4 ms·

The FDA's creation was directly triggered by multiple mass poisoning incidents in the early 1900s.In 1937 over 100 people died from diethylene glycol-contaminat

The FDA's creation was directly triggered by multiple mass poisoning incidents in the early 1900s.In 1937 over 100 people died from diethylene glycol-contaminated medicine, leading to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that significantly expanded FDA authority.

3D30497420 1y ago
As the adage goes, "regulations are written in blood". The problem is the blood was spent before many people can remember (or bother to remember). They just know the "limitations" imposed by those regulations and therefore want to get them removed.
- ourmandave 1y ago
  Like before his confirmation, when RFK wanted to Make Polio Great Again. And Mitch McConnell, who suffered from polio when he was 2 years old back in 1944, had strong words, but confirmed the anti-vaccine halfwit anyway. Good job Mitch!
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Maybe it's like Jefferson's admonition that each generation must purchase their liberty in blood. Not happy about that possibility, but it is a possibility. "What's so bad about measles, anyway?"
- roenxi 1y ago
  They also would like it if occasionally everyone reviewed legislation in light of whether it actually had a positive cost-benefit. The claim has to be something significantly more valuable than a few 100 people dying from poisons each year for the thousands to millions of deaths caused by inefficiencies in the biomedical industry. 3,000,000 people die in the US each year right now. Optimising the medical system for nimbleness and low costs is a much better path to take rather than optimising for something that is presented as a statistical rounding error. If people don't think a drug manufacturer is safe they don't have to buy drugs from them.
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    I remember the Tylenol hysteria (in the 1980's?) when there were a few poisonings. It may well be that the legitimate drug manufacturers benefit from tight regulation by the FDA. They can give them legitimacy when the public may otherwise overreact. I'm not sure an anything-goes environment is going to be something they're going to enjoy. Oh well.
  - morgannewman 1y ago
    [dead]
  - atmavatar 1y ago
    > The claim has to be something significantly more valuable than a few 100 people dying from poisons each year for the thousands to millions of deaths caused by inefficiencies in the biomedical industry. It's extremely misleading to argue with confidence that even a significant fraction of those thousands to millions of deaths would be prevented if only we had the good sense to eliminate medical regulations entirely and that doing so would only result in a few hundred deaths. It's not just about poisoning deaths from toxic medicine -- it's also about additional deaths from people taking snake oil treatments over proven effective treatments. If the US response to COVID shows us anything, it's that this latter group can be quite significant. A big problem that's led us to where we are is that many in the right wing fringes that brought us the current administration make their fortunes off selling snake oils in the form of supplements. And while I'm sure some will immediately point out that left wing fringes have their own bullshit cures (e.g., essential oils, healing crystals, etc.), the difference is that this group is still treated as the kooks they are.
api 1y ago
My concern is that today this could happen and people wouldn’t care. Peoples cultlike ideologies, political tribalism, and belief systems are more important to them. There was a father whose child died of measles in Texas who continues to be anti vax.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  > cultlike ideologies, political tribalism It didn't use to be like this. I've considered a number of things in our society that I could point a finger at as the cause but often when I dig just a little below the surface the one thing that I always seem to uncover in all cases is fear. How did we (U.S.) become such a fearful country? The pace of change? A media narrative? Starting with cable television and 24-hour news?
  - api 1y ago
    The US became a fearful (and hateful) country because of the media, both traditional and tech/social. Fear, hate, and other base emotions maximize engagement. A negative story that inspires fear or hate will get often thousands of times more clicks than a neutral or positive one. Media tends to be ad supported and run on attention maximizing KPIs, therefore the media pushes fear and hate. Social media added a layer of personalized algorithm-driven amplification that dialed this way up, which is why politics has become hyper-polarized and dominated by insane narratives. It drives engagement. Edit: the reason for this is probably an evolutionary bias toward negativity and paranoia. As the saying goes: If your ancestor mistook a bush for a lion, they lived. If your ancestor mistook a lion for a bush, they are not your ancestor. We are all the descendants of paranoids. Negative media pushes that button.
  - UltraSane 1y ago
    Fox News has been brainwashing people for a very long time now.
JKCalhoun 1y ago
So it's Chesterton's Fence then.
terminalshort 1y ago
And if they had stuck with making sure medicine sold is exactly what it says on the bottle instead of expanding to telling me which medications I am allowed to have, I would be their biggest supporter.
- os2warpman 1y ago
  I was going to say "The FDA, in general, does not tell you which medications you can or cannot take." but often when people make a comment like yours and you press them on it, it turns out they're angry because they can't find a doctor who will inject something insane into an unusual part of their body so instead I am going to ask: What medicine, SPECIFICALLY PLEASE, does the FDA not allow you to have? edit: because I'm pretty sure you can find doctors who will prescribe 3 liters per minute of elephant farts to treat high blood pressure, or compound up some turbofentanyl mixed with vitamin q to grow hair on your gooch if you look hard enough and there's nothing the FDA can do about it so most of the time peoples' problems are with insurance companies or pesky medical ethics and various state boards of medicine.
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    Good question. I have narcolepsy. There is a medication called TAK-861 which is the first drug to actually treat the root cause of the disease. It has passed phase 1 and 2 trials proving it is safe and effective. My doctor is involved in the research has said he wishes he could prescribe it to me now, but it is still in phase 3 trials and will not be approved by the FDA for another 2 years, so he can't give it to me. I despise nothing more than these bureaucrats. If I want to take the risk on a new medication then that's my choice. If someone else doesn't then that's fine too. I'm not the one telling other people what to do, these worthless busybody bureaucrats are.
    - curt15 1y ago
      >I despise nothing more than these bureaucrats. If I want to take the risk on a new medication then that's my choice. Are there laws that would indemnify the healthcare provider for unexpected adverse outcomes for voluntary recipients of experimental drugs?

