5 ms·
Obviously we can dodge the question of "Why can't [X] be treated as [Y]?" by saying "X is not Y", as you've done. If you ignore the point behind the comparison,
by bitshiftfaced 5y ago
Obviously we can dodge the question of "Why can't [X] be treated as [Y]?" by saying "X is not Y", as you've done. If you ignore the point behind the comparison, and we say that "X is X", then there is no argument. Biogen still has time to do the trial to show effectiveness and is going through a process that is governed by the set of rules set forth for drugs (not herbal supplements).
- danso 5y agoSorry, I didn't say you can't consider Aduhelm to be an herbal supplement, just that every premise and factor in the current discussion would be rendered irrelevant. So OK, let's agree that Aduhelm is now an herbal supplement. The FDA no longer has the authority to ban it from Walgreens. What's your point? The FDA's decision is about Aduhelm's proven effectiveness as a drug, and it has no bearing on whether Biogen wants to sell it as OTC herbal supplement. Do you believe the FDA is what's preventing Biogen from doing that right now?
- bitshiftfaced 5y agoThe OP was saying how by allowing the accelerated approval, the FDA failed to protect people from a drug that hasn't yet been shown to be effective. My point was that it's not like the FDA protects people from snake oil anyway. Doctors can already get their patients to spend tons of money on unproven treatments. As long as the treatment isn't lying about what the evidence has shown, adults and their doctors are able to make decisions based on available information, and generally society is ok with that. That sentiment conflicts with OP's sentiment. That is why the comparison is relevant to the discussion.