Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The FDA has killed millions of Americans

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:47:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is good reason to think the FDA, overall, has caused 4-8 million deaths since 1962 by delaying drugs, or preventing drugs from ever being developed that would help people. This disgusting murderous bureau needs to be put to an end.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:04:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you have any idea how many more people would have died from unsafe products without the FDA?

Is it horrifically inefficient? Yes. Does it need to be streamlined with an axe? Yes.

But without those drug trials, you could have hundreds of thousands of people dying from over the counter medicine.

You'd also have no legal mechanism to insure that medicine does what it says it does. At most you could count how many consumers die or are cured after the fact. And since it wouldn't be controlled trials, you'd have no way to extrapolate a conclusion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:10:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 4:04:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
Do you have any idea how many more people would have died from unsafe products without the FDA?

Is it horrifically inefficient? Yes. Does it need to be streamlined with an axe? Yes.

But without those drug trials, you could have hundreds of thousands of people dying from over the counter medicine.

You'd also have no legal mechanism to insure that medicine does what it says it does. At most you could count how many consumers die or are cured after the fact. And since it wouldn't be controlled trials, you'd have no way to extrapolate a conclusion.

Completely absurd. No legal mechanism?! What about the courts? It's in a pharmaceutical company's best interest to not get sued for million or billions of dollars. Moreover, the consumers would take precautionary measures when considering taking a drug, and would most certainly not take it if he or she had heard reports of adverse side-effects.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:17:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Support of the FDA derives from ignorance of the facts. There's nothing more disastrous than judging something by its intentions.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:23:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 4:10:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/12/2013 4:04:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
Do you have any idea how many more people would have died from unsafe products without the FDA?

Is it horrifically inefficient? Yes. Does it need to be streamlined with an axe? Yes.

But without those drug trials, you could have hundreds of thousands of people dying from over the counter medicine.

You'd also have no legal mechanism to insure that medicine does what it says it does. At most you could count how many consumers die or are cured after the fact. And since it wouldn't be controlled trials, you'd have no way to extrapolate a conclusion.

Completely absurd. No legal mechanism?! What about the courts? It's in a pharmaceutical company's best interest to not get sued for million or billions of dollars. Moreover, the consumers would take precautionary measures when considering taking a drug, and would most certainly not take it if he or she had heard reports of adverse side-effects.

Well that's just flatly untrue. Look up "miracle mineral solution". There are charlatans who have managed to, to a certain extent, avoid regulators through shady behavior who are telling people to drink BLEACH. Desperate people do desperate things.

And there are dozens, if not hundreds of cases of companies putting out bad drugs knowing they were bad and trusting their legal clout to protect them.

The FDA has saved far more than it has "killed", and looking only at those who suffered due to delay, while ignoring those who would have died without testing is disingenuous to the extreme.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:24:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And how many more people would be dying as a result of quacks like Burzinsky and his "neoplasms" if they weren't hobbled by FDA regs?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:39:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you have any sense of American history? You act like drug and food companies didn't exist before the FDA.

The FDA was formed because companies were adulterating and misbranding food and drugs and putting it on the market. SCOTUS wouldn't allow the government to actively pursue people throwing chemical additives and other junk into food without mustering the highest standards of proof of fraudulent INTENT (go find a lawyer and see how easy that is). That means you could still adulterate your product as long as no one could prove you personally intended to. Other than the ad hoc response, the only other regulatory mechanism was checking the safety of drugs.

And if you were familiar with our justice system, you'd see how unreasonable it is to put the entire regulatory burden on the backs of victimized Americans. Do you have ANY idea how much it costs to take a drug company to court? How much time you have to take from a persons life just so they can sit in court and get railed at by dozens of drug-corp lawyers. And this ASSUMES it is possible to get evidence the drugs are at fault (one person saying "the drugs made me feel bad" isn't enough).

Wanna know how people gather evidence to show in court that a product is defective? Controlled studies. Should we make every potential victim of drug companies pay for those as well?

And for all your faith in the good wishes of the drug companies, you do know that a vast majority of pediatric medicine (over 80%) is not FDA-approved because the companies don't consider it cost-efficient to test their drugs on children as well as adults, right?

The FDA tried to change this in 1994 by encouraging drug companies to test medicine on children before selling it to them. But the courts said they can't.

http://www.plateaupediatrics.com...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:42:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Now, could the FDA use major revising? Hell yes.

I'd be for streamlining the process and even giving companies the option of skipping the animal phase and going straight to human phase if they explain the risks properly to human subjects.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:45:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 4:42:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
Now, could the FDA use major revising? Hell yes.

I'd be for streamlining the process and even giving companies the option of skipping the animal phase and going straight to human phase if they explain the risks properly to human subjects.

