How many will we let the FDA kill?

Time to end the FDA

Now that the cost imn lives is clearly visible, will we finally take the steps needed to set the market free to save us?

19 thoughts on “How many will we let the FDA kill?

      1. But its OK as long as the market allows them to market it, during a pandemic, for eve ONE day. make their money and move along.

        So who is it that wants to score political points on the graves of Americans now?


        1. You can’t recover your investment in a test in a few days, and testing companies are well known buy reputation among doctors and hospitals.

          Your doctor is a better guardian of your safety than the FDA


          1. “You can’t recover your investment in a test in a few days,”…

            If your investment is $10 in the kit, you sell 500 of them in 2 days, before the “crappy” is identified, for $1,000 per kit, you’ve done quite well. And desperate health care organizations who are attempting to test as many as possible will go for it and then it is too late. Your beloved marketplace is set up to kill more people than the FDA. And the market gets richer while we end up deader.

            Liked by 1 person

  1. The gist of the article in one sentence . . . “That [FDA] caution comes with a price tag in human lives that might have been saved by faster access to new drugs and devices”

    What is left out is the cost in lives without FDA regulations. The so-called “free market” is full of unscrupulous scumbags whose only goal is to separate people from their money and in the area of medicines, desperate people.

    Furthermore, the article treats the bureaucratic bumbling of the Trump administration as an inherent feature of the regulatory process in a crisis. It is not. There is good management and bad management. Trump has shown us nothing but bad management.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Trump is not your doctor.

      You are assuming your doctor is an idiot acting in isolation from other doctors.

      There is nothing the FDA does that the product liability industry and medical journals cannot do better and faster.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The FDA can prevent CRAP form hitting the market. Product liability only lines the pockets of lawyers. And medical journals only come out monthly.

        So which is faster?

        Oh, right. Facebook.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. @Tabor

        Your childlike faith in the miraculous functioning of market forces would be charming if it were not so wrongheaded and deadly. Rather than raise torts, I would prefer that drugs, devices and tests be proven safe and effective BEFORE they harm me or a loved one.

        If streamlining of normal review processes is sometimes required, the President has the authority to do that. Trump’s failure to use that authority early in this pandemic is just another dimension of his egregious failure in this crisis.

        As an aside, you should realize that your blind support of Trump’s constant malfeasance has destroyed all your credibility on every subject. The bumbling of the FDA is a good example as you squirm to shift the blame for its failures onto President Obama even after three years of Trump’s “management” of it.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Obama broke a lot, and a lot was broken before he got there. The FDA has been broken for 50 years, when it used the thalidomide disaster to grasp power over everything.

          You want guarantees of every thing new before you get them? You can do that, but you stand a substantial risk of dying for lack of an effective treatment while waiting for the hyper-cautious FDA to approve a good treatment.


        2. @Tabor

          Your simply repeating your doctrinaire beliefs – divorced from evidence and common sense – about the government are not very persuasive. And with your supporting of the Birther-in-chief your constant barrage of now irrelevant brickbats aimed at President Obama isn’t persuasive either.

          I will stipulate that some delays in the process of proving drugs, devices and tests to be safe and effective cost lives that might have been saved. With that said, I will re-state my belief – based on centuries of evidence – that the “free market” would do MORE harm and cost MORE lives without such hurdles. None of the regulatory functions of the government would exist if the “free market” was even remotely close to the miracle worker of your imagination.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Yours would be an a priori belief system, would it not?

            If current events have not adequately demonstrated the superiority of the private sector over government, or government management of the private sector, no amount of evidence will do it for you.

            The regulatory functions of government beyond a standard system of weights and measures exist solely to protect established crony enterprises from competition. That is especially true in an information age, where the advantage of asymmetric knowledge is easily overcome.

            And thank goodness this did not fall on us in Obama’s watch, he would have just screwed down the regulatory barriers even tighter and the cavalry would not be coming to the rescue.


          2. “The regulatory functions of government beyond a standard system of weights and measures exist
            solely to protect established crony enterprises from competition.“

            While there is significant abuse of the regulatory power of Government, your contention that it “exists solely” for nefarious purposes is bullshit.

            Again, your hyperbole continues to negate the actual facts that support your positions.

            The inability to compromise and find a win/win in the process of “herding cats” is a fatal flaw.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. @Tabor

            a priori belief system?

            What part of “centuries of evidence” do you not understand?

            These regulatory agencies did not come into existence in a vacuum. They were necessary responses to dangerous failure of the “free market.”

            Your imagining that without the government, the for-profit medical test business would have responded more effectively is not evidence of anything.

            Your citing of current events as evidence of inherent government failings reminds me of the old saw – The Republicans argue that the government is ineffective and every now and then we let them hold office so they can prove it.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. RE: “will we finally take the steps needed to set the market free to save us?”

    We should. The way I see it, the FDA hasn’t had enough practice at responding to dynamic risks. It’s a classic puzzle in business: When you let the quality control function get too powerful or lazy, minor events start producing big headaches.


  3. Don, on a different note. I posted some information about germicidal UV lamps for disinfecting PPE for reuse under the “Mask or no mask” thread. Would you be so kind as to take a look at it and tell me what you think/know about what I described.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s