FDA - Freedom Doesn't Allow (it)

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to be dismissive of the idea. Is this something new for you? Have you not hear before of scientists passing judgement on other scientists' findings?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Usually when that happens, the judges attempt to reproduce the findings.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We've been through this as well but you seem to be treating well-trodden ground as something new.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You brought it up. Now you complain that you repeat yourself.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the suggestion that ONLY the private corporations are ALWAYS the best at making decisions and setting standards which affect more than themselves (e.g. who will fly a planeful of passengers over the cities) does not even pass the giggle test.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why? Because private corporations can increase profits by having their planes crash into cities?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would every mile be owned by someone else?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would it not be? Are you saying thet "every time you walk into a building" someone owns all the floors?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When I walk into a building, all of the floors are owned by someone, but in most cases, the floors have a single owner. Why would road ownership be divided up into small chunks of a mile or less?

And either way, why should I be afraid of this? I drive on roads with different owners all the time.



Sometimes these owners use different signs. Amazingly, I haven't yet gotten so confused that I drove into a tree.

This is a great tactic for you, though. First say something that has no basis (every mile will be owned by a different owner), then follow it up with something that has even less basis. Then you can have your opponent spinning wheels on these red herrings, which distracts attention away from the real issue. And you're very, very good at coming up with nonsensical things. Play to your strengths. And you beautifully combine it with the "mention a dead horse then act all surprised and bored when it gets talked about" tactic (which you did with roads *and* pilots!). You might want to throw in a few more French phrases, though. The illusion of sophistication is crucial to pulling this off.



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if the government doesn't test drugs, you'll have no choice but to blindly believe whatever the producer of the drug tells you? Even though that's what you're doing now, since the FDA bases their decisions on data supplied by the manufacturer?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I respond that, yes, that's what I do -- only they are not (as you deviously call 'em) just "bureaucrats"; they are scientists.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So you *do* blindly beleive whatever the manufacturer tells you?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And they do their own work, independently (supposedly) of the manufacturers, but using manufacturers data, provided the data and the work behind it meet the FDA criteria. (Click on the damn link already!)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Oh. So they don't reproduce, they just run the same numbers through the same formula. But they do it independently!


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I conceded the inherent shortcomings of any hierarchical, bureaucratic organisation in another post.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You conceded that bureaucracies perpetuate themselves. You forgot to concede that bureucratic monopolies with coercive authority are huge chokepoints. They hold product from market longer than necessary (sometimes "forever"), and when they allow bad product to the market, the results are catastrophic.

What happened with Vioxx? Did the failure occur in the FDA's "supposedly" independent work, or the criteria they set for judging the data and work?

In a free market with multiple, independent, competing testing labs, would this have been found sooner or later?

When there is one monopoly agency, failures affect a larger market.

The negatives of flipside of this (drugs that are kept from market) are even harder to discern. How many lives could have been saved by drugs the FDA quashed or bogged down in red tape for years?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I stated that I would still prefer the FDA to exist rather than the alternative, because their motive is very different fromthe manufacturers'.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You haven't shown that a coercive monopoly is the only way to provide an agency with motives different than the manufacturers'.

The remainder of this post is really the only part I'm interested in hearing your response to. I'll read whatever you write in response to the above (and probably continue the conversation), but the stuff below is the real issue.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I elaborated on that : Having a government agency that prevents some drugs from circulating and forces a significant amount of time to lapse (in order for drug effects to manifest themselves better) is a good thing, IMO.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It might be good for you. And if you determine such, then feel free to not use new drugs. My doctor and I might decide that we're willing to risk using a new, experimental drug in some situations (terminal illness is the obvious case). Our decision to accept such risk in no way forces you to do the same.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, the FDA is probably in need of re-organisation but it's still better to have it.

And, by the way, that's what the citizens of the society in which you have decided to live yourself too, have (freely) decided it's best for them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Like I said, if someone thinks that it's good for him, then I have no problem with it. Feel free to fund the FDA on your own and abide by its recommendations. Why do you need to force other people to pay for it and force them to follow its recommendations?