3D30497420 1y ago

As the adage goes, "regulations are written in blood". The problem is the blood was spent before many people can remember (or bother to remember). They just know the "limitations" imposed by those regulations and therefore want to get them removed.

ourmandave 1y ago
Like before his confirmation, when RFK wanted to Make Polio Great Again. And Mitch McConnell, who suffered from polio when he was 2 years old back in 1944, had strong words, but confirmed the anti-vaccine halfwit anyway. Good job Mitch!
IAmBroom 1y ago
Maybe it's like Jefferson's admonition that each generation must purchase their liberty in blood. Not happy about that possibility, but it is a possibility. "What's so bad about measles, anyway?"
roenxi 1y ago
They also would like it if occasionally everyone reviewed legislation in light of whether it actually had a positive cost-benefit. The claim has to be something significantly more valuable than a few 100 people dying from poisons each year for the thousands to millions of deaths caused by inefficiencies in the biomedical industry. 3,000,000 people die in the US each year right now. Optimising the medical system for nimbleness and low costs is a much better path to take rather than optimising for something that is presented as a statistical rounding error. If people don't think a drug manufacturer is safe they don't have to buy drugs from them.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  I remember the Tylenol hysteria (in the 1980's?) when there were a few poisonings. It may well be that the legitimate drug manufacturers benefit from tight regulation by the FDA. They can give them legitimacy when the public may otherwise overreact. I'm not sure an anything-goes environment is going to be something they're going to enjoy. Oh well.
- morgannewman 1y ago
  [dead]
- atmavatar 1y ago
  > The claim has to be something significantly more valuable than a few 100 people dying from poisons each year for the thousands to millions of deaths caused by inefficiencies in the biomedical industry. It's extremely misleading to argue with confidence that even a significant fraction of those thousands to millions of deaths would be prevented if only we had the good sense to eliminate medical regulations entirely and that doing so would only result in a few hundred deaths. It's not just about poisoning deaths from toxic medicine -- it's also about additional deaths from people taking snake oil treatments over proven effective treatments. If the US response to COVID shows us anything, it's that this latter group can be quite significant. A big problem that's led us to where we are is that many in the right wing fringes that brought us the current administration make their fortunes off selling snake oils in the form of supplements. And while I'm sure some will immediately point out that left wing fringes have their own bullshit cures (e.g., essential oils, healing crystals, etc.), the difference is that this group is still treated as the kooks they are.

api 1y ago

My concern is that today this could happen and people wouldn’t care. Peoples cultlike ideologies, political tribalism, and belief systems are more important to them. There was a father whose child died of measles in Texas who continues to be anti vax.

JKCalhoun 1y ago
> cultlike ideologies, political tribalism It didn't use to be like this. I've considered a number of things in our society that I could point a finger at as the cause but often when I dig just a little below the surface the one thing that I always seem to uncover in all cases is fear. How did we (U.S.) become such a fearful country? The pace of change? A media narrative? Starting with cable television and 24-hour news?
- api 1y ago
  The US became a fearful (and hateful) country because of the media, both traditional and tech/social. Fear, hate, and other base emotions maximize engagement. A negative story that inspires fear or hate will get often thousands of times more clicks than a neutral or positive one. Media tends to be ad supported and run on attention maximizing KPIs, therefore the media pushes fear and hate. Social media added a layer of personalized algorithm-driven amplification that dialed this way up, which is why politics has become hyper-polarized and dominated by insane narratives. It drives engagement. Edit: the reason for this is probably an evolutionary bias toward negativity and paranoia. As the saying goes: If your ancestor mistook a bush for a lion, they lived. If your ancestor mistook a lion for a bush, they are not your ancestor. We are all the descendants of paranoids. Negative media pushes that button.
- UltraSane 1y ago
  Fox News has been brainwashing people for a very long time now.

JKCalhoun 1y ago

So it's Chesterton's Fence then.

terminalshort 1y ago

And if they had stuck with making sure medicine sold is exactly what it says on the bottle instead of expanding to telling me which medications I am allowed to have, I would be their biggest supporter.

os2warpman 1y ago
I was going to say "The FDA, in general, does not tell you which medications you can or cannot take." but often when people make a comment like yours and you press them on it, it turns out they're angry because they can't find a doctor who will inject something insane into an unusual part of their body so instead I am going to ask: What medicine, SPECIFICALLY PLEASE, does the FDA not allow you to have? edit: because I'm pretty sure you can find doctors who will prescribe 3 liters per minute of elephant farts to treat high blood pressure, or compound up some turbofentanyl mixed with vitamin q to grow hair on your gooch if you look hard enough and there's nothing the FDA can do about it so most of the time peoples' problems are with insurance companies or pesky medical ethics and various state boards of medicine.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  Good question. I have narcolepsy. There is a medication called TAK-861 which is the first drug to actually treat the root cause of the disease. It has passed phase 1 and 2 trials proving it is safe and effective. My doctor is involved in the research has said he wishes he could prescribe it to me now, but it is still in phase 3 trials and will not be approved by the FDA for another 2 years, so he can't give it to me. I despise nothing more than these bureaucrats. If I want to take the risk on a new medication then that's my choice. If someone else doesn't then that's fine too. I'm not the one telling other people what to do, these worthless busybody bureaucrats are.
  - curt15 1y ago
    >I despise nothing more than these bureaucrats. If I want to take the risk on a new medication then that's my choice. Are there laws that would indemnify the healthcare provider for unexpected adverse outcomes for voluntary recipients of experimental drugs?