Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The FDA is inherently flawed

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:06:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
One of the FDA's main purposes is to protect citizens from potentially harmful medications. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the FDA requires that medications go through extensive testing before they reach consumers. The problem is that the FDA has no incentive to think in utilitarian terms...their only concern is staying out of the news. So there's a conflict of interest between the FDA and the people they're supposed to protect. I.e., the FDA is biased toward being on the extreme safe side, even when that approach ends up costing lives. If the FDA approves a drug that turns out to have dangerous side effects, they receive a lot of backlash, and possibly even a change of management. If they delay a drug for many years unnecessarily (which they do as a matter of routine), and it turns out to save or improve millions of lives, it doesn't really make the news, because it's hard for people to get angry over something that could have been, as it's too abstract. The FDA doesn't actually care about the full ramifications of its policies. In other words, they're not really out to achieve a balance between safety and the relief of suffering, they are only interested in maintaining a good reputation, which means avoiding the release of dangerous drugs at any cost. Therefore, we should create an independent organization to constantly investigate whether the FDA is doing more harm than good, or if that is too difficult a task, just abolish the FDA altogether. It may seem like a crazy idea, but you have to remember that pharmaceutical companies are already very motivated not to sell potentially dangerous drugs, because every time they do, their customers lose faith in the company's ability to implement adequate safety protocols, plus the company may be subject to a class action lawsuit which can cost billions.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:43:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:06:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
One of the FDA's main purposes is to protect citizens from potentially harmful medications. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the FDA requires that medications go through extensive testing before they reach consumers. The problem is that the FDA has no incentive to think in utilitarian terms...their only concern is staying out of the news. So there's a conflict of interest between the FDA and the people they're supposed to protect. I.e., the FDA is biased toward being on the extreme safe side, even when that approach ends up costing lives. If the FDA approves a drug that turns out to have dangerous side effects, they receive a lot of backlash, and possibly even a change of management. If they delay a drug for many years unnecessarily (which they do as a matter of routine), and it turns out to save or improve millions of lives, it doesn't really make the news, because it's hard for people to get angry over something that could have been, as it's too abstract. The FDA doesn't actually care about the full ramifications of its policies. In other words, they're not really out to achieve a balance between safety and the relief of suffering, they are only interested in maintaining a good reputation, which means avoiding the release of dangerous drugs at any cost. Therefore, we should create an independent organization to constantly investigate whether the FDA is doing more harm than good, or if that is too difficult a task, just abolish the FDA altogether. It may seem like a crazy idea, but you have to remember that pharmaceutical companies are already very motivated not to sell potentially dangerous drugs, because every time they do, their customers lose faith in the company's ability to implement adequate safety protocols, plus the company may be subject to a class action lawsuit which can cost billions.

Abolishing the FDA is such a low priority when most of our drugs are foreignly cloned.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:15:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The FDA, federal reserve and department of education, among other things should be abolished. It's a bunch of Undemocratic institutions to take power from people and put it in the hands of a scientific dictatorship.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 6:04:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 5:15:05 PM, Wylted wrote:
The FDA, federal reserve and department of education, among other things should be abolished. It's a bunch of Undemocratic institutions to take power from people and put it in the hands of a scientific dictatorship.

Fed: bruh, what would control the money supply? The federal reserve kept inflation at lower levels than the Bretton Woods system and creates stability when compared to the gold standard. By a factor of 20. Read my debate with HG on a gold standard.

Plus we have many differences on the fed. I bet you oppose QE, low interest rates, etc.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 6:43:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 6:04:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:15:05 PM, Wylted wrote:
The FDA, federal reserve and department of education, among other things should be abolished. It's a bunch of Undemocratic institutions to take power from people and put it in the hands of a scientific dictatorship.

Fed: bruh, what would control the money supply? The federal reserve kept inflation at lower levels than the Bretton Woods system and creates stability when compared to the gold standard. By a factor of 20. Read my debate with HG on a gold standard.

Plus we have many differences on the fed. I bet you oppose QE, low interest rates, etc.

I think the government keeps their hands off the money supply. A gold standard would be a good compromise, but the money supply has always been fine when the government is hands off. Plus in places with central banks, they always seem to go into hyperinflation just like the German Marc did, where people were burning them to keep warm and they lost all value.

Why are people always looking for stability and predictability anyway. That's a good way to maintain the status quo and keep the rich rich and the poor poor, but some instability would see more shifts in fortune.

