Debating on how to regulate drugs

[Au-H2O]

How would you guys respond to this?

"I understand how making FDA voluntary would be beneficial to some. But I feel like there would be a deluge of drugs with no or questionable effectiveness on the market. For example, take protein/creatine products. I just read in my dad's sports medicine journal that these products are highly ineffective for most, with the exception of those who have... See More low baseline creatine levels to begin with. But since the FDA doesn't regulate these markets, there are dozens and dozens of brands that basically trick consumers into buying them. So what I'm saying, I guess, is that the only positive effect would be for those with rare diseases, while the negatives are numerous."

 

[gls]

I got into this exact argument with a friend a while ago. Basically what they are saying is that because some consumers are too lazy to do research before purchasing a product, certain terminally-ill people should continue to be denied access to potentially life saving medicine. Personal responsibility and individual liberty mean nothing to people who think it is OK to force others to die for the perceived "common good". Except when it comes to them or a loved one of course -- at that point such an opinion tends to change.

 

[brandon]

Tell the person it is their fault they are being tricked.

I have taken both creatine and protein supplements in the past. But before I took either I spent a few weeks doing research on the internet and reading bodybuilding forums. It's not that hard to do a little reading before you start taking something.

And actually, these products arent highly ineffective for most. Usually they are highly effective, and harmless.

 

[RBS51]

How would you guys respond to this?

"I understand how making FDA voluntary would be beneficial to some. But I feel like there would be a deluge of drugs with no or questionable effectiveness on the market. For example, take protein/creatine products. I just read in my dad's sports medicine journal that these products are highly ineffective for most, with the exception of those who have... See More low baseline creatine levels to begin with. But since the FDA doesn't regulate these markets, there are dozens and dozens of brands that basically trick consumers into buying them. So what I'm saying, I guess, is that the only positive effect would be for those with rare diseases, while the negatives are numerous."

You don't really want to go back to the era of the medicine show do you? The FDA has a legitimate function in interstate commerce. It's just a simple question - is it being run for the benefit of the people of the benefit of the corporations?

Start running the FDA on legitimate science for the benefit of the people and you won't see interference with experimental drugs in terminal or extreme cases, but you will see cheaper drugs because of lower development costs. The FDA is now controlled by corporations that don't want to see a new, lower cost drug come in until their patent runs out so they keep the hurdle high and the new drugs out.

 

[RBS51]

I got into this exact argument with a friend a while ago. Basically what they are saying is that because some consumers are too lazy to do research before purchasing a product, certain terminally-ill people should continue to be denied access to potentially life saving medicine. Personal responsibility and individual liberty mean nothing to people who think it is OK to force others to die for the perceived "common good". Except when it comes to them or a loved one of course -- at that point such an opinion tends to change.

Not all consumers have a PHD in chemistry or a medical degree which is what it takes to evaluate some drugs. Getting rid of the FDA would be absurd. Just clean it up.

 

[gls]

You don't really want to go back to the era of the medicine show do you? The FDA has a legitimate function in interstate commerce. It's just a simple question - is it being run for the benefit of the people of the benefit of the corporations?

Start running the FDA on legitimate science for the benefit of the people and you won't see interference with experimental drugs in terminal or extreme cases, but you will see cheaper drugs because of lower development costs. The FDA is now controlled by corporations that don't want to see a new, lower cost drug come in until their patent runs out so they keep the hurdle high and the new drugs out.

Unfortunately your vision of the FDA is an unworkable fantasy. It will always be controlled by corporations by the very nature of its existence.

BTW, if the FDA "has a legitimate function in interstate commerce", what doesn't? The only legitimate functions of the federal government are expressly enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[TCE]

How would you guys respond to this?

"I understand how making FDA voluntary would be beneficial to some. But I feel like there would be a deluge of drugs with no or questionable effectiveness on the market. For example, take protein/creatine products. I just read in my dad's sports medicine journal that these products are highly ineffective for most, with the exception of those who have... See More low baseline creatine levels to begin with. But since the FDA doesn't regulate these markets, there are dozens and dozens of brands that basically trick consumers into buying them. So what I'm saying, I guess, is that the only positive effect would be for those with rare diseases, while the negatives are numerous."