Indeed, though I'm sure there would be fears of the unscrupulous taking advantage of the credulous and desperate (would it be poor form to mention Burzinsky again?)
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:48:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 4:45:46 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 4:42:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
Now, could the FDA use major revising? Hell yes.

I'd be for streamlining the process and even giving companies the option of skipping the animal phase and going straight to human phase if they explain the risks properly to human subjects.

Indeed, though I'm sure there would be fears of the unscrupulous taking advantage of the credulous and desperate (would it be poor form to mention Burzinsky again?)

Well, only the FDA could authorize the trials, or at least a company wouldn't gain anything by human testing and not mentioning it to the FDA. IIRC, there's a double blind which would cut down on placebo effects.

Now, if we instead went the Dylan way of "let everyone test their own subjects" then your fear would be quite justified.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 5:14:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that this is another societal ill brought about by limited liability. The people who make the decisions to commit fraud do so because they know that there's no way to personally touch them when they end up killing people. Take away their ridiculous legal privileges and allow them to be prosecuted for manslaughter if they commit fraud which ends in someone's death, knowingly or unknowingly, and they'll be sure to find any issues no matter what the cost. One is less likely to engage in the detached calculation of damages vs. profits, in which fatalities are treated as harbingers of unwelcome bad press instead of the tragedies which they are, when one has skin in the game.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 5:26:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
OP needs to understand the distinction between killing and withholding aid. OP, how many people have you killed by not giving more of your income to cancer charities? I thought so, you disgusting murderer.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 5:30:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Wnope: Have you ever heard of private consumer research groups?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 5:33:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 5:26:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
OP needs to understand the distinction between killing and withholding aid. OP, how many people have you killed by not giving more of your income to cancer charities? I thought so, you disgusting murderer.

When a person wants to buy a drug, and someone wants to sell a drug to them, and the FDA stands between them and says 'No!', that's hardly withholding aid. It's preventing two people who want to do business together, one of whom's life may depend upon said business, from doing so. It's a completely false analogy to compare it to withholding funding.

Though, if the government decided to funnel money away from clinics in a pattern suspiciously correlated to the number of minorities typically served by those hospitals, would you still be saying that we need to make a distinction between killing and withholding aid? In some situations, where money can equate to life and it is redistributed arbitrarily, they can be very much intertwined.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 5:58:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A pharm rep told me once that aspirin wouldn't make it past the FDA if it were discovered today. Of course I don't think she got her pharm rep job based on her stellar intellect, if you know what I'm saying.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:04:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 5:26:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
OP needs to understand the distinction between killing and withholding aid. OP, how many people have you killed by not giving more of your income to cancer charities? I thought so, you disgusting murderer.

That's not exactly a fair comparison, he's not going around withholding chemo drugs.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:17:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 5:58:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
A pharm rep told me once that aspirin wouldn't make it past the FDA if it were discovered today. Of course I don't think she got her pharm rep job based on her stellar intellect, if you know what I'm saying.

Maybe not...but it could be sold as "Willow Bark - Helps relieve pain*"

(*This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not meant for the treatment or diagnosis of any disease or ailment).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:17:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The FDA's supporters are probably right--in much the same way that NASA doesn't deliberately use bad equations just because it's funded through taxation and administered by a bureaucracy, it's a safe bet that the FDA isn't completely populated by malicious sociopaths who derive personal pleasure from denying people life-saving medicines (not to say there's any doubt that top administration is probably paid for by lobbying interests, heavily staffed with industry professionals, and/or instrumentalized for political gain). What's interesting is that, insofar as corruption and inefficiency are acknowledged to characterize bureaucratic practice, all of their "legitimate" practices, particularly given the impossibility of quantifying how many lives were saved by FDA protocol, give them substantial leverage.

Contemporary government legitimizes its practice by appealing to latent insecurity and uncertainty--people are afraid of what might happen absent the FDA because medical regulation wouldn't otherwise be planned for us. There's a reason most arguments against privatization or libertarian statecraft appeal to a fear of uncertainty (e.g., "Who will build the roads?"), and I think it's largely because civil society, market included, is regarded as something that must be both produced and insulated against risk. This is why rights-based arguments seldom convince statists: where many libertarians would limit state power on the basis of its theoretical confinement to a "proper" sphere of influence, most statists restrict it only on the basis of prudence or efficiency relative to a specified interest (ironically, in other words, in terms of the market). A lot of liberals object to the drug war, for instance, because of its ineffectiveness (hence the comparison to prohibition). If it was effective, though--if it decreased drug crime, curbed personal use, could be pursued cost-effectively, etc.--I suspect many would actually favor the punitive approach.

