Leftists, does it matter to you that FDA regulations kill many good drugs for economic reasons alone?

The evil greedy pharmaceutical companies should all be shut down and all employees laid off.

I'm a leftist because I hate racists like you. I don't give two rips about drugs.

Right wing nut jobs, does it matter to you that science is hard, and you just can't understand it?

Would you care to explain what the problem is (with evidence)?

Zen bro wrote:

Right wing nut jobs, does it matter to you that science is hard, and you just can't understand it?

Science is the use of reason to discover new knowledge. The FDA doesn't do any science. It is strictly a bureaucracy, meaning its sole function is to control the work and lives of others. They don't even advance knowledge of how to evaluate drugs. (the requirements for congress are rigid and established by politicians, not scientists). The only pro-science political philosophy is libertarianism.

cough cough wrote:

Zen bro wrote:

Right wing nut jobs, does it matter to you that science is hard, and you just can't understand it?

Science is the use of reason to discover new knowledge. The FDA doesn't do any science. It is strictly a bureaucracy, meaning its sole function is to control the work and lives of others. They don't even advance knowledge of how to evaluate drugs. (the requirements for congress are rigid and established by politicians, not scientists). The only pro-science political philosophy is libertarianism.

You're homeschooled aren't you, kid?

Health freedom wrote:

Many critical, life-saving drugs that would be able to get FDA approval based on their scientific merits are never even submitted for approval because the cost of regulatory compliance is so onerous that they could not be sold profitably after getting approved, as a result of which there is no investor interest in their development. People die every of this. Does this matter to you, or do you just evade reality and pretend that it isn't true?

There is some truth to this, that trial phases are to onerous and can be distorted by a freak sample. But of recent development is the fast track system for promising drugs which I think has occurred under the Obama administration. However, the leftists that over see universities all around the world have made testing anything in a university lab, virtually impossible. And what is happening is university med researchers are limited to testing on cells or mice, say some obscure mineral, they then publish these results in some journal the media picks up on it and then desperate people with cancer rush out and try it only to be disappointed.

Thalidomide!!!!!

coach d wrote:

http://www.centerwatch.com/drug-information/fda-approved-drugs/

Would you care to explain what the problem is (with evidence)?

That pace of progress is actually pitiful relative to the number and severity of unmet medical needs out there.

These drugs tend to be expensive and are beyond the reach of many poor people. If neither a rich person not a poor person can use these drugs, they are more equal: both are likely to suffer from or die from the same disease. It is crucial that we close the gap between rich and poor.

Zen bro wrote:

You're homeschooled aren't you, kid?

You can mouth off, but you can't make a valid argument.

Health freedom wrote:

Many critical, life-saving drugs that would be able to get FDA approval based on their scientific merits are never even submitted for approval because the cost of regulatory compliance is so onerous that they could not be sold profitably after getting approved, as a result of which there is no investor interest in their development. People die every of this. Does this matter to you, or do you just evade reality and pretend that it isn't true?

If a drug is truly life saving then it will be priced as a life saving drug (I.e. Very expensive). The only drugs that the onerous regulations squash are the little ones that aren't any better than what's on the market today. If you read clinical trials you'll see many "life saving" drugs are complete shams and that's the real reason they don't submit for approval.

Think of it this way, would you really want to see 100 different pain medications in the aisle? If the regulations were gone then you'd have 100 different options. 5 will actually relieve pain, 85 will be a placebo, and 10 would put you in the hospital.

Sbeefyk1 wrote:

Think of it this way, would you really want to see 100 different pain medications in the aisle? If the regulations were gone then you'd have 100 different options. 5 will actually relieve pain, 85 will be a placebo, and 10 would put you in the hospital.

Nobody buys or would buy drugs off the aisle of a shopping center. If you had any sense, you would get any drug through a prescribing physician and dispensing pharmacist who were qualified to guide your decision making. In all likelihood it would be impossible even in a completely unregulated market to get drugs except through carefully controlled channels of distribution. Of course, if you wanted to be an idiot and take the first thing within arm's reach, nobody would legally stop you. Most people are smart and just because you as an individual might be prone to make stupid, irresponsible decisions doesn't mean others should lose the freedom upon which their lives depend.

Look kids! A Libertarian fanatsy of how they think the world would work!

cough cough wrote:

Zen bro wrote:

You're homeschooled aren't you, kid?

You can mouth off, but you can't make a valid argument.

Please make a valid argument showing that only libertarianism is pro science, and that liberalism or conservatism (true conservatism, not reactionary "the earth is 6000 years old" conservatism) are anti-science. And pointing out examples from either side, without tying them into the fundamental philosophy, is not "proof".

non random troll wrote:

[quote]Ayk wrote:

Look kids! A Libertarian fanatsy of how they think the world would work!

Look at yourself--a leftist with no argument, no facts, no logic, and no knowledge of history who's only response to anything is to mouth off.

Ayk wrote:

non random troll wrote:

[quote]Ayk wrote:

Look kids! A Libertarian fanatsy of how they think the world would work!

Look at yourself--a leftist with no argument, no facts, no logic, and no knowledge of history who's only response to anything is to mouth off.

Unlike all the facts and logic in your post, eh?

Ayk wrote:

non random troll wrote:

[quote]Ayk wrote:

Look kids! A Libertarian fanatsy of how they think the world would work!

Look at yourself--a leftist with no argument, no facts, no logic, and no knowledge of history who's only response to anything is to mouth off.

You assume people will spend money (they might not have) to make the best decisions.

So when you fly you'll get on unregulated airlines?

Allow unlicensed surgeons to operate on you?

Feed untested food products to your child?

This world is about as realistic as the one found in GTA5

non random troll wrote:

You assume people will spend money (they might not have) to make the best decisions.

So when you fly you'll get on unregulated airlines?

Allow unlicensed surgeons to operate on you?

Feed untested food products to your child?

This world is about as realistic as the one found in GTA5

I don't assume--I KNOW based on the facts of human nature and the historical fact that when men have been free, they have been rational. I would most certainly fly on an unregulated airline and allow and unlicensed surgeon to treat me. Regulation and licensure do not add any safety to those endeavors--there is no assurance that the government's requirements to operate aircraft and perform surgery are rational, no assurance that the bureaucrats enforcing the regulations have a clue how to build a plane or train a doctor, no assurance that they are even honest men and free from conflicts of interest. Regulation only creates a dangerous illusion of safety based on false assumptions about what government is. The big government types want the government to be a scientific oracle and incorruptible source of knowledge, truth, and justice. It is none of those things. Government is nothing more than a monopoly of the use of physical force, and nothing about having the means to shoot and incarcerate people means you know anything about how to evaluate medicines. As Ayn Rand said, "a gun is not an argument."