4 ms·

In the internet age they have 100x more information available to them than during the snake oil age the FDA was formed during. There was no Googling "percocet r

In the internet age they have 100x more information available to them than during the snake oil age the FDA was formed during. There was no Googling "percocet reviews" back then. Additionally, we're now under a caveat venditor regime regarding product liability, whereas back then it was caveat emptor. Them being able to say "FDA approved it" lets them dump responsibility too (see opioid epidemic). Dumping the responsibility on a government bureau, while knowing full well those are on the opposite ends of the spectrums of reliability and innovation versus startups, is completely adsurd. It's strange that this got such downvoting in such a tech savvy community. You'd think they'd know better.

WalterBright 3y ago
Immunity from liability makes for a powerful incentive to get FDA approval.
safety1st 3y ago
I can't even begin to imagine how horrific the world would become if our way of determining whether all drugs were safe was reduced to just Googling for reviews about them. In what world does Googling for reviews result in accurate, unbiased, independent product information? Can I have some of what you're smoking? (I'll be sure to Google it first.) The idea is getting a negative response because this is a tech savvy community, everyone here is well aware that Google is an abusive monopoly that's far more concerned with leveraging its market power to line its pockets than it is with delivering accurate information. I can maybe buy that a free market solution could work for this, but citing Google as an example of a free market... nah, actually, I can't buy it at all. Are we really floating the idea that we don't need an FDA because Consumer Reports could do all the research we need to determine whether drugs are safe after they hit the market?
- jalapenos 3y ago
  Perhaps you could keep the FDA, as a purely advisory institution. FDA approves you? Your product gets an FDA sticker. Otherwise, you sell it without one. Then people could choose how much they care what the FDA thinks. After all, the FDA rubber stamped the opioids. Your friendly local heroin dealer can gives you the same stamp of approval for his poppy based products. Also prevents the FDA actively killing people by raising the barriers to getting new drugs to them in time. Win win for all (except the FDA I suppose).
B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago
> they'd know better Yes, how much of an hassle it is to wade through 90% of crap and fake reviews when shopping for an insignificant mechanical widget or software app in some unfamiliar topic. Do not want.
- jalapenos 3y ago
  Guess what: you've always got the option of asking your doctor about it. If anyone would know, and have access to the best data, it'd be them.
kube-system 3y ago
You can’t “look up” the business practices of a business that doesn’t let anyone in to take a look unless forced to. If a drug company on the other side of the planet is adulterating the drugs in a way that makes people sick 20 years from now, your bad reviews will show up 20 years too late. If fly-by-night retailers on Amazon can game the reviews for USB flash drives, you sure as bet that an unregulated pharmaceutical company could.
- jalapenos 3y ago
  You choose your own risks. If you buy from the internet from a fly-by-night based in India because someone on an internet forum said it was good, you can. If instead you only take what your doctor provides, and pick a doctor who checks independent tests of drugs before prescribing them, you can.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    There's a lot of people who take drugs who don't have the capacity or capability to evaluate risk before they consume them. And doctors prescribe a drug, not a manufacturing facility. They don't have any clue who will manufacture it, or where. How do you propose that someone who purchases an ibuprofen at a convenience store verify that it is safe, if independent audits are no longer legally required? Where would someone find independent test results? How would they know where it was made?

WalterBright 3y ago

Immunity from liability makes for a powerful incentive to get FDA approval.

safety1st 3y ago

I can't even begin to imagine how horrific the world would become if our way of determining whether all drugs were safe was reduced to just Googling for reviews about them. In what world does Googling for reviews result in accurate, unbiased, independent product information? Can I have some of what you're smoking? (I'll be sure to Google it first.) The idea is getting a negative response because this is a tech savvy community, everyone here is well aware that Google is an abusive monopoly that's far more concerned with leveraging its market power to line its pockets than it is with delivering accurate information. I can maybe buy that a free market solution could work for this, but citing Google as an example of a free market... nah, actually, I can't buy it at all. Are we really floating the idea that we don't need an FDA because Consumer Reports could do all the research we need to determine whether drugs are safe after they hit the market?

jalapenos 3y ago
Perhaps you could keep the FDA, as a purely advisory institution. FDA approves you? Your product gets an FDA sticker. Otherwise, you sell it without one. Then people could choose how much they care what the FDA thinks. After all, the FDA rubber stamped the opioids. Your friendly local heroin dealer can gives you the same stamp of approval for his poppy based products. Also prevents the FDA actively killing people by raising the barriers to getting new drugs to them in time. Win win for all (except the FDA I suppose).

B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago

> they'd know better Yes, how much of an hassle it is to wade through 90% of crap and fake reviews when shopping for an insignificant mechanical widget or software app in some unfamiliar topic. Do not want.

jalapenos 3y ago
Guess what: you've always got the option of asking your doctor about it. If anyone would know, and have access to the best data, it'd be them.

kube-system 3y ago

You can’t “look up” the business practices of a business that doesn’t let anyone in to take a look unless forced to. If a drug company on the other side of the planet is adulterating the drugs in a way that makes people sick 20 years from now, your bad reviews will show up 20 years too late. If fly-by-night retailers on Amazon can game the reviews for USB flash drives, you sure as bet that an unregulated pharmaceutical company could.

jalapenos 3y ago
You choose your own risks. If you buy from the internet from a fly-by-night based in India because someone on an internet forum said it was good, you can. If instead you only take what your doctor provides, and pick a doctor who checks independent tests of drugs before prescribing them, you can.
- kube-system 3y ago
  There's a lot of people who take drugs who don't have the capacity or capability to evaluate risk before they consume them. And doctors prescribe a drug, not a manufacturing facility. They don't have any clue who will manufacture it, or where. How do you propose that someone who purchases an ibuprofen at a convenience store verify that it is safe, if independent audits are no longer legally required? Where would someone find independent test results? How would they know where it was made?