3 ms·

Seems rather myopic to me. We already share critical intelligence with the Five Eyes countries; why not share medication safety/efficacy information with them

Seems rather myopic to me. We already share critical intelligence with the Five Eyes countries; why not share medication safety/efficacy information with them too?

NetworkPerson 2y ago
Because then you can’t sue someone as easily in the US when you find out the drug popular in Europe actually caused cancer 50 years later. The US has to be sure it’s completely safe. Or that it will make enough money to outweigh the lawsuits later…
- mnau 2y ago
  > The US has to be sure it’s completely safe. That doesn't make sense to me, who does US refer to in this case? The manufacturer is the one that would be sued and they generally only want to expediate process. FDA is one that aproves/denies application. They wouldn't get sued for using data from other countries (or at least no more that they already are).
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  The "Five Eyes" countries are the United States, Canada, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia. Of the four countries that aren't the US, I'm sure that all have regulatory safety standards that would satisfy the safety and efficacy expectations of the American public.
Beijinger 2y ago
I remember a blog post of an MD or psychologist about Russian/Soviet psychotropic drugs that are not used or unknown in the west and used as an analogy that if Russia had found new elements in the periodic table, and we would not use them.
- XorNot 2y ago
  It might be worth considering that until very recently, Russia's military was definitely supremely capable and on-par with NATO. Russia lies. About everything. And culturally Russians have been immersed in a narrative that they're the absolute best in the world at everything, that all good ideas were originally Russian ideas (see how the narrative of LK-99 started getting modified before anything was verified). So do they have processes or techniques not used in the West? Sure it's possible: but it's also far more likely that the reason we don't use them is that the actual investigation of their effectiveness can't reproduce the results. Because no one looks up the clinical studies: they just repeat the fun narrative about big mysterious super-technology from behind the Iron Curtain. Which itself was essentially an invention of interest groups looking for funding in the West (i.e. there's was never a "missile gap" the US was going to lose). Like as noted here: you remember the story, but not any actual specific drugs or processes? Why?
  - Beijinger 2y ago
    EDIT: Someone found the link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-descended-upon-psychopharmacology/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-de... I did not find the blog post anymore. But the blog linked to a pharmacy website that had tons of stuff available. A few links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenazepam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenazepam https://nah.sen.es/vmfiles/vol9/NAHV9N2202155_68EN.pdf https://nah.sen.es/vmfiles/vol9/NAHV9N2202155_68EN.pdf https://cosmicnootropic.com/blog/popular-nootropics/ https://cosmicnootropic.com/blog/popular-nootropics/ https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/psychiatry/news/archive/202010/phenibut-russian-cosmonaut-drug-you-can-buy-online-reduce-anxiety https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/psychiatry/news/archive/2020...
  - Beijinger 2y ago
    "It might be worth considering that until very recently, Russia's military was definitely supremely capable and on-par with NATO." I think Russia was not on-par with NATO after it collapse, at least not in conventional warfare. They missed the electronic revolution in warfare (See US-IRAQ Gulf War I). But they are now back on par, possibly better. Their jamming, air defense and rockets are top-notch, possible better than NATOs. They can disrupt our GPS System, we can't disrupt theirs since it is much younger, speak better. As a comparison: Germany had 3000 tanks during the cold war. Now they have 300, 200 operational. Russia looses so many tanks every month, and actually builds 100-200 new ones every