FDA regulations don't really protect consumers, just some businessmen from competition by others.

Your drugs are paid for by my insurance premium. The FDA is protecting my money from being wasted on ineffective treatment (that often lead to other cost to deal with side effects). Lack of treatment options is due to difficulty in making new drugs to pass clinical trial efficacy and safety criteria (which are already quite minimal).

Comments like yours often come from promoters of new treatment (often scientists) that believe they have the solution (based on animal/lab models or small number of patients) but the performance fall apart in larger trial in realistic settings. If you as patients share the same believe as the inventor, just volunteer in their trial. You got the drug for free and don't need to wait for FDA approval.

Regulatory approval "red tapes" are not the problem either. Effective drugs (like Viagra) got through the process easily. Yes you need to be big to be effective competitors in this space, but that's because drug discovery is basically relying on luck. No one can predict clinical trial results in advance. Only players that can hedge their bet by having extensive portfolio of drug pipelines can stay in the game. This has nothing to do with FDA.

There are countless examples that prove you wrong. Markets do not always automatically regulate themselves. Especially when it comes to drugs. The FDA was key in getting the recent dangerous Chinese meds of the market that were heavily contaminated. The FDA monitors meds that have been out for a long time to see if we learn more about them. Cipro, for example was widely believed to be safe from early trials, but as we looked deeper it has become clear it's a terribly unsafe drug. The FDA has been instrumental in regulating and educating on this matter.

Have my drug and eat it too wrote:

Your drugs are paid for by my insurance premium. The FDA is protecting my money from being wasted on ineffective treatment (that often lead to other cost to deal with side effects). Lack of treatment options is due to difficulty in making new drugs to pass clinical trial efficacy and safety criteria (which are already quite minimal).

So in leftist la-la land, you have a right to lower insurance premiums at the expense of someone else's right to live?

iflyboats wrote:

Have my drug and eat it too wrote:

Your drugs are paid for by my insurance premium. The FDA is protecting my money from being wasted on ineffective treatment (that often lead to other cost to deal with side effects). Lack of treatment options is due to difficulty in making new drugs to pass clinical trial efficacy and safety criteria (which are already quite minimal).

So in leftist la-la land, you have a right to lower insurance premiums at the expense of someone else's right to live?

I don't know. You have to ask the leftist.

I'm far right if you read my post carefully.

Actually, in Europe this is not ideological issue. Everyone from far left to far right agree the money has to come from somewhere. It's a minor administrative details on how they should be collected and distributed. Every country has its own style, and doesn't matter that much as long as the numbers add up. American left and right argue about things that don't matter, and forget to add the numbers.

in a truly free market there would be no rules/regulations/laws regarding intellectual property (patents). Get rid of IP laws and you'll see a massive increase in entrepreneurialism, wealth and innovation. all IP regulations do is protect existing businesses from competitors, it's a rigged game

Uhhh wut? If there were no intellectual property laws every time a start up created a new product a major player with established consumer recognition and factories and supply chains would reverse engineer the product and sell it for cheaper. The market would also be flooded with counterfeit products so enjoy having to try to figure out everytime you buy anything whether it's actually what you think it is.