http://www.objectivismonline.net/cgi-bin/tb.cgi/658
8/10/2007 6:53:05 PM
yet another overly-simplistic analysis from the Ayn Rand Institute, put forth by yet another fresh-faced and eager acolyte ready to change the world.look even the best plans can have unintended consequences, and yes the FDA might need some oversight or maybe even an overhaul. the anti-science agenda pushed by Bush cronies highly placed in scientific positions is downright depressing.but the last goddamn thing we need is an unregulated industry of food and drug manufacturers peddling their latest concoctions without the force of law to keep them from using industrial toxins as cheap fillers.have you even been paying attention to the rash of contaminated food and drug products lately?talk about your moonbats. what makes you Ayn Rand people think deregulation will magically allow benevolent corporations and entrepreneurs to produce their products while voluntarily caring for civil rights, public health, and environmental protections? because, I suppose, corporations will always favor the long term vision and larger common good over the short-term gain?
8/10/2007 7:44:43 PM
8/10/2007 7:59:00 PM
8/11/2007 1:51:26 AM
The purpose of the FDA is to support intellectual property based mechanisms of globalization and medical socialization by centralizing food systems and backing federal drug prohibitions while maintaining the facade that it is simply an apolitical food and drug safety regulator. The FDA is near the very center of American fascism. It has GOT to go.
8/11/2007 9:34:21 AM
8/11/2007 11:02:50 AM
hmm...lets not regulate drugslet anyone make whatever kind of drug they want towith the cheapest materials of the lowest quality (in fact, lets outsource all drugs to china where everything's cheap...not to mention has some sketchy water...)while not taking care to pay attention to how the drugs are manufacturedwithout conducting clinical trialswithout ensuring that they workand then lets allow people to use themthen who's responsible when many more people die from poorly made, unregulated drugs?drug companies would go under, there would be no drugs, people would suffer
8/11/2007 11:26:37 AM
8/11/2007 11:43:03 AM
^^um, isn't this happening now under the rule of the current FDA ? Many of the clinical trials are jokes, data manipulation is rampant. Besides, the drugs from other countries are not all unsafe, they just break the monopoly and overpricing of the US-producers. There are many drugs which have been sold in the US in recent history which have proven to be both unsafe and expensive, but they had FDA approval. So I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'd certainly rather see some sort of UL-type organization or organizations which could hold companies accountable w/o putting federal politics into the mix. What happens if the drug sold is bad? The same thing as now. We litigate the pants off that drug company.[Edited on August 11, 2007 at 11:52 AM. Reason : .type slow]
8/11/2007 11:51:56 AM
8/11/2007 12:18:48 PM
i kinda like the fda...i thought they made sure we get good drugs
8/11/2007 1:45:21 PM
8/11/2007 3:07:33 PM
8/11/2007 3:13:21 PM
And why exactly can't I may I not make the drugs myself?
8/11/2007 3:16:03 PM
you can try to make thembut i'd think twice about selling and distributing them
8/11/2007 3:21:25 PM
8/11/2007 3:33:24 PM
you can always buy a new houseits not so easy to just go out and buy a new body
8/11/2007 4:22:22 PM
Except for when you die in the fire or if you are electrocuted before the house burns.
8/11/2007 4:48:17 PM
The current system is designed to prevent accidental deaths, and it does so by killing lots of people on purpose. To get a drug approved, you must prove that it on average produces a smaller pile of bodies than not taking it. We do this by arranging trials, where we find lots of very similar people, divide them into two groups at random; one group gets the new drug, the other group gets a fake drug. At the end of the trial, we count the bodies in the two groups. Why would someone sign up for a trial when there is only a 50/50 chance of actually getting treatment? This is where the ban comes in: it is the only way to get treatment. This system certainly does produce safer drugs: counting bodies is scientific. However, it also produces far fewer drugs, even if some of them would have been safe. This is because trials are very expensive, patients are not allowed to pay for them, so many drugs are lost simply because the owners ran out of money.
