Isn't that what doctors are for? You also left out, "for the right person." Everyone is different biochemically. That's why we need doctors to examine people and determine what medicine is best for them.MRC_Hans wrote:Seals of approval may work for utensils and such, where the danger is limited, but it is not enough for pharmaceuticals. It is not just a question of whether a drug works, but also of right drug in the right dose for the right disease.
Evidence? That is a very serious charge of fraud you're making there.Unfortunately, the claims of the manufacturers are not trutful.
Not at all. Manufacturers pay for the testing to get UL certification, for example. I object to the government forcing them into an inefficient system which steals their money and stifles innovation.I agree that the manufacturers should pay for the tests (is't that what you were just protesting against??),
You mean, like UL?but there must be an independent entity that ensures that they conduct the tests properly and report them in a thruthful way.
Then explain how they're favoring the industry.The FDA is actually favoring the industry, but not in the way you probably think .
No, it's the truth. History has bourne this out.This is a very naive notion.
Then why do the drug manufacturers keep going for that one blockbuster drug to make back all the money they LOSE getting their other drugs to market?Absolutely not. The drug industry loves the FDA, because it provides a very effective barrier to cheap suppliers from low-wage areas. And it makes it extremely profitable to market drugs.
Evidence?The claim of anything crippling the drug industry is ridiculous in itself, since the industry is obviously not crippled, quite the opposite; it is one of the most profitable industries in existence.
You've just shown your entire ignorance of the electrical industry.There is absolutely no comparison between the simple, essentially unenforced requirements of the eletrical industry,
That is absolutely not true. Go to www.ul.com and learn how it works. You actually submit your product to a UL-certified lab for testing, the process for which varies depending on the type of product you're seeking certification for. They are tested according to specific specifications and are rejected if they don't meet the standards. YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.All it requires to get an UL stamp is that you declare that you follow some simple rules. There in no control, no requirements for quality control, no nothing.
Which is what we're discussing. Do try and keep up. The FDA is the body that oversees implementation of those regulations.The ten years is what it takes to comply with the LAWS that regulate the industry.
There is something very fishy about this account. You say that there is this currently incurable disease and there is this new drug that has a fantastic effect. Why exactly is it a problem to show that experimentally? That should be a breeze to do.
Because, like I said, they would have to do several studies to try and find out HOW to tell if the drug had been successful in curing liver disease. It isn't enough just to test for safety; they make you test for efficacy, too, so a brand new drug made for a brand new purpose with no precedent whatsoever is going to be very difficult to get past these regulations on efficacy.
It may be a great speech, but is it credible?
As credible as anything else anyone has posted in this thread, if not moreso. We're talking about a highly respected scientist with something like 35 years of experience.