FDA Kills

#1
n_huffhines

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
88,253
Likes
53,209
#1
The FDA should not be allowed to ban drugs. If they want to test them and give their seal of approval that’s fine, but the fact that they can ban drugs costs us countless lives. When the FDA approved beta blockers they bragged that this drug would save 10,000 lives per year. The problem is it took 10 years for the FDA to approve the drug. If my math is right that means 100,000 people died waiting for this drug. It’s a case of the seen vs the unseen.

We’d be better off without the FDA. If a drug is harmful it doesn’t take much time to pull it off the shelves. Ephedra killed like 2 people before it was off the market.
 
Last edited:
#7
#7
FDA serves a purpose, but its government, therefore corrupt.

They banned the sale of sassafrass tea. Claims that its a carcinogen. Lol! Southerners have been drinking it for 200 yrs, natives even longer. Sassafrass bad! Tobacco? As long as there's a label.

FDA is like any other monopoly. Private sector would do a better job.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#8
#8
my point is the FDA messed up. What if the FDA didnt exist? We would have 100s of Vioxx.

PS: I guess I know 1 of your 2 that died from taking Ephedra
 
#10
#10
Let the FDA do their tests and submit information and recommendations to the public. Let us and our doctors decide what medicines we are not comfortable in taking. If I'm a dying cancer patient, I don't really care if death is a possible side effect.
 
#12
#12
VolsNSkinsFan said:
my point is the FDA messed up. What if the FDA didnt exist? We would have 100s of Vioxx.

PS: I guess I know 1 of your 2 that died from taking Ephedra
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that? You think pharmaceutical companies want to get destroyed in litigation and the FDA is the only thing holding them back from selling us snake oil that kills?

More than 1 or 2 deaths from Ephedra. I'm glad to get some clarification on that:

Here they claim it was linked (not causal) to 100 deaths. Crazy you knew one of them.

FOXNews.com - Bush Administration Bans Ephedra - U.S. & World
 
#13
#13
lumberjack4 said:
Let the FDA do their tests and submit information and recommendations to the public. Let us and our doctors decide what medicines we are not comfortable in taking. If I'm a dying cancer patient, I don't really care if death is a possible side effect.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I am advocating.

If you can afford to wait for the FDA to approve a drug, it's great that you have that luxury and I recommend you wait.

If you are dying right now and there is a drug that can potentially save you, then you don't have the luxury of waiting. The FDA is killing you.

Solution: Do not give the FDA power over my life and death decisions.
 
#14
#14
Because we would have small biotech companies coming out of the woodwork producing crappy/fake drugs, selling their stock to bagholders, and when they were done unloading stock and drugs to idiots and their swiss bank accounts were full, they would just flee the country


Ever heard of Snake Oil Salesman?
 
#15
#15
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Because we would have small biotech companies coming out of the woodwork producing crappy/fake drugs, selling their stock to bagholders, and when they were done unloading stock and drugs to idiots and their swiss bank accounts were full, they would just flee the country


Ever heard of Snake Oil Salesman?
Click to expand...

Competition would negate that. Companies would have a record of reliability. Still would find corruption, but on a far smaller scale than government monopoly.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#16
#16
So you want to tell me that we wouldnt have fly-by-night companies, producing drugs that contain the "fountain of youth", and that they wouldnt be bought by anyone because they are not crediable companies?
 
#17
#17
I understand and empathize with the sentiment, but putting this to practice is extremely difficult and dangerous. Can you imagine the number of companies that would straight up be taking advantage of others and potentially killing them? I wish the regulatory process were more efficient, but it has a place IMO.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#18
#18
bamacheats said:
Competition would negate that. Companies would have a record of reliability. Still would find corruption, but on a far smaller scale than government monopoly.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Pharmaceuticals don't really sell by their manufacturer's brand. Do you know which company has made all of the medicine's you have taken when not over the counter?

Have a bad drug and kill people, just change your name and try again.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#19
#19
TennTradition said:
Pharmaceuticals don't really sell by their manufacturer's brand. Do you know which company has made all of the medicine's you have taken when not over the counter?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This could possibly be caused by the FDA's role, though. No need to know which brand is selling what when you know that the FDA must have approved of the medicine. It would probably change if FDA approval was not mandatory; consumers would then look either for an FDA approved drug (if they so care) or for a brand they trust (as in many other parts of the economy).
 
#20
#20
TennTradition said:
I understand and empathize with the sentiment, but putting this to practice is extremely difficult and dangerous. Can you imagine the number of companies that would straight up be taking advantage of others and potentially killing them? I wish the regulatory process were more efficient, but it has a place IMO.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

but I thought the government was all about efficiency? That's what gsgibbs would have us believe.
 
#21
#21
therealUT said:
This could possibly be caused by the FDA's role, though. No need to know which brand is selling what when you know that the FDA must have approved of the medicine. It would probably change if FDA approval was not mandatory; consumers would then look either for an FDA approved drug (if they so care) or for a brand they trust (as in many other parts of the economy).
Click to expand...

or a brand that is making insane and outlandish claims and preying on people looking for a quick fix
 
#22
#22
TennTradition said:
Pharmaceuticals don't really sell by their manufacturer's brand. Do you know which company has made all of the medicine's you have taken when not over the counter?

Have a bad drug and kill people, just change your name and try again.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yes. I work in the medical field with congestive heart failure patients. I'm familiar with pharmaceuticals.
It would have problems for sure, but nothing like the FDA. FDA's two major gaping holes inviting corruption are 1) its government, 2) its a monopoly.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#24
#24
VolsNSkinsFan said:
or a brand that is making insane and outlandish claims and preying on people looking for a quick fix
Click to expand...

Only start ups would try that. It would require so much money to fund a start up that its not likely to find investors that would fund that business model.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#25
#25
therealUT said:
This could possibly be caused by the FDA's role, though. No need to know which brand is selling what when you know that the FDA must have approved of the medicine. It would probably change if FDA approval was not mandatory; consumers would then look either for an FDA approved drug (if they so care) or for a brand they trust (as in many other parts of the economy).
Click to expand...

Valid point. It doesn't provide protection from name-changers and those who are dangerous, but does offer name recognition for those who we think we can trust. The problem, though, is those companies are the ones that will be slow themselves to protect their names. The deluge of products to cure your ailments will come from Johnny-come-latelies that have little to lose.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top