I've written about this before. Basically, the FDA's position is that it's better for 10,000 patients to die of neglect than have 1 patient die of quackery.
Drug development is in shambles because the FDA requires >99.99% confidence that pharmaceutical companies are not selling quack cures. Do we need that level of confidence? Especially for cancer, is that degree of confidence warranted? Is the process efficient?
There's legitimate fear of quack medicine -- and then there's whatever the FDA is gripped by, which seems to me a lot like insanity.
> PFAS
Not exactly something that goes through the usual drug approval process. What other problems come to mind?
I've written about this before. Basically, the FDA's position is that it's better for 10,000 patients to die of neglect than have 1 patient die of quackery.
Drug development is in shambles because the FDA requires >99.99% confidence that pharmaceutical companies are not selling quack cures. Do we need that level of confidence? Especially for cancer, is that degree of confidence warranted? Is the process efficient?
There's legitimate fear of quack medicine -- and then there's whatever the FDA is gripped by, which seems to me a lot like insanity.
> PFAS
Not exactly something that goes through the usual drug approval process. What other problems come to mind?