2 ms·
The FDA is ridiculously over conservative because of litigation, settlement, and insurance costs. They're not doing another thalidomide. My premise is that the
by motohagiography 5y ago
The FDA is ridiculously over conservative because of litigation, settlement, and insurance costs. They're not doing another thalidomide.
My premise is that the facts we choose for our opinions are for support of an underlying belief, and that this underlying belief is that the people running things are full of shit, if not deceptive. I can't change someones mind about that (and wouldn't try), but I'm addressing that concern directly vs. getting a shot.
- murgindrag 5y agoHaving been through an FDA process in a prior startup (although far from central at it; my role was at the outskirts), I can say the FDA is not ridiculously over-conservative. We did human pilots in another country, which was less bureaucratic. The processes there were both faster and more conservative in terms of safety. Doctors would look over our data and protocols and make reasonable decisions. The FDA process took a long time, but wasn't all that effective at guaranteeing safety either. There was a ton of process. I think you're attributing far too much rationality to an administrative government process.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> They're not doing another thalidomide. I'd note that the FDA didn't do the first thalidomide. Thalidomide is one of the first big FDA success stories; it was rejected, despite being approved by numerous other countries and pressure from the manufacturer and politicians at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey
- bamboozled 5y agoThey're supposed to be conservative though?