3 ms·

Pharmaceutical companies have every incentive to make their drugs safe, because if their drugs hurt people, the drugs will not sell. Many drugs have passed FDA

by wooby 6y ago

Pharmaceutical companies have every incentive to make their drugs safe, because if their drugs hurt people, the drugs will not sell. Many drugs have passed FDA approval but later killed people. If the FDA were a private company, it might have gone out of business. But as a government monopoly, it's very hard to stop paying for. Between pharma companies, the government, and individual patients, the FDA has the least stake in the health of a particular patient. UL is an example of a non-government organization that offers product safety certification. You see the UL seal on most consumer electric appliances. Imagine an FDA seal. Drugs are not magical or special. They are a product like any other, and it is the consumer's right to choose a doctor, and for that doctor to choose proper medication. We regularly choose the best mechanics, plumbers, and other specialists we can find, and their reputation is partly a function of the type and quality of the parts and tools they use.

sithadmin 6y ago
If you want to see where this kind of free-wheeling approach to cGMP certification and product quality gets you - just take a look at the developing world, where big-name generics manufacturers knowingly dump subpar-quality (or even outright dangerous or ineffective) drugs on the market with impunity. This leads to all sorts of unsavory outcomes, and puts healthcare providers in the position of resorting to incredibly unscientific approaches to dosage management (it's not uncommon for physicians in such cases to recommend dosages many times in excess of what's recommended due to extremely poor active ingredient potency, based mainly on strictly qualitative feedback from patients). It effectively reduces the pharmaceutical market to a guessing game. The quality issues seen in the developing world are also directly linked to antibiotics usage practices that directly contribute to development of resistant strains of bacteria.
- wooby 6y ago
  It is my understanding that malnutrition, clean water, and access to education/information are foremost among the problems of the developing world, and it's not at all clear to me that regulating medication in those countries would improve anyone's situation measurably. For my part, here in the "developed" world, I have a family member with a rare autoimmune condition, and access to comparatively few medications. Those that are available are very expensive and not covered by any insurance. There is little competition between their manufacturers. Because it costs at least 1.4B to bring a drug to market, and because of the rarity of her illness, it's unlikely any company will pursue new research. Thanks to the FDA's inordinately expensive approval process, no company is incentivized to bring a drug to market with an upside of <= 1.4B, regardless of how many people it could help.
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
UL is not a government organization, but it's not completely disconnected from government regulation. Most states or localities in the US have building codes which are required to be met to be allowed to build anything in their jurisdiction. These building codes typically require devices to be tested by a recognized lab, of which UL is one. So there is a choice between UL or some other very similar organization, but you don't have the choice to forgo testing completely or to rely only on some completely different type of testing.
- michaniskin 6y ago
  Now of course the public would be better served if the UL could focus on their business without being subjected to the whims of politicians. But the fact that private companies other than the UL can at least compete for the job ensures that costs are reasonable. If the UL charges too much consumers can choose one of their competitors. Even if they have no competition right now another company will arise to compete, if it isn't illegal for another private company to start providing this service. I see no reason why an individual should not be allowed to build their house with whatever inspection regimen they desire (even none at all). A poorly built house, a house without the endorsement of a respected engineering body, will surely have this reflected in the sale price. I don't see a problem here that needs to be solved.

by wooby 6y ago

sithadmin 6y ago

If you want to see where this kind of free-wheeling approach to cGMP certification and product quality gets you - just take a look at the developing world, where big-name generics manufacturers knowingly dump subpar-quality (or even outright dangerous or ineffective) drugs on the market with impunity. This leads to all sorts of unsavory outcomes, and puts healthcare providers in the position of resorting to incredibly unscientific approaches to dosage management (it's not uncommon for physicians in such cases to recommend dosages many times in excess of what's recommended due to extremely poor active ingredient potency, based mainly on strictly qualitative feedback from patients). It effectively reduces the pharmaceutical market to a guessing game. The quality issues seen in the developing world are also directly linked to antibiotics usage practices that directly contribute to development of resistant strains of bacteria.

wooby 6y ago
It is my understanding that malnutrition, clean water, and access to education/information are foremost among the problems of the developing world, and it's not at all clear to me that regulating medication in those countries would improve anyone's situation measurably. For my part, here in the "developed" world, I have a family member with a rare autoimmune condition, and access to comparatively few medications. Those that are available are very expensive and not covered by any insurance. There is little competition between their manufacturers. Because it costs at least 1.4B to bring a drug to market, and because of the rarity of her illness, it's unlikely any company will pursue new research. Thanks to the FDA's inordinately expensive approval process, no company is incentivized to bring a drug to market with an upside of <= 1.4B, regardless of how many people it could help.

TheCoelacanth 6y ago

UL is not a government organization, but it's not completely disconnected from government regulation. Most states or localities in the US have building codes which are required to be met to be allowed to build anything in their jurisdiction. These building codes typically require devices to be tested by a recognized lab, of which UL is one. So there is a choice between UL or some other very similar organization, but you don't have the choice to forgo testing completely or to rely only on some completely different type of testing.

michaniskin 6y ago
Now of course the public would be better served if the UL could focus on their business without being subjected to the whims of politicians. But the fact that private companies other than the UL can at least compete for the job ensures that costs are reasonable. If the UL charges too much consumers can choose one of their competitors. Even if they have no competition right now another company will arise to compete, if it isn't illegal for another private company to start providing this service. I see no reason why an individual should not be allowed to build their house with whatever inspection regimen they desire (even none at all). A poorly built house, a house without the endorsement of a respected engineering body, will surely have this reflected in the sale price. I don't see a problem here that needs to be solved.