3 ms·
It's as unanswerable a question as "how many lives would have been lost by dangerous medications with long-term side effects that didn't become apparent in the
by Taywee 3y ago
It's as unanswerable a question as "how many lives would have been lost by dangerous medications with long-term side effects that didn't become apparent in the term of testing?"
We can't really know whether it was a net good or a net bad because we can't take a look at the reality that didn't happen. What we do know is that there were deadly medications on the market before the FDA. There were medications available over the counter that were outright poisonous. Arsenic and mercury were in common medicines.
It is a balance. You can sacrifice lives through inaction, or sacrifice lives in the way of progress. Lack of regulation is bad, but so is overregulation.
- konschubert 3y agoThis is a very balanced comment, strange that it is getting downvoted.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoActually there is a huge amount of research into this. The wide consensus seems to be that the FDA is far too conservative and overall having more lax approvals would have saved many more lives in net.
- Taywee 3y agoI would like to see this research.
- aqme28 3y agoStudies saying that the "FDA is too conservative" does not mean that the optimal situation would be no FDA at all.
- konschubert 3y agoI don’t think anyone in this thread here is saying that there should be no FDA regulation at all?