4 ms·

Yeah I have no desire to defend the FDA here but summarizing this as “I care about the dying while this government agency is only concerned with politics” does

by ixtli 3y ago

Yeah I have no desire to defend the FDA here but summarizing this as “I care about the dying while this government agency is only concerned with politics” does a massive disservice to the argument. It is political will that is responsible for the existence of the FDA and we live in a time of massive epistemological crisis specifically in the subset of the population of the US that votes. That and some subset are ideologically bent on dismantling regulatory bodies in general. Ignoring this reality probably jeopardizes any potential benefit of the FDA

aydyn 3y ago
> It is political will that is responsible for the existence of the FDA and we live in a time of massive epistemological crisis specifically in the subset of the population of the US that votes. That and some subset are ideologically bent on dismantling regulatory bodies in general. Ignoring this reality probably jeopardizes any potential benefit of the FDA Can you please say this in english for people who aren't terminally caught up to politics du jour? FDA is in drastic need of reform, ask anyone who deals with them directly (and is willing to be honest). That's not a political or ideological statement.
- CuriousCosmic 3y ago
  > Can you please say this in english for people who aren't terminally caught up to politics du jour? Not OP but I believe they are referring to the fairly sizeable part of the voting population who believe that we need to deregulate everything and dismantle any agency that is responsible for regulations. That and the increasing distrust by the right of medical professionals and scientists makes for a dangerous combination.
  - monero-xmr 3y ago
    People wouldn’t distrust “The Science” and all manner of government institutions if they weren’t so obviously corrupted. But like everything human, they are fallible: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis I personally refuse to blindly accept anything. Science is a work in progress. “Professionals” started just like I started - as a novice. I don’t need to be told what to think.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      > I don’t need to be told what to think. You maybe not, but a sizable part of your population is literally dumb enough to drink bleach to "cure cancer" or whatever [1], and around half the US can barely read at 6th grade level [2]. The root problem is not that science and journalism have their issues, there is no such thing as a "perfect system". The root problem is that the American population is, at large, too incompetent to keep up with the rapid changes in modern life, and that there are a lot of malicious actors exploiting this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement [2] https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/02/us-literacy-rate/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/02/us-literacy-rate/
      - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - blitz_skull 3y ago
        > The root problem is that the American population is, at large, too incompetent to keep up with the rapid changes in modern life Too incompetent by what definition? That presupposes that there's some level of competency that's mandated at-large. If you're dumb enough to believe drinking bleach will cure cancer, especially with the internet at your fingertips, you kinda deserve whatever consequences come from that. It's not yours, mine, or the government's job to prevent that. Taken to its logical conclusion, this kind of thinking builds laws and societies catering to the lowest common denominator which is a preposterous suggestion. You hit the nail on the head in the sentence right before—there is no perfect system. But one that caters to the lowest possible subset of mental cognition is definitely not a step in the right direction. The people do not need to be told what to believe.
        mschuster91 3y ago
        > It's not yours, mine, or the government's job to prevent that. That's where we disagree. A government's entire raison d' etre is to reasonably protect its citizens from harm, at least that's the conventional European ideal. And that includes keeping them safe from demagogues of all kind - I'm German, believe me if there's one thing we know it is just how much devastation it can bring in the end if left unchecked. Americans see the world differently, but they haven't had a war on their home turf in like, what, 200 years (and haven't learned much of it either, given how absurdly popular Confederate flags seem to be). Here, we have people still alive who got shipped off to concentration camps in their youth!
