The flip side that people always seem to forget is why the FDA came into existence.
Quackery, snake oil, blatantly mislabeled and unwholesome food, blue mass (essentially massive doses of mercury sold as a panacea).
The current approval process stems from Thalidomide.
It boggles the mind how people complain about regulation when history demonstrates lack of regulation is far, far worse.
You know thalidamide is still used, don't you?
So the next time you complain about the cost of a jar of skin lotion, or that your grandma can't get a drug to treat her Alzheimer's, you may want to thank your regulatory agency for "protecting" you.Do you object to all regulation, or just mishandled regulation, Doug?
Mainly ignorance. Nice try, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Big Pharma is a curious creature. Every major company is an old national pharma company that was instituted to provide the country in question with wartime medicines. Globalization caused a flurry of acquisitions... but the companies have never been small fishes in any pond. So, with the thalidomide disaster, they certainly had an influence on the regulatory framework. And the one thing they could agree on was that new competition was a Bad Thing (tm). In short: They WANTED the process to be so expensive that only big companies could try at all. In updates to the regulations, this has remained a priority. Sure, they will whine about how much it costs, but if truly offered the chance to make it cheaper by cutting red tape, they would all refuse.
The consequences of this are high costs for medicine, few new drugs this last decade or in the future, even fewer acute drugs since the company rather spends its resources on testing and developing lifelong drugs, and so on and so forth.
^ What she said. It's all pretty incestuous.
Thalidomide is still being used as a complement to cancer therapy, if I remember correctly. There may be other indications. However, those who do get it are required to accept things like depot-Provera, an injection that makes conception impossible for three or four months, plus they have to sign papers about how they have been informed about the teratogenic effects. I don't see a problem with this. It is apparently good for what it is used for.
|
I agree, that would be nice.
As it stands, we have the FDA which acts as one big rubber stamp for the pharmaceutical industry, and a bunch of drug laws based on racism and cultural panic rather than any objective dangers.I'm sure I'm overstating it, I'm sure the FDA has done some good stuff, but I can't overlook the two-facedness of its policies.
If Mexican drug cartels were as clever as people give them credit for, they'd own a few senators by now.
Wait a second...
Was a story in the paper a couple months ago about mexico making purer and "safer" meth.
Mainly ignorance. Nice try, though.So you object to ignorance but won't answer my question?
You asked a question that had nothing to do with my post.
Here's a quick repeat: There is no rubber stamp. The next time the FDA approves a drug and says something along the lines of "and this drug will save 10000 lives a year," you should realize that by slowing the approval process they allowed 10000 people to die during the past year.
Sissyl, you're correct. And they all want the FDA to continue to exist, for the reasons you mentioned and for the cover it provides them if something goes wrong. "FDA-approved" shifts part of the blame over to someone else.
Biotech stuff has been making inroads, since those companies are generally smaller and don't necessarily need the large infrastructure needed to manufacture their products. Which is why pharma is pushing "biosimilar" legislation.
There is, however, a strong push for new medicines. The "low hanging fruit" strategy has failed to pay off, as has the acquisition strategy of buying up new and novel treatments/companies. Too bad it takes between 7-10 years to bring a new drug to market.
Thalidomide is still being used as a complement to cancer therapy, if I remember correctly. There may be other indications. However, those who do get it are required to accept things like depot-Provera, an injection that makes conception impossible for three or four months, plus they have to sign papers about how they have been informed about the teratogenic effects. I don't see a problem with this. It is apparently good for what it is used for.
Maybe cancer also, but certainly it's used with leprosy.
I think the 50th anniversary of the thalidomide scandal was last year and the company that made/makes it finally apologized to the people whose lives they screwed.
I also don't believe it was ever sold as a sedative here in the U.S.
So, kiddies: don't do drugs and don't do thalidomide, unless you've got leprosy.
Why does it need to? Do you only answer questions that are topical?
Turning this thread into a discussion involving the pros and cons of regulation isn't necessarily what this thread was about, although there is some discussion regarding drug laws. I'll be happy to have the discussion elsewhere, although I don't see the point as you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. Is there really any point in having Paizo lock yet another pointless thread?
I agree with our goblinod Comrade: Don't do leprosy and thalidamide unless you've got cancer drugs.
Always funny to hear users defend their habits.
