Sorry, I didn't see this post earlier. The paper you link to makes some good arguments about the approval process. While I absolutely can't agree that the legal

Sorry, I didn't see this post earlier. The paper you link to makes some good arguments about the approval process. While I absolutely can't agree that the legal system can effectively screen out dangerous drugs without an oversight agency like the FDA, I can agree that the approval process for drugs to treat acute deadly diseases should be expedited in proportion to the severity of the condition it treats. The problem I see with these arguments is that they're using the worst case scenarios to argue abolishing the agency altogether. Aside from cases of life-saving drugs, the FDA also works to keep drugs and devices to treat non life-threatening or cosmetic cases from being harmful or deadly. An argument that beta-blocker drugs should have been approved faster is not an argument that your typical diet drug should have been. If we can draw a distinction between these cases, I'm more receptive to the arguments you're making. As far as aspirin for heart attacks goes, I can see the logic in not allowing a drug company to advertise its use for this purpose. Were doctors made aware of this use and were they trained to offer it as medication in appropriate cases? If so, then I think the system worked as it should. If not then there should be a system in place that disseminates such information to doctors and other medical professionals. But allowing drug companies to advertise directly is a massive can of worms. I don't think it should be allowed at all, let alone for "unproven" uses. People are not knowledgeable or responsible enough to evaluate the use of a drug based on uncertain information.