3 ms·

It’s not “banned” it’s just not approved yet. The US is making plans to buy tons of it in advance. Banned has a very specific connotation that is wildly out of

It’s not “banned” it’s just not approved yet. The US is making plans to buy tons of it in advance. Banned has a very specific connotation that is wildly out of place.

deelowe 5y ago
Part of the approval process is ensuring there’s enough supply to support the intended use and, if there’s not enough, do a limited approval. That’s likely what’s going on here.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  If you mean supply the population, this is not correct
  - deelowe 5y ago
    My understanding is that the FDA is considering limited authorization in cases where there's not enough to cover all individuals.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      I think that would be a first for the FDA, but I suppose it is possible. Normally they approve based solely on safety and risk/benefit. Sometimes products have limited approval for high risk groups, but for these reasons, not because of supply. Pricing and availability is not their job.
noname120 5y ago
Doesn't “not approved yet” fall into the opposite trap since it has the connotation that it's somehow justified / natural? I think that it subtly masks the responsibility of our bureaucratic system. It is literally killing people by preventing them from having access to a potentially effective treatment (that would be accessible if not for this legislation / bureaucratic burden). Due to this I think that “banned for now” is more appropriate. It highlights the fact that our legislative framework bans medicine by default (it could allow them by default in another world, and then selectively ban medicines that prove dangerous / ineffective).
- oneoff786 5y ago
  No, because without clear and extensive testing protocols you create opportunities for bad actors to release dangerous or ineffective drugs. Or even good actors to do so unintentionally. The medicine is not yet sufficiently shown to be safe and effective.

It’s not “banned” it’s just not approved yet. The US is making plans to buy tons of it in advance. Banned has a very specific connotation that is wildly out of place.

deelowe 5y ago

Part of the approval process is ensuring there’s enough supply to support the intended use and, if there’s not enough, do a limited approval. That’s likely what’s going on here.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
If you mean supply the population, this is not correct
- deelowe 5y ago
  My understanding is that the FDA is considering limited authorization in cases where there's not enough to cover all individuals.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I think that would be a first for the FDA, but I suppose it is possible. Normally they approve based solely on safety and risk/benefit. Sometimes products have limited approval for high risk groups, but for these reasons, not because of supply. Pricing and availability is not their job.

noname120 5y ago

Doesn't “not approved yet” fall into the opposite trap since it has the connotation that it's somehow justified / natural? I think that it subtly masks the responsibility of our bureaucratic system. It is literally killing people by preventing them from having access to a potentially effective treatment (that would be accessible if not for this legislation / bureaucratic burden). Due to this I think that “banned for now” is more appropriate. It highlights the fact that our legislative framework bans medicine by default (it could allow them by default in another world, and then selectively ban medicines that prove dangerous / ineffective).

oneoff786 5y ago
No, because without clear and extensive testing protocols you create opportunities for bad actors to release dangerous or ineffective drugs. Or even good actors to do so unintentionally. The medicine is not yet sufficiently shown to be safe and effective.