Also look at what happened since America left the gold standard. We went from the average family only needing one income to survive to now mom and dad are both forced to work in order to support the family. Pretty soon, we'll need 3 incomes to support a family at this rate.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 9:01:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 6:43:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/26/2015 6:04:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:15:05 PM, Wylted wrote:
The FDA, federal reserve and department of education, among other things should be abolished. It's a bunch of Undemocratic institutions to take power from people and put it in the hands of a scientific dictatorship.

Fed: bruh, what would control the money supply? The federal reserve kept inflation at lower levels than the Bretton Woods system and creates stability when compared to the gold standard. By a factor of 20. Read my debate with HG on a gold standard.

Plus we have many differences on the fed. I bet you oppose QE, low interest rates, etc.

I think the government keeps their hands off the money supply.

So who would control it?

A gold standard would be a good compromise,

No, it isn't. IT causes deflation and pretty much every economist and study has shown that deflation hurts the economy.

but the money supply has always been fine when the government is hands off.

When was the money supply not controlled by the government in the modern era?

Plus in places with central banks, they always seem to go into hyperinflation just like the German Marc did, where people were burning them to keep warm and they lost all value.

This is simply untrue. The reasons the Germans had inflation is because the debt they had was so high because of a stupid treaty which caused WW2. I don't feel like spelling the palace name correctly, so it is just "a stupid treaty" in my mind :P. Their massive debt means inflation reduced the worth of the debt. But, of course, this had downsides. Central banks, now run by economists, oppose hyperinflation. So they don't do it.

If you actually look at the facts, central bank independence actually *reduces* the inflation rate (https://research.stlouisfed.org...). The reason? Central bankers do not want hyperinflation, so they do what is best for the economy. Hyperinflation is not in the interest of the economy, though a low amount of inflation is often a good thing (1-3%). If you have a central bank follow Rand Paul's rules, the congress tends to push for inflation because it reduces the worth of the debt. That paper pretty much shows you that bankers tend to support *low* moderate levels of inflation. Only when either (1) politicians get in the way, or (2) you back your currency by some dumb object (e.g. gold) will you get significant inflation or deflation swings.


Why are people always looking for stability and predictability anyway. That's a good way to maintain the status quo and keep the rich rich and the poor poor, but some instability would see more shifts in fortune.

Uh, wut? Instability makes everyone poorer. We all want economic *growth* because that makes *everyone* wealthier. We do not want hyper anything in monetary policy because it leads to that: instability. Markets like stability. You and I are both capitalist pigs, we both want the market to work cause fvck socialism. If markets are subjected to instability, imagine this scenario:

You and I are businessmen. You have a deal for me. In 10 years, you claim, we will both make 50 million dollars. I get a hard on, but then think a bit: wtf is the central bank doing (or, in your world, a lack of a central bank) to the money supply. Last month inflation was 10%, now it is -5%. You cannot make such a promise. I weigh the costs and benefits. Since the future is uncertain, and my profits may be positive or negative (and, I mean, by a lot) I might just say no. Businessmen always will be at a risk, of course, but there is no reason to make it 10x worse. That would reduce investment and lead to reduced growth. We all get poorer.

Stability means growth. That means poor people benefit. In India, for example, economic growth lifted 200 million people out of poverty and actually reduced inequality (http://www.amazon.com...). [good book, haven't finished it yet] So stable monetary policy =/= same people stay there. It actually means poor people become rich and the rich people can be rich or poor. I mean, no one is destined to be either in a true market economy. A stable inflation rate (and, honestly, NGDP targeting) could easily increase living standards. For everyone. I don't know where you got this idea that instability was good XD


Also look at what happened since America left the gold standard. We went from the average family only needing one income to survive to now mom and dad are both forced to work in order to support the family. Pretty soon, we'll need 3 incomes to support a family at this rate.

(1) Minimum wage laws.
(2) Regulations
(3) Taxes
= have made it worse

In fact, a family can still work on one income. Inflation also means wages tend to rise as well. The reason two incomes now exist is because women are more likely to work. This is common in educated households--which is why, in part, inequality has increased according to Mankiw (see profile pic... of course many other factors). Also, what you are saying is weird because wages have increased over the last 50 years (http://www.heritage.org...). That is inflation adjusted. So individual *and* household incomes have increased, not decreased as you stated. This is plain wrong. People just want to be more wealthy so two people work.