Almost all have physical and mental side effects and pretty much all impair thinking. not bad people just bad choice.
So I assume you don't drink, then. Or ingest caffeine. Or eat chocolate.
|
|
So I assume you don't drink, then. Or ingest caffeine. Or eat chocolate.Always funny to hear users defend their habits.
Almost all have physical and mental side effects and pretty much all impair thinking. not bad people just bad choice.
My drinking is minimal, never near to drunk and caffeine does not impact your ability to think effectively like pretty much every drug. comparing coffee to PCP is like a slap to the ass compared to a sledge to the face.
If you don't get drunk...why do you drink?
If you don't get drunk...why do you drink?
To forget... which does involve being drunk I suppose ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My drinking is minimal, never near to drunkSo I assume you don't drink, then. Or ingest caffeine. Or eat chocolate.Always funny to hear users defend their habits.
Almost all have physical and mental side effects and pretty much all impair thinking. not bad people just bad choice.
Define "minimal." One drink impairs many people enough that they shouldn't be driving.
and caffeine does not impact your ability to think effectively like pretty much every drug. comparing coffee to PCP is like a slap to the ass compared to a sledge to the face.
Caffeine has been shown to impair both long- and short-term memory formation in some cases.
Almost everything you ingest affects your brain in some way, and much of it can impair your judgment. Too little or or too much water has severe effects on your brain -- a 2% drop in hydration levels can impair memory and perception as much as being drunk. You don't even need to ingest anything: sensory deprivation chambers cause hallucinations on the level of those induced by LSD. Heck, holding a warm drink makes you significantly more likely to trust others than if you've been holding something cold. It's not like our brains/perceptions are rational about everything until you put certain substances in them -- they're actually somewhat irrational about practically everything without any chemical help.
The point being, it's a spectrum, not a binary. There are things at the far ends of the spectrum (PCPs are on the dangerous end, and niacin's pretty far on the harmless end), but most things are closer to the middle. I don't think the world is divided into one group of substances (and as I noted, practically everything you ingest is potentially psychoactive) that you're an idiot to ever try, and another group that's totally safe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dr. Klahn: Just lost drunken men who don't know where they are and no longer care.
Prisoner #1: Where are we?
Prisoner #2: I don't care!
Loo: And these?
Dr. Klahn: These are lost drunken men who don't know where they are, but do care! And these are men who know where they are and care, but don't drink.
Prisoner #3: I don't know who I am!
Prisoner #4: Yeah. and I don't drink.
Dr. Klahn: Guards!
[moves prisoners]
Dr. Klahn: Do you care?
Prisoner #5: No.
Dr. Klahn: Put this man in cell #1, and give him a drink.
Guard: What do you drink?
Prisoner #5: I don't care.
If you don't get drunk...why do you drink?To forget... which does involve being drunk I suppose ;)
I drink to remember.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I find it much easier to defend my drug habits than my habit of spending hours on the Paizo OTD messageboards...
Paizo is my drug.
That and caffeine.
I like to think, though, that we are least using Paizo responsibly. (Possibly even productively.)
Hee hee!
I only understood, like, every third line in that sketch, but the ones I did were pretty funny!
|
holy crap this thread really took off while I was gone.
So anyway, today I had a screening for an outpatient program with the veterans hospital. Got interviewed by 2 students and a social worker. no damn doctors. That should have been my first clue right then that they don't know how to treat spice addiction.
Then I asked them about dual diagnosis (I have borderline personality disorder marked by mood swings and a history of violence). I explained to them that I was crazy as hell before I ever started using and that needs to be addressed otherwise I'll never get better. The social worker (her name was Leviticus Chronicles, I shnit you not) said that no meds will help stabilize me during the withdrawal process and that it was all up to me to police my behavior during recovery.
Well, JC in a Jeep Cherokee, if I could police my behavior before i fly off the handle, I would not have been a psych patient since age 10.
I had a psychiatrist at the hospital rx me risperidone to keep the violent outbursts to a minimum. Once my moods are stable, withdrawals will be much easier.
Leviticus Chronicles...
...
Wow.
Wait this is a real drug??
Please provide links or at least addresses. Thought this was a joke thread.
I did at first too, hence my obligatory Dune reference, then a little research proved otherwise.
