4 ms·

> if you invented a drug tomorrow that stopped human aging, you wouldn't be able to get FDA approval to sell it. Due to the chaos it would kick off, I'm assumi

> if you invented a drug tomorrow that stopped human aging, you wouldn't be able to get FDA approval to sell it. Due to the chaos it would kick off, I'm assuming. The FDA just needs to ask themselves "What happens if we OK this?" and if the answer is "I have no idea." they withhold approval.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> What happens if we OK this?" and if the answer is "I have no idea." they withhold approval lol, withholding it would cause massive riots
- gopher_space 2y ago
  The FDA would be wise enough to know a political hot potato when they see one. If you think the riots would be massive for a ban, imagine the riots if there wasn't worldwide access immediately. Biological immortality is very much a situation where you want to bring enough gum for everyone.
lmpdev 2y ago
An interesting tangent is Australia’s FDA equivalent -the TGA - make decisions by a single Doctor called The Delegate This is a single anonymous doctor chosen at random from a pool of qualified doctors usually from a TGA committee So effectively all that is required is convincing one very powerful secret doctor For instance this is why we are the first country to allow MDMA/psilocybin research to resume since Nixon sent the field underground Amazing to think how powerful organisations have odd quirks
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > An interesting tangent is Australia’s FDA equivalent -the TGA - make decisions by a single Doctor called The Delegate > This is a single anonymous doctor chosen at random from a pool of qualified doctors usually from a TGA committee Is this choice made on a per-decision basis, or do they serve terms, or what?
  - lmpdev 2y ago
    Per-decision afaik I think the rationale is to minimise both committee biases and corporate influence I think only a handful of people know who The Delegate is at any one time. The Delegate remains anonymous after the decision is made
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > I think the rationale is to minimise both committee biases and corporate influence I don't see how it really addresses corporate influence; normal behavior from a corporation is to donate to every politician that might conceivably affect them.
      - lmpdev 2y ago
        You’d effectively have to lobby any and all related doctors, relevant organisations and politicians then The Secretary can make anyone they wish the Delegate on any issue I should probably rephrase corporate influence as targeted corporate influence
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > chosen at random from a pool of qualified doctors usually from a TGA committee This seems more restrictive than "all related doctors"? Also, > The Secretary can make anyone they wish the Delegate on any issue That sounds like what you want to do is lobby the Secretary. If you're in control of who gets to make the decision, then you get to make the decision.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago

> What happens if we OK this?" and if the answer is "I have no idea." they withhold approval lol, withholding it would cause massive riots

gopher_space 2y ago
The FDA would be wise enough to know a political hot potato when they see one. If you think the riots would be massive for a ban, imagine the riots if there wasn't worldwide access immediately. Biological immortality is very much a situation where you want to bring enough gum for everyone.

lmpdev 2y ago

An interesting tangent is Australia’s FDA equivalent -the TGA - make decisions by a single Doctor called The Delegate This is a single anonymous doctor chosen at random from a pool of qualified doctors usually from a TGA committee So effectively all that is required is convincing one very powerful secret doctor For instance this is why we are the first country to allow MDMA/psilocybin research to resume since Nixon sent the field underground Amazing to think how powerful organisations have odd quirks

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> An interesting tangent is Australia’s FDA equivalent -the TGA - make decisions by a single Doctor called The Delegate > This is a single anonymous doctor chosen at random from a pool of qualified doctors usually from a TGA committee Is this choice made on a per-decision basis, or do they serve terms, or what?
- lmpdev 2y ago
  Per-decision afaik I think the rationale is to minimise both committee biases and corporate influence I think only a handful of people know who The Delegate is at any one time. The Delegate remains anonymous after the decision is made
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > I think the rationale is to minimise both committee biases and corporate influence I don't see how it really addresses corporate influence; normal behavior from a corporation is to donate to every politician that might conceivably affect them.
    - lmpdev 2y ago
      You’d effectively have to lobby any and all related doctors, relevant organisations and politicians then The Secretary can make anyone they wish the Delegate on any issue I should probably rephrase corporate influence as targeted corporate influence
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > chosen at random from a pool of qualified doctors usually from a TGA committee This seems more restrictive than "all related doctors"? Also, > The Secretary can make anyone they wish the Delegate on any issue That sounds like what you want to do is lobby the Secretary. If you're in control of who gets to make the decision, then you get to make the decision.