Other than this point surrounding education, I generally agree that prescription law is too restrictive in the US. I wish we had a layout closer to doctors diagnose and pharmacists prescribe, instead of doctors doing both. Pharmacists are supposed to be the expert in the drugs, but other than drug interaction screening and equivalent / generic replacement, that job has been stripped from them.
  - dennis_jeeves 7y ago
    >And it's not because they're being stupid, like your original assertion We are on to something, You think all people have essentially the same fundamental capacity to reason? And all that differs from person to person is information, experience and knowledge? >But at least in the FDA we have a relatively good source of information which was gathered using scientific methods to educate ourselves with. Wrong, _you_ think it's a good source of information. I don't. Anyway we probably are essentially talking one and the same thing.
    - jdmichal 7y ago
      > You think all people have essentially the same fundamental capacity to reason? And all that differs from person to person is information, experience and knowledge? I think that decision making is a skill. And like all skills, having those things will improve it. It's also a very difficult skill to judge, because value systems range so broadly. Just because it doesn't look like a "reasonable" choice to you -- which is pretty much defined by "the set of things I would have picked" -- doesn't mean that it wasn't for that person. For instance, I would not care to inject myself with unknown-to-myself drugs, because I'm naturally risk adverse and don't have a need compelling enough to take the risks I associate with such an action. But I also acknowledge that others have different aversions and needs than myself. > Wrong, _you_ think it's a good source of information. I don't. OK. Is it because you don't trust their methods? Or their implementation? Regardless, I agree that this seems to be the end of the conversation. If it's the former, than that's a irreparable disconnect in our ideologies. If it's the latter, then I'm undereducated and won't attempt to discuss. Do keep in mind that I'm separating the FDA's evaluations from things that hinge on that evaluation. The FDA could still be doing its thing, even if drugs could be sold without their approval. (Though they would certainly not get the level of cooperation that they currently enjoy.)
      - dennis_jeeves 7y ago
        >I think that decision making is a skill. And like all skills, having those things will improve it. We have a very fundamental difference of opinion, and we will have to leave the discussion at that. And the difference is this: my opinion is that people will significantly vary in their decision making skill, everything else being equal (training, knowledge, experince etc.) >Is it because you don't trust their methods? Or their implementation? Both. It's because the vast majority of people in my (subjective) analysis are worse decision makers than me. The FDA is no exception. The FDA is also prone to being corruptible, as is any human enterprise. It's a fundamental difference of opinion I have with you. Look through my profile, and you will see a cynic. Josiah Zayner, the guy who's article is posted would be a guy of similar disposition.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]