6 ms·

Do we really need to be using up government resources doing drug approvals for dogs? It takes so long to get human drugs approved. Let's use the resources the

Do we really need to be using up government resources doing drug approvals for dogs? It takes so long to get human drugs approved. Let's use the resources there and let the market sort out what works for animals.

idopmstuff 3y ago
How would you let the market sort out what works in terms of life-extension drugs? How would you measure that without well-structured trials? People love their dogs and are willing to spend large amounts of money on them - how do you prevent people from selling them snake oil? On top of that, we're talking about the first-ever drug approved solely for the purpose of life extension - yes it's in dogs, but it's a topic being heavily pursued in humans as well. While the approach taken here isn't directly relevant to people, one can imagine that developing this class of drugs in animals could lead to useful information on how to do so in humans, but only if there's actual evidence to prove their validitiy.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  I propose treating all animal medication as supplements. Safety (including safety when consumed as food for livestock medications) is required but not efficacy. And given the fact that people have the legal authority to euthanize their pets on demand, it seems pretty silly that we are spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money ensuring they don't get fed snake oil.
  - ScottEvtuch 3y ago
    That doesn't really follow. I have the legal authority to pay a junk yard to smash my car into a tiny cube, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be protected from auto body shops selling me fake repairs and non-functional parts.
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      And body shops don't have to go through a years long and multiple million dollar certification process. They can open up pretty much with no oversight and you are free to sue if they rip you off. Sounds like this model would work just fine for dog medicine too.
    - Empact 3y ago
      Are we making a good trade-off if that protection means preventing lifesaving treatments from reaching the market for decades or more? Does the risk the part might not work somehow justify the loss of life due to the absence of a lifesaving treatment? Wouldn’t we learn a lot more about the effects of these experimental treatments if we allowed the willing to take them voluntarily?
      - idopmstuff 3y ago
        > Wouldn’t we learn a lot more about the effects of these experimental treatments if we allowed the willing to take them voluntarily? In the case of life-extension treatments, no - we would learn much less if we allowed people to give them to their pets voluntarily. The problem is that what you're testing for is very difficult to measure, so you need a well-run study like the one that Loyal has done here. If people just give them to their dogs without the structure of a trial, you'll never get the kind of data you need to conclusive prove life-extending effects, and because companies can now sell without such a trial, you eliminate the incentives to invest the time, money and effort into that kind of a trial.
  - pmx 3y ago
    The people benefiting from from these millions are tax payers just like you. You may have differing priorities but that in no way gives you the right to decide what public money is spent on. You're expressing a very self-centered view. Try to step outside your own needs for a moment and understand that everyone has their own rich lives, desires, and needs and that they are all just as valid as yours are.
    - nayuki 3y ago
      > You may have differing priorities but that in no way gives you the right to decide what public money is spent on. Disagree. Public money is subject to the public process, which includes debating about and voting on how resources are spent. Don't shout down people who are participating in the process.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nativeit 3y ago
Well, as COVID proved, whatever drugs get made for animals will one day be consumed by idiots. Why argue against approving veterinary drugs, when you could argue for greater resources to be committed?
- swader999 3y ago
  That stuff was already approved for human use since 1980 and has safety data for a billion plus doses. Nobel Prize awarded for it too.
  - cma 3y ago
    It didn't have many studies on the dose schedules being reccommended.
- alienicecream 3y ago
  It seems you were subject to disinformation. Ivermectin is approved for human use and widely prescribed by doctors.
swader999 3y ago
Should we move all veterinarians to humans then? Are you aware it's not the same biology?
nerevarthelame 3y ago
Yes we do. The FDA's typical purview includes regulating food and drugs given to pets and animals raised for consumption. I'm glad that the industry isn't just the wild west - not just for the sake of my pets, but also for my human family who could be impacted by an unhealthy food chain, or by undesired impacts to the natural ecosystem.
derstander 3y ago
> Do we really need to be using up government resources doing drug approvals for dogs? It takes so long to get human drugs approved. Let's use the resources there and let the market sort out what works for animals. Let’s leave aside the fact that humans value companion animals such that they might want to spend government resources on keeping them healthy for longer. And also the fact that certain other animals are important food sources which make up a sizable chunk of the economy. Do you think that if the government no longer had to spend resources on animal drugs that all of those resources would stay at the FDA and be diverted to human drugs? The cynic in me thinks that the speed of the process is the independent variable here. And that resources will be added or subtracted to maintain roughly that same speed and/or rigor.