And in the 60s people often had to have the whole family working (e.g. Farmers). My grandpa, who ended up a CEO of an oil company, had his dad work in the Postal Service and himself and all his siblings ran a farm. Some people today need two incomes just as people back then did. But wages have increased, not decreased, so I don't know wtf you are talking about.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 11:22:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 6:43:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/26/2015 6:04:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:15:05 PM, Wylted wrote:
The FDA, federal reserve and department of education, among other things should be abolished. It's a bunch of Undemocratic institutions to take power from people and put it in the hands of a scientific dictatorship.

Fed: bruh, what would control the money supply? The federal reserve kept inflation at lower levels than the Bretton Woods system and creates stability when compared to the gold standard. By a factor of 20. Read my debate with HG on a gold standard.

Plus we have many differences on the fed. I bet you oppose QE, low interest rates, etc.

I think the government keeps their hands off the money supply. A gold standard would be a good compromise, but the money supply has always been fine when the government is hands off. Plus in places with central banks, they always seem to go into hyperinflation just like the German Marc did, where people were burning them to keep warm and they lost all value.

Why are people always looking for stability and predictability anyway. That's a good way to maintain the status quo and keep the rich rich and the poor poor, but some instability would see more shifts in fortune.

Also look at what happened since America left the gold standard. We went from the average family only needing one income to survive to now mom and dad are both forced to work in order to support the family. Pretty soon, we'll need 3 incomes to support a family at this rate.

The gold standard, causes fear and angst in the hearts of macro economists, and supporters of governmental economic controls. Their greatest fear is falling prices, which to macro economists is the source of all evils, that is unemployment, and people make decisions to benefit themselves, everything that is terrible to the agents of government control. Price deflation renders all of a central banks tools useless, thus removing governmental monetary controls from an economic system.

Another issue the agents of control have with deflation is that macroeconomic measurements become useless. Macroeconomic theory requires money to change hands to measure economic growth. To a macro economist, one person's spending is another's income. If a person's real wealth can increase without being measured in GDP calculations, macroeconomics becomes useless.

Macro economists are not interested is creation of real wealth for people, their goal is only to get money to change hands so that it can be measured in GDP calculations. Their policies ideas are to keep inflating currency so that people must spend it now while the currency has some value.

This immorality will someday come to an end.

Deflation = personal liberty
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:06:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
One of the FDA's main purposes is to protect citizens from potentially harmful medications. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the FDA requires that medications go through extensive testing before they reach consumers. The problem is that the FDA has no incentive to think in utilitarian terms...their only concern is staying out of the news. So there's a conflict of interest between the FDA and the people they're supposed to protect. I.e., the FDA is biased toward being on the extreme safe side, even when that approach ends up costing lives. If the FDA approves a drug that turns out to have dangerous side effects, they receive a lot of backlash, and possibly even a change of management. If they delay a drug for many years unnecessarily (which they do as a matter of routine), and it turns out to save or improve millions of lives, it doesn't really make the news, because it's hard for people to get angry over something that could have been, as it's too abstract. The FDA doesn't actually care about the full ramifications of its policies. In other words, they're not really out to achieve a balance between safety and the relief of suffering, they are only interested in maintaining a good reputation, which means avoiding the release of dangerous drugs at any cost. Therefore, we should create an independent organization to constantly investigate whether the FDA is doing more harm than good, or if that is too difficult a task, just abolish the FDA altogether. It may seem like a crazy idea, but you have to remember that pharmaceutical companies are already very motivated not to sell potentially dangerous drugs, because every time they do, their customers lose faith in the company's ability to implement adequate safety protocols, plus the company may be subject to a class action lawsuit which can cost billions.

You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right? The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products. Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 6:36:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:


You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right? The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products. Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?

Would you at least consider that the FDA is outdated in the age of instant media and extreme lawyer saturation? (some places have 1 lawyer per 100 people).
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 6:37:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 6:04:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:15:05 PM, Wylted wrote:
The FDA, federal reserve and department of education, among other things should be abolished. It's a bunch of Undemocratic institutions to take power from people and put it in the hands of a scientific dictatorship.

Fed: bruh, what would control the money supply? The federal reserve kept inflation at lower levels than the Bretton Woods system and creates stability when compared to the gold standard. By a factor of 20. Read my debate with HG on a gold standard.

Plus we have many differences on the fed. I bet you oppose QE, low interest rates, etc.