This is all to say that, yeah, the FDA is both corrupt and (more than likely) responsible for saving some undefinable number of lives. What's key is that statists, while clinging to vague and empty platitudes about reform, are really willing to accept corruption, inefficiency, and perhaps outright abuse in exchange for diminished uncertainty (what's key is the feeling of certainty, even if its object is illusory or unmeasurable). I think it's a problem outside the state and its appropriation of culture--it's the same reason people refuse to leave a shitty job despite being poorly-paid, treated badly by bosses, etc.--but I think peoples' fears, and the networks of biopower that both manufacture and attend to them, are useful interpretive tools.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:41:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 3:47:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There is good reason to think the FDA, overall, has caused 4-8 million deaths since 1962 by delaying drugs, or preventing drugs from ever being developed that would help people. This disgusting murderous bureau needs to be put to an end.

contrarian filth like this starts to piss me off after a while...

If you don't precede your big "shocking" attack with some solid evidence and analysis, then you should probably keep that attack restrained in the intellectual cesspool from which it spawned.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:43:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 6:04:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 5:26:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
OP needs to understand the distinction between killing and withholding aid. OP, how many people have you killed by not giving more of your income to cancer charities? I thought so, you disgusting murderer.

That's not exactly a fair comparison, he's not going around withholding chemo drugs.

He's withholding money that could be used to buy food, clothing, or shelter. I don't see a huge difference. In some sense that's even more basic.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:47:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 6:41:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:47:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There is good reason to think the FDA, overall, has caused 4-8 million deaths since 1962 by delaying drugs, or preventing drugs from ever being developed that would help people. This disgusting murderous bureau needs to be put to an end.

contrarian filth like this starts to piss me off after a while...

If you don't precede your big "shocking" attack with some solid evidence and analysis, then you should probably keep that attack restrained in the intellectual cesspool from which it spawned.

But then I'd miss out on little rants like these.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:50:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 5:33:17 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/12/2013 5:26:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
OP needs to understand the distinction between killing and withholding aid. OP, how many people have you killed by not giving more of your income to cancer charities? I thought so, you disgusting murderer.

When a person wants to buy a drug, and someone wants to sell a drug to them, and the FDA stands between them and says 'No!', that's hardly withholding aid. It's preventing two people who want to do business together, one of whom's life may depend upon said business, from doing so. It's a completely false analogy to compare it to withholding funding.

Though, if the government decided to funnel money away from clinics in a pattern suspiciously correlated to the number of minorities typically served by those hospitals, would you still be saying that we need to make a distinction between killing and withholding aid? In some situations, where money can equate to life and it is redistributed arbitrarily, they can be very much intertwined.

The FDA can withhold aid, my short description wasn't meant as a comprehensive description of all of its function. However, certainly one of its function is to keep these trials and test medications so in I believe we could call that 'withholding something that might be helpful' or 'withholding (potential) aid.'

Even if we go by your case, however, it's still not killing. If I have cancer and you want to sell me a drug that can cure it but Wnope is preventing you from doing so, it's still the cancer that is killing me however much as an a$$hole Wnope is being and of course Wnope is still responsible for my death. This is not to say, however, that Wnope would be killing me in this situation - that's the cancer's role.

Back to the case. I'm not defending the FDA 100% here, I'm in the same boat as Wnope; we need to streamline and reform.

If we're saying withholding aid is tantamount to murder then we're all murderers here. We all withhold aid anytime we decline to give to charity.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:50:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 6:43:26 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/12/2013 6:04:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 5:26:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
OP needs to understand the distinction between killing and withholding aid. OP, how many people have you killed by not giving more of your income to cancer charities? I thought so, you disgusting murderer.

That's not exactly a fair comparison, he's not going around withholding chemo drugs.

He's withholding money that could be used to buy food, clothing, or shelter. I don't see a huge difference. In some sense that's even more basic.

There's a difference between the prevention of goods being exchanged that could save lives (drugs) and me not giving away all my wealth to help others.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:52:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
^Wnope in the withholding the cancer drug example would not be solely responsible for my death, but he would surely hold some considerable degree of responsibility. He is not the killer.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:54:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 6:41:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:47:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There is good reason to think the FDA, overall, has caused 4-8 million deaths since 1962 by delaying drugs, or preventing drugs from ever being developed that would help people. This disgusting murderous bureau needs to be put to an end.

contrarian filth like this starts to piss me off after a while...

If you don't precede your big "shocking" attack with some solid evidence and analysis, then you should probably keep that attack restrained in the intellectual cesspool from which it spawned.

But actually, the arguments against the FDA are pretty uniform and readily available on the web. I probably should have included some sources, but oh well.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:57:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 6:50:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/12/2013 6:43:26 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/12/2013 6:04:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 5:26:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
OP needs to understand the distinction between killing and withholding aid. OP, how many people have you killed by not giving more of your income to cancer charities? I thought so, you disgusting murderer.

