4 ms·
I sure hope there’s a reasonable middle ground between nothing and requiring a manufacturer to prove a new chemical is safe like you prove a drug is safe (as in
by sclarisse 4y ago
I sure hope there’s a reasonable middle ground between nothing and requiring a manufacturer to prove a new chemical is safe like you prove a drug is safe (as in the opening an aloft). The regulatory process around new drugs is incredible. It’s almost a marvel that drugs are still approved at all. We still can’t even get the good European-approved sunscreens in the US.
- decremental 4y ago"Stuff that goes into your body and can kill you" isn't an area where we need looser regulations.
- mhardcastle 4y agoIs this not a statement fully generalizable to tighter regulations on food and medicine, no matter how tight current regulations are?
- pzone 4y agoToday we lose immeasurably more lives through unnecessary delays of important new medicines. There is no cost benefit calculation whatsoever.
- franga2000 4y agoSounds quite measurable actually, so forgive me if I don't take your word for it. A promising new drug with a hidden side effect that is, for example, only observable 10-20 years later, could conceivably kill far more people than all the good drugs waiting to be approved could save. I agree things could be sped up for things that treat terminal conditions, but that's not the majority of pharmaceuticals and even there, the situation isn't that simple.