FDA Regulation Debate
The cluster focuses on debates about the FDA's role in drug approvals, regulations, and effectiveness, including criticisms of delays in beneficial treatments, historical examples like thalidomide and Vioxx, and defenses of its safety protections.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
This stuff happens even with the FDA.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxibhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_Pharma
The regulations are different. The FDA only gets in trouble if they approve a drug that turns out to be harmful, not if they fail to approve (or delay approving) a beneficial drug. On net, the FDA has caused far more harm than they’ve prevented. eg: Banning the importation of infant formula from the EU, or delaying the approval of new beta blockers by a decade.
Your phrasing implies some nefarious intent behind the FDA. What about the FDA do you not like?
i'm curious about your qualms with the FDA and what you'd like to replace it with.
I think the FDA are in this thread ;)
Why would the FDA have a role in this?
Read the history of the FDA, my friend. They’re here for a reason. I’m not going to educate you on something you can Google (but probably won’t).
Citing a likely dangerous thing that the FDA doesn't have any objections to is not a good counter.
Sorry, but the FDA isn't really trustworthy to the rest of the world anymore...
Any idea what the reasoning behind these FDA rules is?