← Back to context

Comment by maxbond

3 years ago

Again, this is a fine argument for making the FDA more effective and for coordinating with international partners, but full of holes as an argument for rubber stamping. And I still don't see why a rubber stamp serves your purposes better.

If you think the UK, European, and Canadian regulators are competent, then you must believe in the possibility of a competent regulator, right? Let's just have one of those, instead of a differently-incompetant regulator who serves as a rubber stamp.

And if we can't, then I'd rather they were too conservative than that they allowed too many drugs on the market.

5 comments

maxbond

Reply
chroma  3 years ago

At this point I don’t know what could change your mind. Your response to any criticism of the FDA or any proposed fix is to say that we need to make the FDA more competent, as if that’s not what people have been trying to do since the FDA was created. Unless you provide details about what would be different from what we’re already doing, you’re just arguing for the status quo.

It’s as if I were pointing out the uselessness of most TSA screening and someone replied that the solution is to make the TSA more competent.

I’d change my mind if there were more examples of harmful drugs in Europe or Canada that the FDA blocked in the US. The thalidomide scandal was over 60 years ago and caused around 4,000 deaths and 6,000 birth defects. You’d need a dozen thalidomide scandals to equal the FDA’s delays in approving beta blockers.

  • maxbond  3 years ago

    > Your response to any criticism of the FDA or any proposed fix is to say that we need to make the FDA more competent... [Emphasis added]

    You've only proposed one fix. I'm only opposed to one idea.

    You aren't under any obligation to try and convince me of anything, but surely you don't have to put words into my mouth.