idopmstuff 3y ago

How would you let the market sort out what works in terms of life-extension drugs? How would you measure that without well-structured trials? People love their dogs and are willing to spend large amounts of money on them - how do you prevent people from selling them snake oil? On top of that, we're talking about the first-ever drug approved solely for the purpose of life extension - yes it's in dogs, but it's a topic being heavily pursued in humans as well. While the approach taken here isn't directly relevant to people, one can imagine that developing this class of drugs in animals could lead to useful information on how to do so in humans, but only if there's actual evidence to prove their validitiy.

fallingknife 3y ago
I propose treating all animal medication as supplements. Safety (including safety when consumed as food for livestock medications) is required but not efficacy. And given the fact that people have the legal authority to euthanize their pets on demand, it seems pretty silly that we are spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money ensuring they don't get fed snake oil.
- ScottEvtuch 3y ago
  That doesn't really follow. I have the legal authority to pay a junk yard to smash my car into a tiny cube, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be protected from auto body shops selling me fake repairs and non-functional parts.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    And body shops don't have to go through a years long and multiple million dollar certification process. They can open up pretty much with no oversight and you are free to sue if they rip you off. Sounds like this model would work just fine for dog medicine too.
  - Empact 3y ago
    Are we making a good trade-off if that protection means preventing lifesaving treatments from reaching the market for decades or more? Does the risk the part might not work somehow justify the loss of life due to the absence of a lifesaving treatment? Wouldn’t we learn a lot more about the effects of these experimental treatments if we allowed the willing to take them voluntarily?
    - idopmstuff 3y ago
      > Wouldn’t we learn a lot more about the effects of these experimental treatments if we allowed the willing to take them voluntarily? In the case of life-extension treatments, no - we would learn much less if we allowed people to give them to their pets voluntarily. The problem is that what you're testing for is very difficult to measure, so you need a well-run study like the one that Loyal has done here. If people just give them to their dogs without the structure of a trial, you'll never get the kind of data you need to conclusive prove life-extending effects, and because companies can now sell without such a trial, you eliminate the incentives to invest the time, money and effort into that kind of a trial.
- pmx 3y ago
  The people benefiting from from these millions are tax payers just like you. You may have differing priorities but that in no way gives you the right to decide what public money is spent on. You're expressing a very self-centered view. Try to step outside your own needs for a moment and understand that everyone has their own rich lives, desires, and needs and that they are all just as valid as yours are.
  - nayuki 3y ago
    > You may have differing priorities but that in no way gives you the right to decide what public money is spent on. Disagree. Public money is subject to the public process, which includes debating about and voting on how resources are spent. Don't shout down people who are participating in the process.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nativeit 3y ago

Well, as COVID proved, whatever drugs get made for animals will one day be consumed by idiots. Why argue against approving veterinary drugs, when you could argue for greater resources to be committed?

swader999 3y ago
That stuff was already approved for human use since 1980 and has safety data for a billion plus doses. Nobel Prize awarded for it too.
- cma 3y ago
  It didn't have many studies on the dose schedules being reccommended.
alienicecream 3y ago
It seems you were subject to disinformation. Ivermectin is approved for human use and widely prescribed by doctors.

swader999 3y ago

Should we move all veterinarians to humans then? Are you aware it's not the same biology?

nerevarthelame 3y ago

Yes we do. The FDA's typical purview includes regulating food and drugs given to pets and animals raised for consumption. I'm glad that the industry isn't just the wild west - not just for the sake of my pets, but also for my human family who could be impacted by an unhealthy food chain, or by undesired impacts to the natural ecosystem.

derstander 3y ago

> Do we really need to be using up government resources doing drug approvals for dogs? It takes so long to get human drugs approved. Let's use the resources there and let the market sort out what works for animals. Let’s leave aside the fact that humans value companion animals such that they might want to spend government resources on keeping them healthy for longer. And also the fact that certain other animals are important food sources which make up a sizable chunk of the economy. Do you think that if the government no longer had to spend resources on animal drugs that all of those resources would stay at the FDA and be diverted to human drugs? The cynic in me thinks that the speed of the process is the independent variable here. And that resources will be added or subtracted to maintain roughly that same speed and/or rigor.