month. Germany had ammunition for two days of warfare. After they gave some to Ukraine, they have ammunition for one day left. Russia has been underestimated. They are back and their future looks pretty good, even with a dubious leader. They won their war: Defeat of the West? Emmanuel Todd and the Russo-Ukrainian War https://www.thearticle.com/defeat-of-the-west-emmanuel-todd-and-the-russo-ukrainian-war https://www.thearticle.com/defeat-of-the-west-emmanuel-todd-... They have energy, they are not overpopulated, they have fewer problems with immigration. In fact, they're even looking for immigrants: https://movingtorussia.ru/ru https://movingtorussia.ru/ru In the US I can smell the recession and banks will go belly up very soon: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/which-big-u-s-banks-have-the-most-commercial-real-estate-exposure/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/which-big-u-s-banks-have-th... In Germany too. Without Russian Energy their manufacturing heavy country will deindustrialize. At the same time, Russia is actively trying to replace the US Dollar as the world reserve currency, together with BRICS+. If successful, this will have a tremendous impact on the US. I am not a Putin troll, and I hope that I am wrong. But the future has the nasty habit of taking unexpected turns.
- throwaway12287 2y ago
  Link to blog post being described: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-descended-upon-psychopharmacology/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-de...
- knowitnone 2y ago
  who cares what a blog post of an MD or psychologist says? If a new element had use, of course we would use it. Are you seriously telling me that if they discovered copper, we won't use copper?
  - Beijinger 2y ago
    https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-descended-upon-psychopharmacology/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-de...
  - smsm42 2y ago
    > If a new element had use, of course we would use it. If we had FDA for elements, then we wouldn't because FDA for elements wouldn't approve it. That's the point of the analogy.
- jhbadger 2y ago
  Weird analogy. The USSR/Russia did discover new elements, and while there was a certain amount of arguing over names (as it wasn't always clear who discovered them first), there was no "not using" them because they were Russian. That isn't how science works.
  - baruz 2y ago
    That’s the point of the analogy. Even though scientists in the USSR discovered certain elements, the US did not refuse to “use” them. But for pharmaceutical compounds like bromantane, this isn’t the case. An anxiolytic stimulant discovered and approved in Russia, it cannot be prescribed in the US.
    - dekhn 2y ago
      "In 1996, it was encountered as a doping agent in the 1996 Summer Olympics when several Russian athletes tested positive for it, and was subsequently placed on the World Anti-Doping Agency banned list in 1997 as a stimulant and masking agent.[10][42]"
- salad-tycoon 2y ago
  Many nootropics and Phenibut comes to mind. Not used is relative. FDA occasionally cracks down.
e-_pusher 2y ago
There is the famous example of Thaladomide, which was approved by the regulators in the Germany and caused a disaster in birth defects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal US FDA however was skeptical of the safety of the drug and never approved it for sale in US.
- smsm42 2y ago
  It doesn't look like FDA - or, specifically, Frances Oldham Kelsey - had any data or any evidence to suspect something was wrong with thalidomide. Partly it was because the manufacturers hid whatever suspicious data they had, but Kelsey had no way of knowing it - she basically just run out the clock until it so happened that the news about birth defects caused by it started coming in. That seems to have validated the idea that the strategy should be "delay approval as long as possible and request more and more tests for as long as possible". Which, of course, technically makes it safer for the drugs that manage to pass - but the cost is hugely inflated costs and absence of access to many drugs.
- dekhn 2y ago
  Wrong: FDA was approved in the US and is used as an effective cancer drug. We just don't give it to people who would be at risk.

