Medical breakthroughs

Is the FDA really a mess?

What evidence does anyone bring to the table to prove that?

Because it takes years to get a new drug onto the market?

I don't doubt that. Research takes time and time is money.

It takes money to create really breakthrough drugs, and it take years to study the effects of of these drugs on people, too.

And we're blaming the FDA for the scientific process?

Might as well blame the pharmauetical companies for doing thier research thoroughly

That makes about as much sense as blaming the FDA for demanding that new drugs that come on the market are safe.

You have that backwords ... if it only took years to get any meds on the market ... but that's not the case. Not by a long shot. The reality is some take years because the companies making them are new and can't afford the bribes, while too many are released in the US far too quickly because they can bribe the FDA and are over prescribed because they bribe the AMA. Look at the recent mass recalls and lawsuits because of recalled drugs that were put into wide use for the perfect example ... arthritis medication that I was prescribed was one, turns out, that's why I have to wear diapers now. So yeah, the FDA is fucked up.
 
No, it's not possible that these new drugs would be developed by accident. A researcher might come by an unexpected insight that leads eventually to a new drug, but the cost of developing the drug and of taking through the average 8 1/2 years of testing needed for FDA approval will likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
I didn't mean by accident. I'm also not convinced FDA testing is a bad thing, I'd like to know that I can purchase something with a pretty good chance that it will do some good.

I'm not knocking the FDA, but it is a fact that FDA testing delays the release of new drugs for years and requires the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to prove a drug safe and effective. We're always hearing about promising new drugs that are abandoned during human trials because while they did great things for sick mice or monkeys they failed to do the same things for humans. If a drug fails during effectiveness trials, most often tens of millions if not hundreds of millions have already gone into its development, so when a drug is finally proven to be safe and effective and ready for the market, the development costs of all the drugs that failed have to be considered part of the development cost of this drug that didn't fail.

If the drug companies were not willing to put up these huge sums of money in the hope of a huge payoff when that one in a thousand drug finally gets FDA approval, who would put up the money necessary to bring this drug to market? The answer is, no one. The upside of the FDA is that we can be fairly confident an approved drug will perform as it is supposed to, but the downside is only big pharma with its eyes on big profits from a patent and big money to invest in developing the drug has the means and will to bring it all the way through the FDA testing process.
Why would nationalizing health insurance affect drug company profits?
 
I didn't mean by accident. I'm also not convinced FDA testing is a bad thing, I'd like to know that I can purchase something with a pretty good chance that it will do some good.

I'm not knocking the FDA, but it is a fact that FDA testing delays the release of new drugs for years and requires the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to prove a drug safe and effective. We're always hearing about promising new drugs that are abandoned during human trials because while they did great things for sick mice or monkeys they failed to do the same things for humans. If a drug fails during effectiveness trials, most often tens of millions if not hundreds of millions have already gone into its development, so when a drug is finally proven to be safe and effective and ready for the market, the development costs of all the drugs that failed have to be considered part of the development cost of this drug that didn't fail.

If the drug companies were not willing to put up these huge sums of money in the hope of a huge payoff when that one in a thousand drug finally gets FDA approval, who would put up the money necessary to bring this drug to market? The answer is, no one. The upside of the FDA is that we can be fairly confident an approved drug will perform as it is supposed to, but the downside is only big pharma with its eyes on big profits from a patent and big money to invest in developing the drug has the means and will to bring it all the way through the FDA testing process.
Why would nationalizing health insurance affect drug company profits?

It would give them fewer agencies to bribe in order to have their products pushed.
 
There have been plenty of them delayed and outright shelved because of the greed of FDA bureaucrats.

But I guess your greed doesn't count if you're a minion of Big Daddy, huh??
It's amazing to me that cons would do away with the FDA. I guess they'd prefer to test products on their kids and themselves.

The FDA is a mess, no doubt, but some oversight is necessary. I'm just not sure the FDA is the way to go.
Well, this is indeed a red letter day....We agree on something.

What would be wrong with that oversight being in the form of organizations like Underwriter's Laboratories, Consumer's Union, or the insurers of the pharma companies??

Can't possibly be any worse than the FDA.
 
Is the FDA really a mess?

What evidence does anyone bring to the table to prove that?

Google "orphan drugs".

After that, I could dig up some pure bullshit that came from the pie hole of former FDA chief, Dr. David Kessler, that'd make your head explode.

The FDA functions as nothing more than a giant protection racket, that favors the huge pharma companies that can afford the onerous approval process.
 
I didn't mean by accident. I'm also not convinced FDA testing is a bad thing, I'd like to know that I can purchase something with a pretty good chance that it will do some good.

I'm not knocking the FDA, but it is a fact that FDA testing delays the release of new drugs for years and requires the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to prove a drug safe and effective. We're always hearing about promising new drugs that are abandoned during human trials because while they did great things for sick mice or monkeys they failed to do the same things for humans. If a drug fails during effectiveness trials, most often tens of millions if not hundreds of millions have already gone into its development, so when a drug is finally proven to be safe and effective and ready for the market, the development costs of all the drugs that failed have to be considered part of the development cost of this drug that didn't fail.

If the drug companies were not willing to put up these huge sums of money in the hope of a huge payoff when that one in a thousand drug finally gets FDA approval, who would put up the money necessary to bring this drug to market? The answer is, no one. The upside of the FDA is that we can be fairly confident an approved drug will perform as it is supposed to, but the downside is only big pharma with its eyes on big profits from a patent and big money to invest in developing the drug has the means and will to bring it all the way through the FDA testing process.
Why would nationalizing health insurance affect drug company profits?

One of the principal argument put forward in support of government run health care is that it would allow the government to force drug companies to lower prices and that would lower profits. Lower profits, a smaller payoff, would make investment in research for new drugs less attractive, hence, less research and fewer "medical breakthroughs".
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top