>>If you're talking about streamlining the process at the cost of higher risk, then that's probably a nonstarter.<<
I hate to be that guy, but this is the fallacy of false dilemma, and directly ignores the example I gave above.
>>I (and most people) am not willing to increase my odds of being harmed on behalf of someone else's profit margin. You'd have to be crazy to accept that deal.<<
This isn't the deal. Do you feel that your odds of harm from taking a supplement are significantly too high, since of course supplements are not currently regulated by the FDA or any other government body? Are people who takes supplements crazy?
>>Expecting the market to 'just do your research' on drugs is crazy. It takes experts with PhDs a long time to verify a drug as safe, and they still make mistakes sometimes as you indicated... you're expecting me to do it? I haven't taken chemistry since high school.<<
Why is it crazy to expect the market to do research? This happens with literally every other product available. There are thousands of organizations dedicated to reviewing automobiles, blenders, mattresses, and literally every product you can buy. If people voluntarily want to purchase medicine that has not been evaluated by the FDA or some other testing organization (as is currently the case with thousands of medical supplements that are for sale) why must those people be stopped? Again, the choices aren't FDA approval or no access. There are all sorts of solutions that could be implemented to both increase availability of medicine while still offering consumer protection.
Yes, PhDs make mistakes, but that wasn’t the point of the Vioxx reference. Vioxx was a fantastic pain drug that worked for some people when nothing else would. And that drug was taken away because Vioxx might increase the risk of heart attack. While this may sound fine to you, it was devastating to many people who would have preferred even a large risk of heart attack rather than living with the pain eliminated by Vioxx. (Vioxx was thought to increase the incidence of heart attack a staggering 4 times in one study . . . from .1% to .4%)
Again, nobody is expecting you to do your own research. But that shouldn't limit our options to (1) FDA approval or (2) no drugs for you.
I hate to be that guy, but this is the fallacy of false dilemma, and directly ignores the example I gave above.
>>I (and most people) am not willing to increase my odds of being harmed on behalf of someone else's profit margin. You'd have to be crazy to accept that deal.<<
This isn't the deal. Do you feel that your odds of harm from taking a supplement are significantly too high, since of course supplements are not currently regulated by the FDA or any other government body? Are people who takes supplements crazy?
>>Expecting the market to 'just do your research' on drugs is crazy. It takes experts with PhDs a long time to verify a drug as safe, and they still make mistakes sometimes as you indicated... you're expecting me to do it? I haven't taken chemistry since high school.<<
Why is it crazy to expect the market to do research? This happens with literally every other product available. There are thousands of organizations dedicated to reviewing automobiles, blenders, mattresses, and literally every product you can buy. If people voluntarily want to purchase medicine that has not been evaluated by the FDA or some other testing organization (as is currently the case with thousands of medical supplements that are for sale) why must those people be stopped? Again, the choices aren't FDA approval or no access. There are all sorts of solutions that could be implemented to both increase availability of medicine while still offering consumer protection.
Yes, PhDs make mistakes, but that wasn’t the point of the Vioxx reference. Vioxx was a fantastic pain drug that worked for some people when nothing else would. And that drug was taken away because Vioxx might increase the risk of heart attack. While this may sound fine to you, it was devastating to many people who would have preferred even a large risk of heart attack rather than living with the pain eliminated by Vioxx. (Vioxx was thought to increase the incidence of heart attack a staggering 4 times in one study . . . from .1% to .4%)
Again, nobody is expecting you to do your own research. But that shouldn't limit our options to (1) FDA approval or (2) no drugs for you.