3 ms·
Wait, weren't we discussing 70's, 80's and 2017 devices as mentioned in the OP? What are you even saying? We should restrict selling fish to only those who act
by spurgu 5y ago
Wait, weren't we discussing 70's, 80's and 2017 devices as mentioned in the OP?
What are you even saying? We should restrict selling fish to only those who actually need omega-3 and vitamin-D? Or that we've been fishing too much for the past 50 years that the seas are dry? Or that we should restrict selling fish to those who really need it (how do you define that and who is you)?
Apologies for the fish analogy but you managed to sidetrack me from the beginning.
If there's short supply of home tests the US, the government as far as I'm aware is able to authorize production solely for a specific cause. No FDA intervention needed. But if there's no urgent need then a company can manufacture a product, and FDA can within reasonable (this is what is being argued) parameters decide who gets to sell what and to whom.
The issue outlined in the OP is that the FDA seems to be hellbent on having a monopoly on testing, whatever the testing is about. Are you able to refute that? Is there a shortage of testing going on right now?
- ok_dad 5y agoThe more I read comments here the more it cements my opinions that people need the FDA even with its foibles; you’re not even reading what I’m actually saying, please stop arguing in bad faith and twisting my words. I’m done here.
- spurgu 5y agoYou seem to be missing my points as well. I also said the FDA is needed, but just that regulating "snake oil" is a slippery slope and not really viable in a lot of cases. Like if you try to regulate audiophiles you're going to end up in a downwards spiral of bureaucracy that will never end and will only cause damage and distract from things that would be actually worthwhile regulating.