3 ms·
This is also a textbook case of what is seen vs. what is unseen. When someone dies from a treatment that the FDA has approved, that is a visible ("seen") traged
by poke111 11y ago
This is also a textbook case of what is seen vs. what is unseen. When someone dies from a treatment that the FDA has approved, that is a visible ("seen") tragedy. When people are suffering from ailments that could be treated more effectively if not for the FDA slowing things down and raising the cost of development, that is unseen. There's no single victim you can point to. But the latter is hard to quantify in the risk vs. reward calculation, and importantly no FDA bureaucrat will ever lose their job or be publicly shamed because of them.
- cmdrfred 11y agoHow the FDA handled the removal of CFC's from inhalers shows you clearly they are not on the side of the consumer. The slowness likely has something to do with incumbent companies not wanting to spend on R&D. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/heres-why-your-asthma-inhaler-costs-so-damn-much http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/heres-why-your...
- WalterBright 11y agoThis was all clearly laid out (with backing statistics) by Sam Peltzman in his 1974 book "Regulation of Pharmaceutical Innovation". The statistical result of the 1962 Amendments is that the beneficial effects of reducing the amount of bad drugs being released is far more outweighed by losing the beneficial effects of drugs being delayed or not being developed. But people only see the former.