I agree.
How do you feel about the Department of Energy?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 8:13:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 6:37:47 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/26/2015 6:04:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:15:05 PM, Wylted wrote:
The FDA, federal reserve and department of education, among other things should be abolished. It's a bunch of Undemocratic institutions to take power from people and put it in the hands of a scientific dictatorship.

Fed: bruh, what would control the money supply? The federal reserve kept inflation at lower levels than the Bretton Woods system and creates stability when compared to the gold standard. By a factor of 20. Read my debate with HG on a gold standard.

Plus we have many differences on the fed. I bet you oppose QE, low interest rates, etc.

I agree.
How do you feel about the Department of Energy?

I don't know enough about it, but I'd probably abolish it
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 10:45:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 6:36:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:


You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right? The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products. Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?

Would you at least consider that the FDA is outdated in the age of instant media and extreme lawyer saturation? (some places have 1 lawyer per 100 people).

Given that the FDA is a group that coordinates recalls and gets the message out on that "instant media" yet I doubt you know that blue bell ice cream is currently having a recall. "instant media" implies that all information is available to everyone at any time, but that's only true if the person is paying attention, which the majority of Americans do not. So it's up to the FDA and other consumer groups to monitor goods for safety and get the word out. You want to talk about lawyer saturation? How is an individual suppose to sue a corporation that has an army of lawyers?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 12:48:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 4:06:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
One of the FDA's main purposes is to protect citizens from potentially harmful medications. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the FDA requires that medications go through extensive testing before they reach consumers. The problem is that the FDA has no incentive to think in utilitarian terms...their only concern is staying out of the news. So there's a conflict of interest between the FDA and the people they're supposed to protect. I.e., the FDA is biased toward being on the extreme safe side, even when that approach ends up costing lives. If the FDA approves a drug that turns out to have dangerous side effects, they receive a lot of backlash, and possibly even a change of management. If they delay a drug for many years unnecessarily (which they do as a matter of routine), and it turns out to save or improve millions of lives, it doesn't really make the news, because it's hard for people to get angry over something that could have been, as it's too abstract. The FDA doesn't actually care about the full ramifications of its policies. In other words, they're not really out to achieve a balance between safety and the relief of suffering, they are only interested in maintaining a good reputation, which means avoiding the release of dangerous drugs at any cost. Therefore, we should create an independent organization to constantly investigate whether the FDA is doing more harm than good, or if that is too difficult a task, just abolish the FDA altogether. It may seem like a crazy idea, but you have to remember that pharmaceutical companies are already very motivated not to sell potentially dangerous drugs, because every time they do, their customers lose faith in the company's ability to implement adequate safety protocols, plus the company may be subject to a class action lawsuit which can cost billions.

You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right?

Yes. I tried to make that clear with the first sentence of the OP.

The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products.

I'm totally fine with them doing that.

Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 3:26:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 12:48:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 4:06:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
One of the FDA's main purposes is to protect citizens from potentially harmful medications. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the FDA requires that medications go through extensive testing before they reach consumers. The problem is that the FDA has no incentive to think in utilitarian terms...their only concern is staying out of the news. So there's a conflict of interest between the FDA and the people they're supposed to protect. I.e., the FDA is biased toward being on the extreme safe side, even when that approach ends up costing lives. If the FDA approves a drug that turns out to have dangerous side effects, they receive a lot of backlash, and possibly even a change of management. If they delay a drug for many years unnecessarily (which they do as a matter of routine), and it turns out to save or improve millions of lives, it doesn't really make the news, because it's hard for people to get angry over something that could have been, as it's too abstract. The FDA doesn't actually care about the full ramifications of its policies. In other words, they're not really out to achieve a balance between safety and the relief of suffering, they are only interested in maintaining a good reputation, which means avoiding the release of dangerous drugs at any cost. Therefore, we should create an independent organization to constantly investigate whether the FDA is doing more harm than good, or if that is too difficult a task, just abolish the FDA altogether. It may seem like a crazy idea, but you have to remember that pharmaceutical companies are already very motivated not to sell potentially dangerous drugs, because every time they do, their customers lose faith in the company's ability to implement adequate safety protocols, plus the company may be subject to a class action lawsuit which can cost billions.

You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right?

Yes. I tried to make that clear with the first sentence of the OP.

And then all the other sentences talked about pharma with the conclusion of either making an over sight committee or abolishing it all together.

The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products.

