5 ms·

That's why I said "diminish greatly" rather than solve - by doing something basically everybody should be able to agree on regardless if you think a given produ

That's why I said "diminish greatly" rather than solve - by doing something basically everybody should be able to agree on regardless if you think a given product should be on the market or not. They should probably have to split up large words with dashes or even spaces "phenyl-ephrine" "psuedo-ephedrine". Maybe even "phenyl-eph-rine" "psuedo-eph-edrine". One authoritative list published by the FDA (they already keep a list of what's allowed to be sold OTC in the first place, right?) of how the active ingredient names have to be distinctly stylized to best inform.

ryandrake 3mo ago
It just seems like a quick patch that doesn't acknowledge or address the root cause: that the FDA is supposed to be regulating both safety and effectiveness, but it is largely abdicating the "effectiveness" role over to companies' marketing departments. If corporate marketing can convince the public that the serpensoleum drug works, then that's enough to put it in a shiny box in the drug store.
- mindslight 3mo ago
  The problem is that you're butting up against the highly profitable cult of ignorance. For instance if something isn't intended to actually treat a disease, then it's basically exempt from FDA regulation as it's a "supplement". Then the seller is free to imply whatever they want, regardless of efficacy. I'm advocating something that ideally can sit in the middle of the two philosophical/regulatory regimes with more people on board - being able to buy whatever you want, but regulation aimed at preventing companies "innovating" by simply confusing the market. And while I'm sympathetic to extending the scientific-maximalist approach onto the "supplement" industry that is currently harboring copious amounts of straight up fraud, I would also say that throwing down such a gauntlet doesn't seem like a great idea at the moment!
  - ryandrake 3mo ago
    Yea don't even get me started on the "supplements" loophole. There are so many problems to solve. Making even small amount of progress towards fixing anything would be miraculous, given the economic forces wanting to make the problems even worse.

ryandrake 3mo ago

It just seems like a quick patch that doesn't acknowledge or address the root cause: that the FDA is supposed to be regulating both safety and effectiveness, but it is largely abdicating the "effectiveness" role over to companies' marketing departments. If corporate marketing can convince the public that the serpensoleum drug works, then that's enough to put it in a shiny box in the drug store.

mindslight 3mo ago
The problem is that you're butting up against the highly profitable cult of ignorance. For instance if something isn't intended to actually treat a disease, then it's basically exempt from FDA regulation as it's a "supplement". Then the seller is free to imply whatever they want, regardless of efficacy. I'm advocating something that ideally can sit in the middle of the two philosophical/regulatory regimes with more people on board - being able to buy whatever you want, but regulation aimed at preventing companies "innovating" by simply confusing the market. And while I'm sympathetic to extending the scientific-maximalist approach onto the "supplement" industry that is currently harboring copious amounts of straight up fraud, I would also say that throwing down such a gauntlet doesn't seem like a great idea at the moment!
- ryandrake 3mo ago
  Yea don't even get me started on the "supplements" loophole. There are so many problems to solve. Making even small amount of progress towards fixing anything would be miraculous, given the economic forces wanting to make the problems even worse.