5 ms·

I'm always surprised that people ever trusted them to be honest. When have deeply political organizations been a benefit to the medical community?

by toolz 5y ago

jimmydorry 5y ago
On a whole, the world is better off with the FDA's and their equivalent per nation. They approve and oversee the distribution of health and food products and set out minimum guidelines that influence how said products are marketed, recalled or banned; which on balance is a positive for society in the absence of a better regulatory body. By definition, these groups are political though. Almost none of them conduct their own studies, relying almost entirely on what the manufacturers provide them. And all of them have limited practical ability and experience to actually enforce their guidelines. What are they are exceptionally good at though is reviewing submitted trials and monitoring for adverse effects. Some people get hurt when dangerous products are given pre-approval / full-approval, but this is mitigated by quick recalls / banning. So to your question, political bodies likes the FDA's are a benefit to the greater populace and by extension the medical community. Keeping the obvious scams and harmful products out of general reach from the population is a pretty clear positive.
- garmaine 5y ago
  Anyone who lived through the AIDS epidemic can tell you that having a regulatory body is not automatically better than none at all. FDA bureaucracy and inaction has killed more Americans than WW2. Dissolving the FDA, or at least the gatekeeping branches of it, is a third option that ought to be seriously considered.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > Dissolving the FDA, or at least the gatekeeping branches of it, is a third option that ought to be seriously considered. Yes, so that the supplements industry can run amok on an unsuspecting public. No really, that's just what we need, especially now.
    - garmaine 5y ago
      I called out the gatekeeping job of the FDA specifically. The agency does two things: (1) blacklist food products with deceptive or harmful ingredients or advertising, and (2) whitelist the medications you’re allowed to put in your body, with or without the assistance of a doctor. It’s (2) that is the problem. With informed consent, you should be allowed to put whatever you want in your body without going to jail. It’s your body.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        (2) is not a problem, it is to prevent problems. If you think (2) is a problem you are probably doing something very stupid.
        garmaine 5y ago
        History says otherwise: https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-lesson-history https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-le...
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Quoting libertarian think tanks in order to further libertarian bollocks viewpoints isn't going to move the needle.
        garmaine 5y ago
        Then google “fda aids drugs” and pick your favorite source. This is, at this point 30 years removed, a non-political historical issue with objective facts.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        No, there is simply many years of progressive insight. The FDA, like any institution isn't perfect, they got stuff wrong in the past, they'll get stuff wrong in the future. But overall they are a very large net positive, and to argue the opposite is usually accompanied by a mindset that would love a world without all those pesky rules and regulations.
  - jimmydorry 5y ago
    I think the more straight forward upgrade to the status-quo would be funding it to a level where it actually does not have to rely on data that the manufacturers / creators supply. Actually sample testing new and existing products against guidelines as well as being an active participant in trials would go a long way towards moving the FDA from being "paper-pushers" towards a more hands-on regulatory body. They should also have enough expertise in-house to not rely on lobbists and industry experts for new regulations, when these outside forces by nature have competing interests. Straight abolishing any part of it without proposing a substitute doesn't strike me as being in the best interests of society.

I'm always surprised that people ever trusted them to be honest. When have deeply political organizations been a benefit to the medical community?

by toolz 5y ago

I'm always surprised that people ever trusted them to be honest. When have deeply political organizations been a benefit to the medical community?

jimmydorry 5y ago

On a whole, the world is better off with the FDA's and their equivalent per nation. They approve and oversee the distribution of health and food products and set out minimum guidelines that influence how said products are marketed, recalled or banned; which on balance is a positive for society in the absence of a better regulatory body. By definition, these groups are political though. Almost none of them conduct their own studies, relying almost entirely on what the manufacturers provide them. And all of them have limited practical ability and experience to actually enforce their guidelines. What are they are exceptionally good at though is reviewing submitted trials and monitoring for adverse effects. Some people get hurt when dangerous products are given pre-approval / full-approval, but this is mitigated by quick recalls / banning. So to your question, political bodies likes the FDA's are a benefit to the greater populace and by extension the medical community. Keeping the obvious scams and harmful products out of general reach from the population is a pretty clear positive.

garmaine 5y ago
Anyone who lived through the AIDS epidemic can tell you that having a regulatory body is not automatically better than none at all. FDA bureaucracy and inaction has killed more Americans than WW2. Dissolving the FDA, or at least the gatekeeping branches of it, is a third option that ought to be seriously considered.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > Dissolving the FDA, or at least the gatekeeping branches of it, is a third option that ought to be seriously considered. Yes, so that the supplements industry can run amok on an unsuspecting public. No really, that's just what we need, especially now.
  - garmaine 5y ago
    I called out the gatekeeping job of the FDA specifically. The agency does two things: (1) blacklist food products with deceptive or harmful ingredients or advertising, and (2) whitelist the medications you’re allowed to put in your body, with or without the assistance of a doctor. It’s (2) that is the problem. With informed consent, you should be allowed to put whatever you want in your body without going to jail. It’s your body.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      (2) is not a problem, it is to prevent problems. If you think (2) is a problem you are probably doing something very stupid.
      - garmaine 5y ago
        History says otherwise: https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-lesson-history https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-le...
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Quoting libertarian think tanks in order to further libertarian bollocks viewpoints isn't going to move the needle.
        garmaine 5y ago
        Then google “fda aids drugs” and pick your favorite source. This is, at this point 30 years removed, a non-political historical issue with objective facts.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        No, there is simply many years of progressive insight. The FDA, like any institution isn't perfect, they got stuff wrong in the past, they'll get stuff wrong in the future. But overall they are a very large net positive, and to argue the opposite is usually accompanied by a mindset that would love a world without all those pesky rules and regulations.
- jimmydorry 5y ago
  I think the more straight forward upgrade to the status-quo would be funding it to a level where it actually does not have to rely on data that the manufacturers / creators supply. Actually sample testing new and existing products against guidelines as well as being an active participant in trials would go a long way towards moving the FDA from being "paper-pushers" towards a more hands-on regulatory body. They should also have enough expertise in-house to not rely on lobbists and industry experts for new regulations, when these outside forces by nature have competing interests. Straight abolishing any part of it without proposing a substitute doesn't strike me as being in the best interests of society.