4 ms·

Theoretically, but I don't think the people making those comments would be happy with the "fixed" more fraud resistant system either. Some of them expressed th

Theoretically, but I don't think the people making those comments would be happy with the "fixed" more fraud resistant system either. Some of them expressed that people should be able to take unproven drugs (Libertarian philosophy). They're just okay with this happening from time to time.

whatshisface 3y ago
I'm not here to tell anyone else their morals, but I do think telling doctors, "here's a chemical we figured out how to manufacture, let us know if you want more of it for some reason," would be ethically better than cooking the books to get FDA approval on that same chemical while knowing the side effects. In the former case doctors may commit an ethical violation themselves by presenting the drug as safe, but what did in fact happen was Merck did that, saving them the question.
- mcguire 3y ago
  In the second case, you can hold the people who "cook[ed] the books to get FDA approval ... while knowing the side effects" responsible. In the first you cannot.
marcosdumay 3y ago
> but I don't think the people making those comments would be happy with the "fixed" more fraud resistant system either Why do you assume this? Do you expect to fix fraudulent study results by mandating more studies? Any way to add flexibility to drug certification must necessarily include some ongoing procedure to verify it works. So, it's even hard to come out with a faster process that doesn't reduce this problem (but yeah, if you make an effort, you can make one).
- mcguire 3y ago
  By "fixed", I believe the parent poster meant mandating fewer studies, as in zero.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    AFAIK nobody ever came out demanding the number of studies to be zero. Not even lunatic groups. The OP's strawman is is so obviously out of the cultural norm that it is screaming bad-faith construction. And if he wants to claim that merely reducing the number of studies run by the people interested on a positive result to a non-zero amount will increase the odds of fraud, well, I'd be interested on honest arguments, because it's a revolutionary finding on either system or game theory.
    - mcguire 3y ago
      My friend, I've seen people here, on HN, writing that they would be happy with a medical doctor trained by YouTube videos. There are people here who have expressed the opinion that any form of regulation is a positive evil. And you can't have fraud if you don't have tests to pass fraudulently.
  - nitwit005 3y ago
    How exactly would ""fixed" more fraud resistant system" imply doing zero studies?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

whatshisface 3y ago

I'm not here to tell anyone else their morals, but I do think telling doctors, "here's a chemical we figured out how to manufacture, let us know if you want more of it for some reason," would be ethically better than cooking the books to get FDA approval on that same chemical while knowing the side effects. In the former case doctors may commit an ethical violation themselves by presenting the drug as safe, but what did in fact happen was Merck did that, saving them the question.

mcguire 3y ago
In the second case, you can hold the people who "cook[ed] the books to get FDA approval ... while knowing the side effects" responsible. In the first you cannot.

marcosdumay 3y ago

> but I don't think the people making those comments would be happy with the "fixed" more fraud resistant system either Why do you assume this? Do you expect to fix fraudulent study results by mandating more studies? Any way to add flexibility to drug certification must necessarily include some ongoing procedure to verify it works. So, it's even hard to come out with a faster process that doesn't reduce this problem (but yeah, if you make an effort, you can make one).

mcguire 3y ago
By "fixed", I believe the parent poster meant mandating fewer studies, as in zero.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  AFAIK nobody ever came out demanding the number of studies to be zero. Not even lunatic groups. The OP's strawman is is so obviously out of the cultural norm that it is screaming bad-faith construction. And if he wants to claim that merely reducing the number of studies run by the people interested on a positive result to a non-zero amount will increase the odds of fraud, well, I'd be interested on honest arguments, because it's a revolutionary finding on either system or game theory.
  - mcguire 3y ago
    My friend, I've seen people here, on HN, writing that they would be happy with a medical doctor trained by YouTube videos. There are people here who have expressed the opinion that any form of regulation is a positive evil. And you can't have fraud if you don't have tests to pass fraudulently.
- nitwit005 3y ago
  How exactly would ""fixed" more fraud resistant system" imply doing zero studies?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]