FDA Ignores Religious Fundamentalists' Objections

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
YES.

And it actually worked quite well too, historically. Before the FDA started poking its nose where it didn't belong, drug companies still had great incentive to produce safe drugs. What is more, they had incentive--unlike now--to produce drugs that actually helped, as opposed to things that just were tested to be safe

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a long history of companies selling products that either did nothing at all or hurt or killed people.

I'm sorry, its company naive to think that the market alone is enough to protect people. The market isn't some magic thing that makes everything good and safe.

I believe it was back in the 80s, they found a certain kind of baby formula was actually making kids unhealthy. The Government stepped in and prohibited the sales here. So, the company did what any profit driven company would do... they sold the formula to mothers in 3rd world countries that didn't have a government that regulated food.

See how the market protected the consumer!

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
YES.

And it actually worked quite well too, historically. Before the FDA started poking its nose where it didn't belong, drug companies still had great incentive to produce safe drugs. What is more, they had incentive--unlike now--to produce drugs that actually helped, as opposed to things that just were tested to be safe

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a long history of companies selling products that either did nothing at all or hurt or killed people.

I'm sorry, its company naive to think that the market alone is enough to protect people. The market isn't some magic thing that makes everything good and safe.

I believe it was back in the 80s, they found a certain kind of baby formula was actually making kids unhealthy. The Government stepped in and prohibited the sales here. So, the company did what any profit driven company would do... they sold the formula to mothers in 3rd world countries that didn't have a government that regulated food.

See how the market protected the consumer!

[/ QUOTE ]


Even if your story is true, we have a well-developed tort-law here, which changes a lot. You don't need an FDA because if you can prove a company lied about their product, you become a millionaire. This forces many manufacturers to exceed federal standards of their products in a lot of cases.

The FDA should not prohibit sales, even in cases like the baby formula story you gave. You can just have the FDA slap a label on that says: "this product has been shown to .. blah blah".

This is especially true in cases where medicines come with risks and some people may be willing to tolerate those risks. Just label the risks and I'm fine with it. It's when we give the government the power to jail me for making or using certain medicines that I have a problem.

natedogg

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if your story is true

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... the story is not only true, its also not unique.

[ QUOTE ]
we have a well-developed tort-law here, which changes a lot. You don't need an FDA because if you can prove a company lied about their product, you become a millionaire. This forces many manufacturers to exceed federal standards of their products in a lot of cases.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. so if a company sells a product that, turns out, will kill you and thousands of other people who took it 5 years down the road... you and the thousands who are now sick or dying can sue someone! Thank God.

And you're wrong about companies trying to exceed standards. There's numerous examples of companies doing everything they can to go around standards. Fabricating information on their products because, even though it doesn't work or is harmful, they have to get it on the market.

All throughout history, you can find examples of people/companies making money off of dangerous or fraudulent products that were not corrected by the market.

I think the FDA needs fixing. As I said before, the FDA should use the trials made in other countries to approve some drugs quicker. (There have been drugs that were govt. tested in Europe and been on sale there for 5 years that they wanted to test from the beginning here rathar then rely at all on the testing and real world results... that's just ridiculous.)

And the fact that they would even listen to a religious group in determining the rules of a drug is mind boggling. But that's something that could be reformed by making them more independent from the reach of the administration and subject to consumer pressure.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

Cool. so if a company sells a product that, turns out, will kill you and thousands of other people who took it 5 years down the road... you and the thousands who are now sick or dying can sue someone! Thank God.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, only if they lied about the results of their trials, which they can do now, and the FDA cannot prevent, and in fact Merck is in court right now over that.

[ QUOTE ]
Fabricating information on their products because, even though it doesn't work or is harmful, they have to get it on the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not something the FDA can prevent. They can do nothing about fraudulent trial data.

The issue is whether the FDA can ban your use of a product with known risks, not whether consumers should have accurate information about a product. Of course the information should be accurate. It's what they do with it that should be outside the purview of the FDA. The FDA should only inform, not coerce.



[ QUOTE ]
And the fact that they would even listen to a religious group in determining the rules of a drug is mind boggling. But that's something that could be reformed by making them more independent from the reach of the administration and subject to consumer pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, once we get the right people in there everything will work perfectly, and when we outlaw medicines that people want it will be done right. No one will have anything to complain about.

natedogg

PS I'm not going to bother to argue why you are so utterly wrong about accurate product info being an issue that only the FDA can handle. But I still don't see how you can argue that the FDA should do more than just ensure accuracy of trial data.