On those two products, the good quality stuff does work for those people who have certain levels, and a high-quality protein is good for anyone. It's just like the infomercials you see late at night, those products tell you that they can give you the world, but do you buy them? No, you're openly skeptical and for good reason. Since virtually everyone falsely believes the FDA is protecting them, while it is really a genocidal agency.

 

[TCE]

You don't really want to go back to the era of the medicine show do you? The FDA has a legitimate function in interstate commerce. It's just a simple question - is it being run for the benefit of the people of the benefit of the corporations?

Start running the FDA on legitimate science for the benefit of the people and you won't see interference with experimental drugs in terminal or extreme cases, but you will see cheaper drugs because of lower development costs. The FDA is now controlled by corporations that don't want to see a new, lower cost drug come in until their patent runs out so they keep the hurdle high and the new drugs out.

You must not have read the history of the FDA and their true function, if you had, I highly doubt you would have this positive view of them. There is no reforming the agency, it needs to be abolished. Anything with that much governmental power will always be controlled by those with the most money, it is impossible for it to be done any other way.

Here is what would happen if the FDA were abolished tomorrow:

* A cure for cancer and other major diseases would be "discovered" within 5 years.
* Worlds of new prevention knowledge would be allowed to flow.
* The suppression of natural and alternative medicines would stop (See Harry Hoxsey, Royal R. Rife, and others).
* Drugs and pharmaceuticals would be used rarely if ever because better methods would finally be allowed to be used.
* Drugs would be imported from Canada and other places, slashing the cost of drugs.

And so much more.

 

[RBS51]

You must not have read the history of the FDA and their true function, if you had, I highly doubt you would have this positive view of them. There is no reforming the agency, it needs to be abolished. Anything with that much governmental power will always be controlled by those with the most money, it is impossible for it to be done any other way.

Here is what would happen if the FDA were abolished tomorrow:

* A cure for cancer and other major diseases would be "discovered" within 5 years.
* Worlds of new prevention knowledge would be allowed to flow.
* The suppression of natural and alternative medicines would stop (See Harry Hoxsey, Royal R. Rife, and others).
* Drugs and pharmaceuticals would be used rarely if ever because better methods would finally be allowed to be used.
* Drugs would be imported from Canada and other places, slashing the cost of drugs.

And so much more.

And you must not be aware of how much damage was done by unregulated food stuffs and medicines before the FDA....

If you don't believe the FDA can be run for the benefit of the people, then why should you believe any other agency of the government can be run for the benefit of the people? Anarchy is your only choice.

 

[brandon]

Anarchy is your only choice.

Yes, that's the logical conclusion many of us have come to.

But as an alternative, why does the federal government need to police drugs and food? Why couldn't this be done by state governments? Then we would have 50 competing "FDA's", and surely the competition would improve performance.

 

[Ninja Homer]

If you don't believe the FDA can be run for the benefit of the people, then why should you believe any other agency of the government can be run for the benefit of the people? Anarchy is your only choice.

Welcome to RPF.

 

[TCE]

And you must not be aware of how much damage was done by unregulated food stuffs and medicines before the FDA....

If you don't believe the FDA can be run for the benefit of the people, then why should you believe any other agency of the government can be run for the benefit of the people? Anarchy is your only choice.

I am personally not an anarchist. However, I have seen time and time again the FDA work against the good of America. They cannot be a legitimate agency, they live to serve the drug companies. I strongly encourage you to look at the FDA's history and see for yourself how dangerous it is.

I'm guessing you have read The Jungle or just gone to history class and heard about what good the FDA does. From personal experience, I can tell you the FDA has a hand in roughly 250,000 deaths a year and I can't name a life it has saved.

 

[Ninja Homer]

And you must not be aware of how much damage was done by unregulated food stuffs and medicines before the FDA....

I'm actually not aware of the numbers. I've heard people talk about how much damage was done, but I've never seen any actual numbers. If you can point me in the right direction, I'd be grateful.