I'm totally fine with them doing that.

And in order to do this they need to have the regulatory powers they currently have. If anything the FDA needs more money and more scrutiny should be placed on the close relationship FDA has with producers.

Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 3:26:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 8:13:16 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:37:47 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/26/2015 6:04:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:15:05 PM, Wylted wrote:
The FDA, federal reserve and department of education, among other things should be abolished. It's a bunch of Undemocratic institutions to take power from people and put it in the hands of a scientific dictatorship.

Fed: bruh, what would control the money supply? The federal reserve kept inflation at lower levels than the Bretton Woods system and creates stability when compared to the gold standard. By a factor of 20. Read my debate with HG on a gold standard.

Plus we have many differences on the fed. I bet you oppose QE, low interest rates, etc.

I agree.
How do you feel about the Department of Energy?

I don't know enough about it, but I'd probably abolish it

Its main focus per their website stated vision is to prohibit energy production and consumption.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 3:31:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 10:45:16 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:36:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:


You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right? The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products. Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?

Would you at least consider that the FDA is outdated in the age of instant media and extreme lawyer saturation? (some places have 1 lawyer per 100 people).

Given that the FDA is a group that coordinates recalls and gets the message out on that "instant media" yet I doubt you know that blue bell ice cream is currently having a recall. "instant media" implies that all information is available to everyone at any time, but that's only true if the person is paying attention, which the majority of Americans do not. So it's up to the FDA and other consumer groups to monitor goods for safety and get the word out. You want to talk about lawyer saturation? How is an individual suppose to sue a corporation that has an army of lawyers?

Legions of lawyers didn't stop Erin Brockovich. Because lawyers have contingency paid motivation, the average consumer victim also has access to the best lawyers.

You mention other consumer groups. Why can't they do that job instead of the FDA?

Most of what we have now with massive access to lawyers and instant access to media makes the FDA redundant, inefficient, and obsolete.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 3:37:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It doesn't matter though at the moment, because we still invent more drugs than any other country and produce massive amounts of food for the fattest people in the world despite the hampering efforts of FDA.

FDA is not a priority for reform or abolishment.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 4:17:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 3:26:11 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 12:48:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 4:06:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
One of the FDA's main purposes is to protect citizens from potentially harmful medications. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the FDA requires that medications go through extensive testing before they reach consumers. The problem is that the FDA has no incentive to think in utilitarian terms...their only concern is staying out of the news. So there's a conflict of interest between the FDA and the people they're supposed to protect. I.e., the FDA is biased toward being on the extreme safe side, even when that approach ends up costing lives. If the FDA approves a drug that turns out to have dangerous side effects, they receive a lot of backlash, and possibly even a change of management. If they delay a drug for many years unnecessarily (which they do as a matter of routine), and it turns out to save or improve millions of lives, it doesn't really make the news, because it's hard for people to get angry over something that could have been, as it's too abstract. The FDA doesn't actually care about the full ramifications of its policies. In other words, they're not really out to achieve a balance between safety and the relief of suffering, they are only interested in maintaining a good reputation, which means avoiding the release of dangerous drugs at any cost. Therefore, we should create an independent organization to constantly investigate whether the FDA is doing more harm than good, or if that is too difficult a task, just abolish the FDA altogether. It may seem like a crazy idea, but you have to remember that pharmaceutical companies are already very motivated not to sell potentially dangerous drugs, because every time they do, their customers lose faith in the company's ability to implement adequate safety protocols, plus the company may be subject to a class action lawsuit which can cost billions.

You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right?

Yes. I tried to make that clear with the first sentence of the OP.

And then all the other sentences talked about pharma with the conclusion of either making an over sight committee or abolishing it all together.


Yeah, I guess that was unclear. I only meant abolishing that aspect of the FDA.

The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products.

I'm totally fine with them doing that.

And in order to do this they need to have the regulatory powers they currently have. If anything the FDA needs more money and more scrutiny should be placed on the close relationship FDA has with producers.


That makes no sense. The FDA could easily report what goes into drugs without getting in the way.

Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 4:24:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"But the FDA makes us all - in the words of Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute - "silent victims" due to "errors of omission." We are being deprived of life-saving drugs because it is intrinsic to the FDA to stall approval.

Some of the wasted approval time is just more government bureaucratic nonsense.

Even the current FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg conceded before Congress, "The FDA is relying on 20th century regulatory science to evaluate 21st century medical products."

