4 ms·

I'm sympathetic, but it's far too easy to say "the FDA should move faster". The FDA moves at the speed of all of the other Western regulators. What happens whe

I'm sympathetic, but it's far too easy to say "the FDA should move faster". The FDA moves at the speed of all of the other Western regulators. What happens when you're seriously hurt by a treatment because the FDA moved too fast? Aren't you going to sue everyone involved? Aren't people going to be outraged and demand that everyone at the FDA gets fired. Do the people at the FDA want to be dragged in front of Congress? How is your doctor going to feel when your experimental treatment kills you? When someone dies while taking one of the drugs, even if it's unrelated to the drug, how far behind will development of that drug be? If the drug is suspected of causing serious harm they might never get to run trials, all because they gave it to people without any controls and any ability to tell if the drug is harmful or not. This can seriously set help for everyone behind. One of the cornerstones of modern scientific ethics is that you cannot take advantage of people in a power imbalance. If a company can put something out there, and try to convince people who are desperate to take it, now you're just experimenting on people in a massive power imbalance. And of course the companies that will convince people to do this are those with the most amount of money, not with the most helpful product. This isn't about risk tolerance. This is about building a long-term system that advances treatment for everyone. Almost certainly nothing that we have would help the person in these desperate conditions. The FDA moving faster won't help. If you really want to help, advocate for funding NSF and NIH. We barely spend anything on cancer research. That's what will make the difference.

chpatrick 3y ago
What if the patient is dying anyway and wants to try an experimental drug?
- crote 3y ago
  What if a company wants to prey on desperate people who want to do everything to avoid dying, including paying boatloads of money for "experimental" drugs which are just plain old quackery?
  - chpatrick 3y ago
    Nothing is protecting desperate people from quackery right now either, only from drugs that might actually help.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > What if a company wants to prey on desperate people who want to do everything to avoid dying, including paying boatloads of money for "experimental" drugs I've interacted with a person from the pharmaceutical world who actually advertised this as their main selling point.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  Death isn't the only aspect to the FDA's consideration. Safety along with efficacy are key. You don't want to give a patient, dying or otherwise, a drug which is going to cause harm. Remember, doctors provide comfort care at planned end of life which includes morphine pumps, etc. Even during the process of death, we want our loved ones to feel comfortable and safe. Death isn't a single event. It is a process that takes days. Can you imagine giving your family member an untested medication only for them to die in complete agony?
  - chpatrick 3y ago
    Some people already face dying in complete agony. Why can't they take an informed risk?
robertlagrant 3y ago
> If you really want to help, advocate for funding NSF and NIH. We barely spend anything on cancer research. The NIH got $45bn[0] in 2021. It's not exactly poorly funded. Cancer research funding disbursed by NIH has gone from $5.4bn in 2015 on a yearly upward trend to $7.6bn in 2022. [1] [0] https://www.nih.gov/ABOUT-NIH/WHAT-WE-DO/BUDGET https://www.nih.gov/ABOUT-NIH/WHAT-WE-DO/BUDGET [1] https://report.nih.gov/funding/categorical-spending# https://report.nih.gov/funding/categorical-spending# (type "cancer" in the filter box, hit enter and then click on the Cancer row to get the aggregate)

chpatrick 3y ago

What if the patient is dying anyway and wants to try an experimental drug?

crote 3y ago
What if a company wants to prey on desperate people who want to do everything to avoid dying, including paying boatloads of money for "experimental" drugs which are just plain old quackery?
- chpatrick 3y ago
  Nothing is protecting desperate people from quackery right now either, only from drugs that might actually help.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > What if a company wants to prey on desperate people who want to do everything to avoid dying, including paying boatloads of money for "experimental" drugs I've interacted with a person from the pharmaceutical world who actually advertised this as their main selling point.
nullindividual 3y ago
Death isn't the only aspect to the FDA's consideration. Safety along with efficacy are key. You don't want to give a patient, dying or otherwise, a drug which is going to cause harm. Remember, doctors provide comfort care at planned end of life which includes morphine pumps, etc. Even during the process of death, we want our loved ones to feel comfortable and safe. Death isn't a single event. It is a process that takes days. Can you imagine giving your family member an untested medication only for them to die in complete agony?
- chpatrick 3y ago
  Some people already face dying in complete agony. Why can't they take an informed risk?

robertlagrant 3y ago

> If you really want to help, advocate for funding NSF and NIH. We barely spend anything on cancer research. The NIH got $45bn[0] in 2021. It's not exactly poorly funded. Cancer research funding disbursed by NIH has gone from $5.4bn in 2015 on a yearly upward trend to $7.6bn in 2022. [1] [0] https://www.nih.gov/ABOUT-NIH/WHAT-WE-DO/BUDGET https://www.nih.gov/ABOUT-NIH/WHAT-WE-DO/BUDGET [1] https://report.nih.gov/funding/categorical-spending# https://report.nih.gov/funding/categorical-spending# (type "cancer" in the filter box, hit enter and then click on the Cancer row to get the aggregate)