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    It's not in a vacuum. In general, deceiving people, and then telling them that you did it to protect other people is not going to increase their trust. Massive error in going with the "we lied to the public about masks in order to retain supply for healthcare workers" angle. Looks like the new error is to imply that distrust in the face of this is anti-Science.
- blueboo 3y ago
  I’m sympathetic to the issue in OP, but the reality is that we all deal with their work (indirectly) every day and not being poisoned is going great for hundreds of millions of people. Meanwhile the audible complaints from people dealing with them “directly” and evincing what you find “appropriately honest” amounts to a very biased sample. The acuity of the need for reform is far from settled, at least if we’re looking for an empirical basis.
- sdfignaionio 3y ago
  Our last president went on live TV and said we should try cleaning people's lungs with bleach. The leading American news channel regularly aired anti-vaccine propaganda. People at protests were calling for the execution of officials at the CDC, FDA, and NIAID. Meanwhile the "deep state" saved lives. If you aren't aware of those things, you are ignorant of some of the most important events in recent history. Covid-19 killed a million Americans, more than any war. Being clueless doesn't put you above the fray.
  - blitz_skull 3y ago
    > Covid-19 killed a million Americans Covid _related_ deaths. Big difference.
    - sdfignaionio 3y ago
      You're quibbling over whether Covid-19 killed a million people or there were merely a million excess deaths attributable to Covid-19. It was a big deal.
      - blitz_skull 3y ago
        I disagree, it is not trivial to delineate the difference between direct death and related death. It's an important distinction. For example, the deaths in World War 2 jumps from ~53 million, up to ~80 million if we include "related" deaths (famine, etc). So, it is definitively not quibbling. Also, I'm not sure why a million deaths makes this "some of the most important events in recent history". If we're going by this mindset, then we have to agree that Roe v Wade is perhaps the one of the worst events in all of American history—contributing to more than 64 million American deaths (and still rising). I might highlight that's more than all of the deaths in World War 1 (~40 million), and more than all of the directly-related causes of death in World War 2 (~53 million). IMO, COVID was _a deal_, but we've much bigger deals afoot and COVID is basically gone now.
        haldujai 3y ago
- sowbug 3y ago
  Asked ChatGPT to rephrase in plain English. Sure, I understand your point about not wanting to support the FDA, but simplifying the argument to "I care about saving lives while the FDA only cares about politics" oversimplifies things. The FDA exists because of political decisions, and we're currently facing a major crisis of knowledge, especially among certain groups of U.S. voters. Some of these groups are determined to break down regulatory agencies. Ignoring this situation could likely put any potential advantages of the FDA at risk.
monero-xmr 3y ago
So many HN commenters lament their employers, both private sector and non-profit universities or similar. Their bosses, the short term thinking, management issues - the complaints are never ending. The regulatory bodies are an extreme - their employees can basically never be fired, they have arbitrary and capricious control, and their existence has no market test. Most regulatory institutions were created many decades ago. It’s not absurd to think they are ossified, bureaucratic, and purposefully ineffective - “damaging to society”. If a startup company can be a mess, and a large established company a mess, why not a regulatory agency? Pointing the finger at them and saying they are bad should not be a partisan issue. We should all be highly suspicious of their power, their unelected authority, and the innate desire of humans towards power and vanity who are attracted to such institutions.