But the real truth is more one of human nature. As Mr. Kazman points out, the most devastating problem to an FDA regulator is not some silent death in Kansas due to lack of a new cardiac drug, but rather injured patients lined up before a congressional committee testifying about a drug that was passed.

As a variant on the principle that if you do nothing you can never be wrong, FDA regulators' self-interest is best served by passing the fewest drugs possible. During one 10-year period, not one new cardiac drug was approved - and this from the world's leading pharmaceutical industries.

So, the next time you hear an FDA honcho at a press conference bragging how they will be saving 35,000 lives each year with the new cardiac drug they just passed, remember the 35,000 people who died each year waiting 15 years for that FDA approval."
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 5:46:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@16k, I'm saying that money started out as something completely controlled by the people, and when it was completely controlled by the people, hyper inflation never happened.

Can you list one example of hyper inflation without a central bank?

Also, we had some form of gold standard until the 70s and these fearful statements never came to fruition. There wasn't massive deflation, looting, rioting etc.. Things were actually okay, everybody seemed middle class one income families who were happy seemingly really happy with life.

Even if I am romanticizing the past (particularly the 50s), the truth is, things still weren't bad then. The social problems and what not you can't blame on the economy, and I'd argue they were worse now.

My main question is does hyper inflation occur in completely decentralized currencies such as how monetation worked when money was a naturally occurring thing? Or is it something that only ever happens with a decentralized monetation such as with central banks or governments controlling the money?

Problems like the one occurring with the German Marc don't seem to occur with decentralized economies.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 7:49:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 3:31:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2015 10:45:16 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:36:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:


You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right? The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products. Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?

Would you at least consider that the FDA is outdated in the age of instant media and extreme lawyer saturation? (some places have 1 lawyer per 100 people).

Given that the FDA is a group that coordinates recalls and gets the message out on that "instant media" yet I doubt you know that blue bell ice cream is currently having a recall. "instant media" implies that all information is available to everyone at any time, but that's only true if the person is paying attention, which the majority of Americans do not. So it's up to the FDA and other consumer groups to monitor goods for safety and get the word out. You want to talk about lawyer saturation? How is an individual suppose to sue a corporation that has an army of lawyers?

Legions of lawyers didn't stop Erin Brockovich. Because lawyers have contingency paid motivation, the average consumer victim also has access to the best lawyers.

Not everyone is so lucky.

You mention other consumer groups. Why can't they do that job instead of the FDA?

Because they dont have the infrastructure, funding, broad expertise or influence of the FDA.

Most of what we have now with massive access to lawyers and instant access to media makes the FDA redundant, inefficient, and obsolete.

I don't think you know just how important the FDA is and has been historically.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 7:59:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 7:49:00 PM, Bennett91 wrote:


I don't think you know just how important the FDA is and has been historically.

If the FDA is obsolete, it IS history.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 8:00:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 4:17:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/27/2015 3:26:11 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 12:48:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 4:06:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
One of the FDA's main purposes is to protect citizens from potentially harmful medications. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the FDA requires that medications go through extensive testing before they reach consumers. The problem is that the FDA has no incentive to think in utilitarian terms...their only concern is staying out of the news. So there's a conflict of interest between the FDA and the people they're supposed to protect. I.e., the FDA is biased toward being on the extreme safe side, even when that approach ends up costing lives. If the FDA approves a drug that turns out to have dangerous side effects, they receive a lot of backlash, and possibly even a change of management. If they delay a drug for many years unnecessarily (which they do as a matter of routine), and it turns out to save or improve millions of lives, it doesn't really make the news, because it's hard for people to get angry over something that could have been, as it's too abstract. The FDA doesn't actually care about the full ramifications of its policies. In other words, they're not really out to achieve a balance between safety and the relief of suffering, they are only interested in maintaining a good reputation, which means avoiding the release of dangerous drugs at any cost. Therefore, we should create an independent organization to constantly investigate whether the FDA is doing more harm than good, or if that is too difficult a task, just abolish the FDA altogether. It may seem like a crazy idea, but you have to remember that pharmaceutical companies are already very motivated not to sell potentially dangerous drugs, because every time they do, their customers lose faith in the company's ability to implement adequate safety protocols, plus the company may be subject to a class action lawsuit which can cost billions.

You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right?

Yes. I tried to make that clear with the first sentence of the OP.

And then all the other sentences talked about pharma with the conclusion of either making an over sight committee or abolishing it all together.