I'd love to compare numbers of deaths or complications from patent medicines pre-FDA to numbers of deaths or complications from pharmaceuticals that have passed FDA approval.

 

[Au-H2O]

And you must not be aware of how much damage was done by unregulated food stuffs and medicines before the FDA....

I think it would be fair to say that the FDA was founded in response to some of the "patent medicines" Your statement assumes that the market would not have adjusted to an increase in demand for safety and efficacy testing of drugs. If people stopped buying untested drugs then private companies that tested this safety and efficacy of these drugs would've come, and they would've been MUCH MORE effective than the FDA.

 

[RBS51]

Yes, that's the logical conclusion many of us have come to.

But as an alternative, why does the federal government need to police drugs and food? Why couldn't this be done by state governments? Then we would have 50 competing "FDA's", and surely the competition would improve performance.

Simple answer - interstate commerce. It would be uselessly redundant.

As for the anarchy thing - it is the only conclusion when you insist on extreme solutions.

Most folks would not insist on extreme solutions, however.

 

[dannno]

And actually, these products arent highly ineffective for most. Usually they are highly effective, and harmless.

Ya, I agree, and that should be one of your arguments.

Also the reason there are these effective products is because the free market allows people to make choices on these products. That's why they are popular.

 

[dannno]

Not all consumers have a PHD in chemistry or a medical degree which is what it takes to evaluate some drugs. Getting rid of the FDA would be absurd. Just clean it up.

You don't need to be a scientist to know if something works for a condition.

 

[dannno]

Product reviews are great. I hated all of the OTC and prescription medications for allergies, they were awful. Now i take stingy nettle with quercetin. It works great for a lot of people.


From Oklahoma
I use this for pet dander and dust mite allergies, indoors and spring pollens and grasses outdoors. I take about 4 to 6 a day. It works both to condition the system to not react allergically, and as a help when in the midst of an attack. It won't by itself stop a severe sinus attack once it's underway. I have several girlfriends taking it too and it's saving their lives--one girl missed work due to allergies, not anymore.


From Wisconsin
This product enabled my husband to stop taking prescription allergy meds and OTC antihistamines. It takes a while to build up in your system, and you have to keep taking a maintenance dose, so you can't just take it when symptoms present and get immediate relief.

*I agree with this btw^^


From New York
Ive been taking this product for two months now and have had almost a 100% reduction in my seasonal allergy symptoms. I used to be plagued w/ headaches, congestion and exhaustion until late autumn but not anymore. I've taken up to eight capsules a day w/no side effects.


From Pennsylvania
I take one a day and rarely have sinus issues. So happy I found this!




http://www.iherb.com/Stinging-Nettle-Quercetin-350-mg-90-Veggie-Caps/2993?at=1


I don't give a shit what the FDA says, this stuff works for a lot of people and it works for me. I don't need the FDA to tell me what medications to take. All of their suggestions with the mainstream approved OTC and prescription stuff have been complete failures.

 

[Zippyjuan]

So maybe we should get rid of the FDA and let pharma release whatever drugs they want to and rely on reports of bad side effects up to and including deaths be voulntarily reported by people who have to then try to go to court and sue to get any bad ones removed from the market. Fewer people should die that way than with the FDA around, right? A "free market solution" to regulations? Remember when companies were caught posing as customers and posting positive reviews of their own products on sites including Amazon? Surely that can't happen again! The people will have deep pockets to file and fight these lawsuits against those puny companies, right?

Sure the FDA, which is made up of people, is not perfect. No human enterprise is. But it would be scary to consider what things might be like without them out there.

Would any private testing company be any more or less susceptable to influence from drug companies than the FDA? What would prevent that? Would they have the resources to do reliable testing on drugs including blind studies? Where would they get the money to do the testing? Maybe from drug company contributions?

 

[Danke]

Sure the FDA, which is made up of people, is not perfect. No human enterprise is. But it would be scary to consider what things might be like without them out there.

No it wouldn't. I would not be scary, except for people like you.

Just eliminate their ability to hide behind the "limited liability" the government (that you worship) provides them with incorporating.