8/11/2007 5:23:59 PM
wow
8/11/2007 5:45:45 PM
8/11/2007 9:15:26 PM
8/11/2007 10:16:54 PM
But Abigail could still die with treatment, only then we would have no idea how effective the treatment really was, scientifically that is. Sure, we will still have statistics, but they will be imperfect, comparing apples to oranges. It might simply be that wealthier better fed people could afford the drug, so no doubt the drug would be statistically life extending; wealthy people live longer anyway. I'm not saying I approve of the system, but we cannot pretend they don't have a point.
8/11/2007 10:32:18 PM
Why would Abigail be relevant to a study as to how effective the drug was, unless she was part of the trial in the first place? Nothing says the FDA (or another organization) couldn't test and rate the drug, just that people should be able to accep the risk of taking a drug even without those tests and approvals. Some folks would, others wouldn't. Some phramacies would stock non FDA approved, and others wouldn't touch it, but you would still have a choice.
8/12/2007 12:08:15 AM
You misunderstand. Without banning non-approved drugs, there would be no way to approve any drugs because there would be no way to get test subjects. Today, test subjects are desperate to participate, since it is the only way to gain access to new drugs. But without the ban, if a patient is willing to take a non-approved drug, then they will just go buy it like everyone else. What idiot signs up for a trial when only 50% of the subjects will actually get the drug? Better to buy the drug, then you have a 100% chance of actually getting the new drug.
8/13/2007 1:34:00 PM
I think a reasonable solution that would leave the FDA intact and useful would require differentiating between different "tiers" of drugs and conditions.If a new cold medicine comes out, it has the potential to be used by a large percentage of the population, meaning that if it is defective or, worse, contaminated or harmful, it can cause a serious problem for the whole country. Cold medicine is also not something that is generally needed as quickly as possible to save lives. Thus we can, and I would argue should, afford a fair degree of regulation of such drugs. People won't die from a cold, but they could, potentially, from some hack medicine with a good marketing scheme.The experimental drugs that get brought up as not having been available in time to save an individual's life tend, I sho uld think, to be more specific to a much smaller and needier population. The case for heavy regulation of these drugs is much less tenable, since at worst the patient basically has the choice of dying doing nothing or dying doing something.I think that some sort of tier system is conceivable, and though it certainly wouldn't be perfect it would allow us to keep control where it is prudent and release it where it is not.---My biggest concern with complete deregulation would be the enormous potential for profiteering (which is distinguishable from mere profitting), which is perhaps unmatched with medicine. All it takes is a quick scare, a bird flu or monkey pox panic, and then anyone with a little money to start up the operation can start screaming that they have the cure. People would probably realize eventually that they were being duped, but market forces would be slow to punish the person, who by then might have made his money and closed up shop.
8/14/2007 12:45:35 PM
lol id like to see you try and make some of the drugs manufactured in pharm. facilities these days. these facilities dont cost billions of dollars to make because they are getting some pretty aesthetic architecture. There are ridiculously complex processes and environmental requirements to create some of these safely. Not only so the drug is safe, but so that certain reactions/part of the process are contained within cleanspace areas before the air can be filtered etc.
8/14/2007 1:10:28 PM
Who was that directed at?
8/14/2007 2:27:30 PM
oh sorry not you, 392 i think if i recall correctly now. whoever said they should be allowed to make their own drugs.[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 2:30 PM. Reason : ]
8/14/2007 2:29:06 PM
don't ruin 392's dreamsplus its fun letting people pretend they're right and they know what they're talking[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 7:48 PM. Reason : asdfg]
8/14/2007 7:47:05 PM
You guys are idiots. I was referring to personal autonomy and liberty.Didn't you see you where I said
8/14/2007 8:10:09 PM
so you know how to make drugs?[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 8:16 PM. Reason : damn you edit fast...]
8/14/2007 8:15:28 PM
^^ you know NOTHING about the pharmaceutical industry obviously. sure there are a lot of things that i suppose could be made at home sort of, but for everyone of those there are a bunch more that youd have to be a millionaire to make even if the government wasnt interfering so its pretty much a moot point.i know you said if feasible, im just pointing out that that part of it isnt even worth arguing over really.
8/14/2007 8:26:37 PM