Yeah, I guess that was unclear. I only meant abolishing that aspect of the FDA.

But it's still important that the FDA does it's work. With more funding it may be able to go faster, but there needs to be some institution that that can hold pharma accountable and can guarantee the people that the product they are selling lives up to its claims. If the was a drug put out on the market that caused extreme adverse reactions the FDA would get throttled, that's why they are slow ans meticulous. It may save more lives to speed up the process but it also puts more people in danger.

The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products.

I'm totally fine with them doing that.

And in order to do this they need to have the regulatory powers they currently have. If anything the FDA needs more money and more scrutiny should be placed on the close relationship FDA has with producers.


That makes no sense. The FDA could easily report what goes into drugs without getting in the way.

How? They'll need to send people to the factory, check ingredients lists, make sure human trials are done scientifically and a whole bunch of other stuff they do to make the FDA seal of approval a trust-able guarantee.

Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 8:03:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 7:49:00 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 3:31:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2015 10:45:16 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:36:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:


You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right? The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products. Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?

Would you at least consider that the FDA is outdated in the age of instant media and extreme lawyer saturation? (some places have 1 lawyer per 100 people).

Given that the FDA is a group that coordinates recalls and gets the message out on that "instant media" yet I doubt you know that blue bell ice cream is currently having a recall. "instant media" implies that all information is available to everyone at any time, but that's only true if the person is paying attention, which the majority of Americans do not. So it's up to the FDA and other consumer groups to monitor goods for safety and get the word out. You want to talk about lawyer saturation? How is an individual suppose to sue a corporation that has an army of lawyers?

Legions of lawyers didn't stop Erin Brockovich. Because lawyers have contingency paid motivation, the average consumer victim also has access to the best lawyers.

Not everyone is so lucky.

Most are. Why do you think the big lawyers try to settle all the time? Because they always lose if they do not of course. You ask any CEO and he would rather pay a simple government fine than get hauled into court to pay outrageous windfalls to the victims. That's a huge force, don't downplay it with "not everyone is so lucky"
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 8:06:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 7:59:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2015 7:49:00 PM, Bennett91 wrote:


I don't think you know just how important the FDA is and has been historically.

If the FDA is obsolete, it IS history.

I don't think you know why the FDA is important.

Why pharma costs are high: http://www.forbes.com...
Here's a pbs book review of a boo that supports the FDA: http://www.pbs.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 8:08:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 8:03:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2015 7:49:00 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 3:31:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2015 10:45:16 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:36:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:


You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right? The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products. Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?

Would you at least consider that the FDA is outdated in the age of instant media and extreme lawyer saturation? (some places have 1 lawyer per 100 people).

Given that the FDA is a group that coordinates recalls and gets the message out on that "instant media" yet I doubt you know that blue bell ice cream is currently having a recall. "instant media" implies that all information is available to everyone at any time, but that's only true if the person is paying attention, which the majority of Americans do not. So it's up to the FDA and other consumer groups to monitor goods for safety and get the word out. You want to talk about lawyer saturation? How is an individual suppose to sue a corporation that has an army of lawyers?

Legions of lawyers didn't stop Erin Brockovich. Because lawyers have contingency paid motivation, the average consumer victim also has access to the best lawyers.

Not everyone is so lucky.

Most are. Why do you think the big lawyers try to settle all the time? Because they always lose if they do not of course. You ask any CEO and he would rather pay a simple government fine than get hauled into court to pay outrageous windfalls to the victims. That's a huge force, don't downplay it with "not everyone is so lucky"

Victems don't have to settle if they have really been injured. They settle because they know they'll have a harder time winning. Corporations settle because they dont want the injuries they've cause to go public with a trial.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 9:36:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:06:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
One of the FDA's main purposes is to protect citizens from potentially harmful medications. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the FDA requires that medications go through extensive testing before they reach consumers. The problem is that the FDA has no incentive to think in utilitarian terms...their only concern is staying out of the news. So there's a conflict of interest between the FDA and the people they're supposed to protect. I.e., the FDA is biased toward being on the extreme safe side, even when that approach ends up costing lives. If the FDA approves a drug that turns out to have dangerous side effects, they receive a lot of backlash, and possibly even a change of management. If they delay a drug for many years unnecessarily (which they do as a matter of routine), and it turns out to save or improve millions of lives, it doesn't really make the news, because it's hard for people to get angry over something that could have been, as it's too abstract. The FDA doesn't actually care about the full ramifications of its policies. In other words, they're not really out to achieve a balance between safety and the relief of suffering, they are only interested in maintaining a good reputation, which means avoiding the release of dangerous drugs at any cost. Therefore, we should create an independent organization to constantly investigate whether the FDA is doing more harm than good, or if that is too difficult a task, just abolish the FDA altogether. It may seem like a crazy idea, but you have to remember that pharmaceutical companies are already very motivated not to sell potentially dangerous drugs, because every time they do, their customers lose faith in the company's ability to implement adequate safety protocols, plus the company may be subject to a class action lawsuit which can cost billions.