That's not exactly a fair comparison, he's not going around withholding chemo drugs.

He's withholding money that could be used to buy food, clothing, or shelter. I don't see a huge difference. In some sense that's even more basic.

There's a difference between the prevention of goods being exchanged that could save lives (drugs) and me not giving away all my wealth to help others.

Ok, but you can also see it the other way that these possibly untested drugs could kill you. The FDA has several functions, one of which is withholding ("delaying") drugs and you've interpreted this act as tantamount to killing.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:57:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 6:52:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
^Wnope in the withholding the cancer drug example would not be solely responsible for my death, but he would surely hold some considerable degree of responsibility. He is not the killer.

'Murderous' in the op was inaccurate, as 'murder' implies intent, and I don't believe the FDA is intentionally trying to cause harm.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 6:59:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 6:50:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/12/2013 6:43:26 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/12/2013 6:04:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 5:26:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
OP needs to understand the distinction between killing and withholding aid. OP, how many people have you killed by not giving more of your income to cancer charities? I thought so, you disgusting murderer.

That's not exactly a fair comparison, he's not going around withholding chemo drugs.

He's withholding money that could be used to buy food, clothing, or shelter. I don't see a huge difference. In some sense that's even more basic.

There's a difference between the prevention of goods being exchanged that could save lives (drugs) and me not giving away all my wealth to help others.

Emphasis here on the COULD, dylan. These drugs COULD just as easily torture the takers and then kill them in a more swift and miserable fashion than otherwise.

You're being one-sided, and it's dishonest. Of course the FDA needs improvement; it's undoubtable that any organization set up in the real world in such a role would. But when you bandy about made-up claims like the one you made, I may as well do the same and say they saved 100 million lives. Every year. Just by preventing what crap they do prevent from reaching the market and causing harm. See how unfounded, made up, one-sided criticism works?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 7:04:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 6:47:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/12/2013 6:41:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:47:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There is good reason to think the FDA, overall, has caused 4-8 million deaths since 1962 by delaying drugs, or preventing drugs from ever being developed that would help people. This disgusting murderous bureau needs to be put to an end.

contrarian filth like this starts to piss me off after a while...

If you don't precede your big "shocking" attack with some solid evidence and analysis, then you should probably keep that attack restrained in the intellectual cesspool from which it spawned.

But then I'd miss out on little rants like these.

The content of ike's post is right, though--you're going to have to do better than "there's good reason to believe X" to persuade anyone. If drugs were delayed because of ongoing clinical trials, for example, how could you know that the drugs would have helped anyone? I mean, something could be touted as a cure for cancer, but that's as little reason to speed it out to market as someone saying a bill will "protect the middle class/seniors/women" is a reason to support it. Without knowing the specific wording and impacts of the policy--or, appropriately, the results of double-blind, placebo-controlled trials--you can't say with any confidence that lives would have been saved by bypassing tests.

It's not to say that these drugs shouldn't be generally available, or that clinical trials will always be without flaws or ulterior motives--some people will be killed by red tape, others will be killed by snake oil. The world isn't fair, and your argument is essentially that we should get rid of the FDA because the universe doesn't always even the score. Institutions--governments, "consumer protection agencies", whatever you want--are not designed in such a way that they can always do what's situationally appropriate (the FDA cannot, for instance, pick and choose which drugs to put through their paces, even granting some discretionary authority to obstruct), and I don't think we'd be happy with procedures according to which regulators, private or public, conducted arbitrary "random screenings" of drugs as if they were airport passengers.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 7:05:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 6:59:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 6:50:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/12/2013 6:43:26 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/12/2013 6:04:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 5:26:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
OP needs to understand the distinction between killing and withholding aid. OP, how many people have you killed by not giving more of your income to cancer charities? I thought so, you disgusting murderer.

That's not exactly a fair comparison, he's not going around withholding chemo drugs.

He's withholding money that could be used to buy food, clothing, or shelter. I don't see a huge difference. In some sense that's even more basic.

There's a difference between the prevention of goods being exchanged that could save lives (drugs) and me not giving away all my wealth to help others.

Emphasis here on the COULD, dylan. These drugs COULD just as easily torture the takers and then kill them in a more swift and miserable fashion than otherwise.

You're being one-sided, and it's dishonest. Of course the FDA needs improvement; it's undoubtable that any organization set up in the real world in such a role would. But when you bandy about made-up claims like the one you made, I may as well do the same and say they saved 100 million lives. Every year. Just by preventing what crap they do prevent from reaching the market and causing harm. See how unfounded, made up, one-sided criticism works?

It's not hard to see how an organization, such as the FDA, could make a habit of withholding all drugs for longer than necesseey because it's politically profitable to do so (much worse to approve a drug that causes harm than to withhold a drug that would save lives).