by ixtli 3y ago

aydyn 3y ago

> It is political will that is responsible for the existence of the FDA and we live in a time of massive epistemological crisis specifically in the subset of the population of the US that votes. That and some subset are ideologically bent on dismantling regulatory bodies in general. Ignoring this reality probably jeopardizes any potential benefit of the FDA Can you please say this in english for people who aren't terminally caught up to politics du jour? FDA is in drastic need of reform, ask anyone who deals with them directly (and is willing to be honest). That's not a political or ideological statement.

CuriousCosmic 3y ago
> Can you please say this in english for people who aren't terminally caught up to politics du jour? Not OP but I believe they are referring to the fairly sizeable part of the voting population who believe that we need to deregulate everything and dismantle any agency that is responsible for regulations. That and the increasing distrust by the right of medical professionals and scientists makes for a dangerous combination.
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  People wouldn’t distrust “The Science” and all manner of government institutions if they weren’t so obviously corrupted. But like everything human, they are fallible: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis I personally refuse to blindly accept anything. Science is a work in progress. “Professionals” started just like I started - as a novice. I don’t need to be told what to think.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > I don’t need to be told what to think. You maybe not, but a sizable part of your population is literally dumb enough to drink bleach to "cure cancer" or whatever [1], and around half the US can barely read at 6th grade level [2]. The root problem is not that science and journalism have their issues, there is no such thing as a "perfect system". The root problem is that the American population is, at large, too incompetent to keep up with the rapid changes in modern life, and that there are a lot of malicious actors exploiting this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement [2] https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/02/us-literacy-rate/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/02/us-literacy-rate/
    - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - blitz_skull 3y ago
      > The root problem is that the American population is, at large, too incompetent to keep up with the rapid changes in modern life Too incompetent by what definition? That presupposes that there's some level of competency that's mandated at-large. If you're dumb enough to believe drinking bleach will cure cancer, especially with the internet at your fingertips, you kinda deserve whatever consequences come from that. It's not yours, mine, or the government's job to prevent that. Taken to its logical conclusion, this kind of thinking builds laws and societies catering to the lowest common denominator which is a preposterous suggestion. You hit the nail on the head in the sentence right before—there is no perfect system. But one that caters to the lowest possible subset of mental cognition is definitely not a step in the right direction. The people do not need to be told what to believe.
      - mschuster91 3y ago
        > It's not yours, mine, or the government's job to prevent that. That's where we disagree. A government's entire raison d' etre is to reasonably protect its citizens from harm, at least that's the conventional European ideal. And that includes keeping them safe from demagogues of all kind - I'm German, believe me if there's one thing we know it is just how much devastation it can bring in the end if left unchecked. Americans see the world differently, but they haven't had a war on their home turf in like, what, 200 years (and haven't learned much of it either, given how absurdly popular Confederate flags seem to be). Here, we have people still alive who got shipped off to concentration camps in their youth!
- renewiltord 3y ago
  It's not in a vacuum. In general, deceiving people, and then telling them that you did it to protect other people is not going to increase their trust. Massive error in going with the "we lied to the public about masks in order to retain supply for healthcare workers" angle. Looks like the new error is to imply that distrust in the face of this is anti-Science.
blueboo 3y ago
I’m sympathetic to the issue in OP, but the reality is that we all deal with their work (indirectly) every day and not being poisoned is going great for hundreds of millions of people. Meanwhile the audible complaints from people dealing with them “directly” and evincing what you find “appropriately honest” amounts to a very biased sample. The acuity of the need for reform is far from settled, at least if we’re looking for an empirical basis.
sdfignaionio 3y ago
Our last president went on live TV and said we should try cleaning people's lungs with bleach. The leading American news channel regularly aired anti-vaccine propaganda. People at protests were calling for the execution of officials at the CDC, FDA, and NIAID. Meanwhile the "deep state" saved lives. If you aren't aware of those things, you are ignorant of some of the most important events in recent history. Covid-19 killed a million Americans, more than any war. Being clueless doesn't put you above the fray.
- blitz_skull 3y ago
  > Covid-19 killed a million Americans Covid _related_ deaths. Big difference.
  - sdfignaionio 3y ago
    You're quibbling over whether Covid-19 killed a million people or there were merely a million excess deaths attributable to Covid-19. It was a big deal.
    - blitz_skull 3y ago
      I disagree, it is not trivial to delineate the difference between direct death and related death. It's an important distinction. For example, the deaths in World War 2 jumps from ~53 million, up to ~80 million if we include "related" deaths (famine, etc). So, it is definitively not quibbling. Also, I'm not sure why a million deaths makes this "some of the most important events in recent history". If we're going by this mindset, then we have to agree that Roe v Wade is perhaps the one of the worst events in all of American history—contributing to more than 64 million American deaths (and still rising). I might highlight that's more than all of the deaths in World War 1 (~40 million), and more than all of the directly-related causes of death in World War 2 (~53 million). IMO, COVID was _a deal_, but we've much bigger deals afoot and COVID is basically gone now.
      - haldujai 3y ago
sowbug 3y ago
Asked ChatGPT to rephrase in plain English. Sure, I understand your point about not wanting to support the FDA, but simplifying the argument to "I care about saving lives while the FDA only cares about politics" oversimplifies things. The FDA exists because of political decisions, and we're currently facing a major crisis of knowledge, especially among certain groups of U.S. voters. Some of these groups are determined to break down regulatory agencies. Ignoring this situation could likely put any potential advantages of the FDA at risk.

monero-xmr 3y ago

So many HN commenters lament their employers, both private sector and non-profit universities or similar. Their bosses, the short term thinking, management issues - the complaints are never ending. The regulatory bodies are an extreme - their employees can basically never be fired, they have arbitrary and capricious control, and their existence has no market test. Most regulatory institutions were created many decades ago. It’s not absurd to think they are ossified, bureaucratic, and purposefully ineffective - “damaging to society”. If a startup company can be a mess, and a large established company a mess, why not a regulatory agency? Pointing the finger at them and saying they are bad should not be a partisan issue. We should all be highly suspicious of their power, their unelected authority, and the innate desire of humans towards power and vanity who are attracted to such institutions.