3 ms·

> Taking unapproved drugs is a bad idea What about off-label medication? I don't think taking Lumina is smart, more or less for the reasons the author ennumer

by slibhb 2y ago

> Taking unapproved drugs is a bad idea What about off-label medication? I don't think taking Lumina is smart, more or less for the reasons the author ennumerates. I also think it's unlikely enough to hurt people that FDA approval shouldn't be required. There's a lot of stuff in that category!

axblount 2y ago
Off-label drugs are still approved by the FDA for their original purpose.
cool_dude85 2y ago
>I also think it's unlikely enough to hurt people that FDA approval shouldn't be required. The author has provided some solid arguments that this is not the case. Why do you think so?
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  I actually don't think the author provided very good arguments. It was my only real beef with the article: "this might do bad things" gets rounded off to "this is dangerous", even though his sources don't say the bad things will happen. They simply might happen.
  - cool_dude85 2y ago
    Nobody can predict the future. Bad things only ever "can" happen until they do - they never "will" happen. The author explains why and how those things are possible.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    The Precautionary Principle is problematic applied to public policy generally, but it's the accepted practice in medicine. You can argue it shouldn't be, but you shouldn't pretend you'd be in the mainstream with that argument.
Aurornis 2y ago
> What about off-label medication? Off-label means prescribed for a different purpose than originally indicated, at the prescriber's discretion. The medication must still have past safety testing and have shown efficacy for something. > I also think it's unlikely enough to hurt people that FDA approval shouldn't be required. There's a lot of stuff in that category! You can sell a lot of products as-is without FDA approval. However, making substantial claims about that product's medicinal properties is regulated in a different manner. These people are trying to have the best of both worlds: Making extraordinary claims about preventing a medical condition, while also avoiding any participation in the FDA process or even funding standard trials. I think the most obvious counter argument is that this could easily be a massively successful drug if it works as well as they claim. The TAM is everyone with teeth who wants to keep them, which is basically everyone. Yet instead they've chosen this weird path of embracing the rationalist community and supplement nuts, which is a much smaller market.
ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
Yeah, God forbid anyone take ginger or mint for an upset stomach, chamomile tea to relax, or melatonin to help them fall asleep. Or, more on topic, a toothpaste with FDA approved fluoride and FDA approved biomin which, when combined, lacks FDA approval. I never make any decisions that have not been approved officially by the US government

by slibhb 2y ago

axblount 2y ago

Off-label drugs are still approved by the FDA for their original purpose.

cool_dude85 2y ago

>I also think it's unlikely enough to hurt people that FDA approval shouldn't be required. The author has provided some solid arguments that this is not the case. Why do you think so?

bigstrat2003 2y ago
I actually don't think the author provided very good arguments. It was my only real beef with the article: "this might do bad things" gets rounded off to "this is dangerous", even though his sources don't say the bad things will happen. They simply might happen.
- cool_dude85 2y ago
  Nobody can predict the future. Bad things only ever "can" happen until they do - they never "will" happen. The author explains why and how those things are possible.
- tptacek 2y ago
  The Precautionary Principle is problematic applied to public policy generally, but it's the accepted practice in medicine. You can argue it shouldn't be, but you shouldn't pretend you'd be in the mainstream with that argument.

Aurornis 2y ago

> What about off-label medication? Off-label means prescribed for a different purpose than originally indicated, at the prescriber's discretion. The medication must still have past safety testing and have shown efficacy for something. > I also think it's unlikely enough to hurt people that FDA approval shouldn't be required. There's a lot of stuff in that category! You can sell a lot of products as-is without FDA approval. However, making substantial claims about that product's medicinal properties is regulated in a different manner. These people are trying to have the best of both worlds: Making extraordinary claims about preventing a medical condition, while also avoiding any participation in the FDA process or even funding standard trials. I think the most obvious counter argument is that this could easily be a massively successful drug if it works as well as they claim. The TAM is everyone with teeth who wants to keep them, which is basically everyone. Yet instead they've chosen this weird path of embracing the rationalist community and supplement nuts, which is a much smaller market.

ToValueFunfetti 2y ago

Yeah, God forbid anyone take ginger or mint for an upset stomach, chamomile tea to relax, or melatonin to help them fall asleep. Or, more on topic, a toothpaste with FDA approved fluoride and FDA approved biomin which, when combined, lacks FDA approval. I never make any decisions that have not been approved officially by the US government