FDA: A Killer Agency

[FrankRep]

http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/uploads/image/fda-logo(1).jpg



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) policies have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans


FDA: A Killer Agency (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/walter-williams/6243-fda-a-killer-agency)


Walter Williams | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
09 February 2011

[Zippyjuan]

I see. The goal of the FDA is to kill eveybody.

If the FDA approves a drug that turns out to have unanticipated, dangerous side effects, people will suffer. Similarly, if the FDA denies or delays the marketing of a perfectly safe and beneficial drug, people will also suffer. Both errors cause medical harm.



The article criticizes the FDA for aproving drugs which may harm people yet also criticizes them for not aproving enough drugs. It says they should have aproved a drug which, according to the article, was killing five percent of the people taking it in trials. If it is killing people, shouldn't they be more cautious aproving it- not quicker in releasing it?

The FDA was worried about the drug's toxicity that resulted in the death of 5 percent of those who took it during testing trials.

It does have one point correct:

That message is to always err on the side of overcaution where FDA's victims are invisible and the agency is held blameless.



If they aprove drugs which harm or even kill people taking them, then people would be justifiable in being angry with the FDA. The first charge of all medicinal practitioners is "do no harm".

[dannno]

Zippy, the real problem is that it costs millions and millions of dollars to have drugs approved.

Would you shell out millions of dollars out of your own pocket to test if a natural substance cured a particular disease if you couldn't patent the substance? What would be your financial incentive for doing so?

Natural substances are often extremely effective, but big pharma actually has an incentive to downplay the effectiveness of such substances because they cannot be patented, and so they can't profit off of them like they can a man-made substance. Nobody will EVER pay to have natural substances tested, and even if they did the institutions that do the testing don't have any incentive to test properly, they have a financial incentive to make it seem less effective.

When they say they want more 'drugs' approved, they are saying they want more natural and man-made substances available for people to freely purchase, along with their claims, so that the market can test to see whether the substance works. If the FDA wants to test it first to make sure the dosage doesn't cause serious injury to people, that's fine.. give double the dose to a monkey or something.. but that shouldn't cost very much money and it should be funded by the tax payers, not the business.

[EndDaFed]

I see. The goal of the FDA is to kill eveybody.

Don't you know that FDA means Federal Death Administration!

[Zippyjuan]

The FDA does not ban natural substances. What it does ban is claims that the substances are cures unless the claims can be proven. If you want to claim that say arsnic cures cancer and sell it as a cure, you need to be able to prove that it cures cancer. If it works, prove it. And prove that it is safe.

[Ninja Homer]

The FDA does not ban natural substances. What it does ban is claims that the substances are cures unless the claims can be proven. If you want to claim that say arsnic cures cancer and sell it as a cure, you need to be able to prove that it cures cancer. If it works, prove it. And prove that it is safe.

Guilty until proven innocent... does that sound American? Ron Paul wants to fix that problem: http://www.naturalnews.com/026810_health_free_speech_Ron_Paul.html

[sevin]

Zippy, the real problem is that it costs millions and millions of dollars to have drugs approved.

Would you shell out millions of dollars out of your own pocket to test if a natural substance cured a particular disease if you couldn't patent the substance? What would be your financial incentive for doing so?

Natural substances are often extremely effective, but big pharma actually has an incentive to downplay the effectiveness of such substances because they cannot be patented, and so they can't profit off of them like they can a man-made substance. Nobody will EVER pay to have natural substances tested, and even if they did the institutions that do the testing don't have any incentive to test properly, they have a financial incentive to make it seem less effective.

This is exactly the problem described in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?278486-DCA-is-Cancer-Cure&highlight=dca+cure

DCA kills cancer cells, but because it's cheap to make and can't be patented, and because it's so expensive to get approval from the FDA, no one is interested in making it!