Seems rather myopic to me. We already share critical intelligence with the Five Eyes countries; why not share medication safety/efficacy information with them too?

NetworkPerson 2y ago

Because then you can’t sue someone as easily in the US when you find out the drug popular in Europe actually caused cancer 50 years later. The US has to be sure it’s completely safe. Or that it will make enough money to outweigh the lawsuits later…

mnau 2y ago
> The US has to be sure it’s completely safe. That doesn't make sense to me, who does US refer to in this case? The manufacturer is the one that would be sued and they generally only want to expediate process. FDA is one that aproves/denies application. They wouldn't get sued for using data from other countries (or at least no more that they already are).
lenerdenator 2y ago
The "Five Eyes" countries are the United States, Canada, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia. Of the four countries that aren't the US, I'm sure that all have regulatory safety standards that would satisfy the safety and efficacy expectations of the American public.

Beijinger 2y ago

I remember a blog post of an MD or psychologist about Russian/Soviet psychotropic drugs that are not used or unknown in the west and used as an analogy that if Russia had found new elements in the periodic table, and we would not use them.

XorNot 2y ago
It might be worth considering that until very recently, Russia's military was definitely supremely capable and on-par with NATO. Russia lies. About everything. And culturally Russians have been immersed in a narrative that they're the absolute best in the world at everything, that all good ideas were originally Russian ideas (see how the narrative of LK-99 started getting modified before anything was verified). So do they have processes or techniques not used in the West? Sure it's possible: but it's also far more likely that the reason we don't use them is that the actual investigation of their effectiveness can't reproduce the results. Because no one looks up the clinical studies: they just repeat the fun narrative about big mysterious super-technology from behind the Iron Curtain. Which itself was essentially an invention of interest groups looking for funding in the West (i.e. there's was never a "missile gap" the US was going to lose). Like as noted here: you remember the story, but not any actual specific drugs or processes? Why?
- Beijinger 2y ago
  EDIT: Someone found the link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-descended-upon-psychopharmacology/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-de... I did not find the blog post anymore. But the blog linked to a pharmacy website that had tons of stuff available. A few links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenazepam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenazepam https://nah.sen.es/vmfiles/vol9/NAHV9N2202155_68EN.pdf https://nah.sen.es/vmfiles/vol9/NAHV9N2202155_68EN.pdf https://cosmicnootropic.com/blog/popular-nootropics/ https://cosmicnootropic.com/blog/popular-nootropics/ https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/psychiatry/news/archive/202010/phenibut-russian-cosmonaut-drug-you-can-buy-online-reduce-anxiety https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/psychiatry/news/archive/2020...
- Beijinger 2y ago
  "It might be worth considering that until very recently, Russia's military was definitely supremely capable and on-par with NATO." I think Russia was not on-par with NATO after it collapse, at least not in conventional warfare. They missed the electronic revolution in warfare (See US-IRAQ Gulf War I). But they are now back on par, possibly better. Their jamming, air defense and rockets are top-notch, possible better than NATOs. They can disrupt our GPS System, we can't disrupt theirs since it is much younger, speak better. As a comparison: Germany had 3000 tanks during the cold war. Now they have 300, 200 operational. Russia looses so many tanks every month, and actually builds 100-200 new ones every month. Germany had ammunition for two days of warfare. After they gave some to Ukraine, they have ammunition for one day left. Russia has been underestimated. They are back and their future looks pretty good, even with a dubious leader. They won their war: Defeat of the West? Emmanuel Todd and the Russo-Ukrainian War https://www.thearticle.com/defeat-of-the-west-emmanuel-todd-and-the-russo-ukrainian-war https://www.thearticle.com/defeat-of-the-west-emmanuel-todd-... They have energy, they are not overpopulated, they have fewer problems with immigration. In fact, they're even looking for immigrants: https://movingtorussia.ru/ru https://movingtorussia.ru/ru In the US I can smell the recession and banks will go belly up very soon: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/which-big-u-s-banks-have-the-most-commercial-real-estate-exposure/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/which-big-u-s-banks-have-th... In Germany too. Without Russian Energy their manufacturing heavy country will deindustrialize. At the same time, Russia is actively trying to replace the US Dollar as the world reserve currency, together with BRICS+. If successful, this will have a tremendous impact on the US. I am not a Putin troll, and I hope that I am wrong. But the future has the nasty habit of taking unexpected turns.
throwaway12287 2y ago
Link to blog post being described: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-descended-upon-psychopharmacology/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-de...
knowitnone 2y ago
who cares what a blog post of an MD or psychologist says? If a new element had use, of course we would use it. Are you seriously telling me that if they discovered copper, we won't use copper?
- Beijinger 2y ago
  https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-descended-upon-psychopharmacology/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-de...
- smsm42 2y ago
  > If a new element had use, of course we would use it. If we had FDA for elements, then we wouldn't because FDA for elements wouldn't approve it. That's the point of the analogy.
jhbadger 2y ago
Weird analogy. The USSR/Russia did discover new elements, and while there was a certain amount of arguing over names (as it wasn't always clear who discovered them first), there was no "not using" them because they were Russian. That isn't how science works.
- baruz 2y ago
  That’s the point of the analogy. Even though scientists in the USSR discovered certain elements, the US did not refuse to “use” them. But for pharmaceutical compounds like bromantane, this isn’t the case. An anxiolytic stimulant discovered and approved in Russia, it cannot be prescribed in the US.
  - dekhn 2y ago
    "In 1996, it was encountered as a doping agent in the 1996 Summer Olympics when several Russian athletes tested positive for it, and was subsequently placed on the World Anti-Doping Agency banned list in 1997 as a stimulant and masking agent.[10][42]"
salad-tycoon 2y ago
Many nootropics and Phenibut comes to mind. Not used is relative. FDA occasionally cracks down.

e-_pusher 2y ago

There is the famous example of Thaladomide, which was approved by the regulators in the Germany and caused a disaster in birth defects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal US FDA however was skeptical of the safety of the drug and never approved it for sale in US.

smsm42 2y ago
It doesn't look like FDA - or, specifically, Frances Oldham Kelsey - had any data or any evidence to suspect something was wrong with thalidomide. Partly it was because the manufacturers hid whatever suspicious data they had, but Kelsey had no way of knowing it - she basically just run out the clock until it so happened that the news about birth defects caused by it started coming in. That seems to have validated the idea that the strategy should be "delay approval as long as possible and request more and more tests for as long as possible". Which, of course, technically makes it safer for the drugs that manage to pass - but the cost is hugely inflated costs and absence of access to many drugs.
dekhn 2y ago
Wrong: FDA was approved in the US and is used as an effective cancer drug. We just don't give it to people who would be at risk.