This is a crock. When you realize exactly how many phase 2 and 3 studies fail because the treatment does not show effectiveness over a placebo one quicky realizes that a reactive model that is settled in the courts would never work. What does a drug development company have to lose if the executives can bring a treatment to market, make millions and have no personal liability because they are under the corporate.

If there is no expectation that a treatment need to be proven to be effective before bringing to market then there is no way for an individual to prove ineffectiveness. We would basically turn the medical drug market into what we have in the suppliment market, a bunch of crap that does not do what it proclaims to do.

No responsible entity would advise eliminating the fda, expecting companies would be responsible or risk getting sued. An individual does not have the funds to run a double blind study to prove a company is putting out snake oil treatments.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 6:27:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 8:08:17 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 8:03:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2015 7:49:00 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 3:31:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2015 10:45:16 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:36:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:


You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right? The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products. Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?

Would you at least consider that the FDA is outdated in the age of instant media and extreme lawyer saturation? (some places have 1 lawyer per 100 people).

Given that the FDA is a group that coordinates recalls and gets the message out on that "instant media" yet I doubt you know that blue bell ice cream is currently having a recall. "instant media" implies that all information is available to everyone at any time, but that's only true if the person is paying attention, which the majority of Americans do not. So it's up to the FDA and other consumer groups to monitor goods for safety and get the word out. You want to talk about lawyer saturation? How is an individual suppose to sue a corporation that has an army of lawyers?

Legions of lawyers didn't stop Erin Brockovich. Because lawyers have contingency paid motivation, the average consumer victim also has access to the best lawyers.

Not everyone is so lucky.

Most are. Why do you think the big lawyers try to settle all the time? Because they always lose if they do not of course. You ask any CEO and he would rather pay a simple government fine than get hauled into court to pay outrageous windfalls to the victims. That's a huge force, don't downplay it with "not everyone is so lucky"

Victems don't have to settle if they have really been injured. They settle because they know they'll have a harder time winning. Corporations settle because they dont want the injuries they've cause to go public with a trial.

Don't mind me. I haven't been sleeping well lately with the non-stop pharma lawsuit infomercials running on my TV latenight.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 6:27:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 8:08:17 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 8:03:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2015 7:49:00 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 3:31:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2015 10:45:16 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:36:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/26/2015 11:45:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:


You do know the FDA does a lot more than pharma right? The FDA is still necessary to keep companies honest about what they put in their products. Do you know why the FDA was created by TR over a century ago?

Would you at least consider that the FDA is outdated in the age of instant media and extreme lawyer saturation? (some places have 1 lawyer per 100 people).

Given that the FDA is a group that coordinates recalls and gets the message out on that "instant media" yet I doubt you know that blue bell ice cream is currently having a recall. "instant media" implies that all information is available to everyone at any time, but that's only true if the person is paying attention, which the majority of Americans do not. So it's up to the FDA and other consumer groups to monitor goods for safety and get the word out. You want to talk about lawyer saturation? How is an individual suppose to sue a corporation that has an army of lawyers?

Legions of lawyers didn't stop Erin Brockovich. Because lawyers have contingency paid motivation, the average consumer victim also has access to the best lawyers.

Not everyone is so lucky.

Most are. Why do you think the big lawyers try to settle all the time? Because they always lose if they do not of course. You ask any CEO and he would rather pay a simple government fine than get hauled into court to pay outrageous windfalls to the victims. That's a huge force, don't downplay it with "not everyone is so lucky"

Victems don't have to settle if they have really been injured. They settle because they know they'll have a harder time winning. Corporations settle because they dont want the injuries they've cause to go public with a trial.

Don't mind me. I haven't been sleeping well lately with the non-stop pharma lawsuit infomercials running on my TV latenight.