Let me guess, you support the use of medical marijuana? Think long and hard about all the implications behind that and how it relates to the FDA and its powers.

[kurto]

My argument is nothing more then saying I support having a body provide oversite like the FDA. There's ample evidence to show that companies bottom line is not the safety of its consumers nor does the concern for their safety or reliability of their product effect whether their products are released.

I want an informed organization to look at pharmaceuticals and determine if they work and if they are safe because the average consumer does not have the ability to make that determination alone.

If you disagree with that, fine. We differ. No big deal. I prefer oversight, you don't.

I'm not sure what your question implies about medical marijuana. From everything I've read, I believe it should be legal for medical and non-medical reasons.

A lot of your other sniping I just ignored since you seem to draw erronous assumptions about what I'm saying and then mocking those erroneous assumptions.

That kind of prattle is just wasting everyone's time.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

I want an informed organization to look at pharmaceuticals and determine if they work and if they are safe because the average consumer does not have the ability to make that determination alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are in total agreement.

Now, the definition of "if they work" and "are safe" is not black and white. Medicines come with risks and benefits. This organization you mention would do a great service by verifying the drug trial data. But taking the extra step to coercive authority, banning medicines and jailing people for using them, this is not acceptable in a free society.

I agree with you 100%, we need an organization that will inform us and validate the data about the risks associated with food and drug products. It's essential.

But we dont need a group that prohibits us from using those products if we so choose.

natedogg

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I want an informed organization to look at pharmaceuticals and determine if they work and if they are safe because the average consumer does not have the ability to make that determination alone.

If you disagree with that, fine. We differ. No big deal. I prefer oversight, you don't.


[/ QUOTE ]

This "let's agree to disagree" line is getting old. Don't you see that our problem is precisely that we can't each just go our merry way, since the FDA has coercive authority to prevent the sale of certain substances?

I really do not understand the relevance of your examples. First off, they did not take place in a free market--they took place in a highly regulated, pro-big business market. So when you come out and give examples of how big drug companies get away with fraud, etc., in a market regulated in favor of such businesses, and then claim that this is why a free market in drugs is a bad idea, you'll excuse me for being unconvinced.

Furthermore, it seems to me that if the government was able to step in and say that some baby formula was dangerous and prohibit it, there is no reason why the same process would not work, minus the paternalistice coercion. There is no reason why there cannot be non-governmental, non-coercive drug standard agencies, and most of the libertarians here would shut up about the FDA if it didn't have coercive authority. But you nor anyone else has provided a good reason why the FDA should have such power. Once there is a label saying that substance X is 'unsafe" in the opinion of some legitimate group, it isn't you or anyone else's [censored] business what dangerous substances someone else wants to use.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
We are in total agreement.

Now, the definition of "if they work" and "are safe" is not black and white. Medicines come with risks and benefits. This organization you mention would do a great service by verifying the drug trial data. But taking the extra step to coercive authority, banning medicines and jailing people for using them, this is not acceptable in a free society.

I agree with you 100%, we need an organization that will inform us and validate the data about the risks associated with food and drug products. It's essential.

But we dont need a group that prohibits us from using those products if we so choose.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a first. We are on the same page.

Very few comments:
[ QUOTE ]
Now, the definition of "if they work" and "are safe" is not black and white.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it should be spelled out. If a company sells a drug that claims to reduce cholestoral but, in reality, it has no effect whatsoever... that should be known. And, as the FDA requires now, the potential side-effects and dangers should be shared.

I agree that the FDA should not ban people from using everything that they do not approve across the board. Though I'm not entirely sure how this would work. I like the idea that companies could sell a product after a certain amount of testing so, even if doesn't meet the rigid standards they have now, there's at least enough information for the consumer to make an informed decision.

On a side note, I'm still curious what your point of bringing up medical marijuana earier was? I'm under the impression the problems with getting marijuana legalized aren't because of any objections from the scientific community... its because of objections from conservatives. I believe Marijuana has been extensively studied and found to be mostly harmless at its worst and has much medicinal value.

I don't agree with banning a product because a bunch of people have decided its immoral by their belief system.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a long history of companies selling products that either did nothing at all or hurt or killed people.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a longer list of companies/businesses selling products that worked.

[ACPlayer]

The fundamental disagreement is that most transactions are not just between the party doing the buying and the selling. The society has, and should have, an interest in the transaction.

In our society there is a compelling interest in society not being stuck with the costs of bad drugs. Even though the FDA (and no organization can reach the goal) is not perfect, it at least implements a minimum set of hurdles for a manufacturer to back up its claims.