Dietary supplements: the free market vs. the FDA

We are the Borg.
User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:31 am

Loon wrote:I'm curious what support you see in the article from CNN.
It was presented as support for the figures I quoted, in direct response to a challenge of those figures. I really don't know what you people want from me sometimes...
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

Loon
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Tokyo

Post by Loon » Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:35 am

shanek wrote:
Loon wrote:I'm curious what support you see in the article from CNN.
It was presented as support for the figures I quoted, in direct response to a challenge of those figures. I really don't know what you people want from me sometimes...
Fair enough. I thought you had found support for your position as a whole, rather than a specific point at hand.

Though it doesn't say (and I'm unaware of any technical meaning of the term) whether "bring to market" includes R&D or just the part of between "hey this stuff works" and "LoonCorp recieved FDA approval today for..."

I think this distinction would have a huge impact on the relevance of this article to the costs of FDA testing.

I also wonder how much testing in a non-FDA regime would cost. I mean, the threat of lawsuits over injury or misuse would require pretty heavy research. Though this may reduce the strength of the cost savings argument, it may also go much further to making your overall point...
I guess there he chose to err on the side of more votes. -[size=75]Grammatron[/size]

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni » Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:33 pm

shanek wrote:
Geni wrote:Now what percentage of those costs are due to FDA rules?
Almost all of it. They're pretty much the only costs once the new drug is developed until getting to market, which is what that cost measurement was for.
Source? This is not how the term is used where I am (where is covers everything from identfying the need untill it hits the shelves).

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:36 pm

Loon wrote:Fair enough. I thought you had found support for your position as a whole, rather than a specific point at hand.
No, that was this one:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/09/pf/health_drug_costs/
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

Loon
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Tokyo

Post by Loon » Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:38 am

shanek wrote:
Loon wrote:Fair enough. I thought you had found support for your position as a whole, rather than a specific point at hand.
No, that was this one:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/09/pf/health_drug_costs/
Again, the only support I see for you in that article is that "Drug development is expensive." There is some talk about regulation lowering prices for consumers (i.e., generics are unregulated in Canada and therefore more expensive than in the US.)

There's nothing in this article that says that FDA testing should be done away with or what percentage of development costs the testing accounts for.
I guess there he chose to err on the side of more votes. -[size=75]Grammatron[/size]

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:00 am

Of course some estimates of cost include the money lost by not investing the money inventsted in research elsewhere.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:07 pm

And let's also not forget the cost of developing drugs that end up not passing the FDA's rules and regulations.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni » Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:38 pm

shanek wrote:And let's also not forget the cost of developing drugs that end up not passing the FDA's rules and regulations.
You maen ones that don't work? :D

I thought that was where the risk part of the drug industry came in. Anyway there is at least one loophole that drug companies can use to avoid the FDA. I wounder why it is almost never used.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:51 pm

Geni wrote:You maen ones that don't work?
Yeah, ones that don't work...like aspirin, which wouldn't be able to pass through the FDA regulations if it were invented today.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni » Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:50 pm

shanek wrote:
Geni wrote:You maen ones that don't work?
Yeah, ones that don't work...like aspirin, which wouldn't be able to pass through the FDA regulations if it were invented today.
Support for that claim?

Incerdently you missed Another reason for lower drug prices in no us countries. Massive government health services totaly messing up the free market.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:19 pm

Geni wrote:Support for that claim?
Lots of places. Here's the first result from a Google search:

http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/AAM-400A/FASMB/HOP/health.htm
The FDA probably would not approve aspirin for over-the-counter sales if it just came on the market this year.
That's from the FAA's Aerospace Medicine journal.
Incerdently you missed Another reason for lower drug prices in no us countries. Massive government health services totaly messing up the free market.
No, I accounted for price fixing.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11453
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:46 pm

shanek wrote:
The FDA probably would not approve aspirin for over-the-counter sales if it just came on the market this year.
That's from the FAA's Aerospace Medicine journal.
shanek wrote: Yeah, ones that don't work...like aspirin, which wouldn't be able to pass through the FDA regulations if it were invented today.
I'm sorry, your quote of the FAA Aerospace Medicine journal does not confirm your claim in the previous quote.

There's no doubt that aspirin works, but there is a great deal of evidence that it causes a variety of problems, some of them serious. Aspirin might get quite a bit of scruitiny and be restricted in use for a time, indeed, because of its known, dangerous side effects.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni » Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:53 pm

shanek wrote:
Geni wrote:Support for that claim?
Lots of places. Here's the first result from a Google search:

http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/AAM-400A/FASMB/HOP/health.htm
The FDA probably would not approve aspirin for over-the-counter sales if it just came on the market this year.
That's from the FAA's Aerospace Medicine journal.
MDs are not quailfied in judging how likely a drug is to pass an FDA assment.The person arguing that the stuff is dangerious (it is there are for the most part better pain killers) and as such should have more limitations put on it (I would of course dissagree but that is another issue).

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:59 am

Well, geez, I could fall back on the word of a PhD with decades of experience in pharmaceutical research, including FDA approvals, but every time I do that people just call her names and refuse to consider the data...
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni » Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:25 am

shanek wrote:Well, geez, I could fall back on the word of a PhD with decades of experience in pharmaceutical research, including FDA approvals, but every time I do that people just call her names and refuse to consider the data...
She had data pertianing to your claims about asprin. Ok lets see it then.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:04 pm

Geni wrote:She had data pertianing to your claims about asprin. Ok lets see it then.
It's in Chapter 6 of Healing Our World:
Aspirin deforms the unborn young of almost every animal species but humans and could not be marketed today if it had to go through FDA evaluations as a new drug!
And her sources for the claim of the deformities:

Richard T. Robertson et al., "Aspririn: Teratogenic Evaluation in the
Dog," Tetrology 20: 313-320, 1979
William M. Layton, "An Analysis of Teratogenic Testing Procedures," in Congenital Defects, D.T. Janerich, R.G. Skalko, and I.H. Porter, eds. (New York: Academic Press, 1974), pp. 205-217.

So it wouldn't even get past the animal testing phase.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
MRC_Hans
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by MRC_Hans » Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:47 pm

That's strange. During the recent years several variations on aspirin HAVE been approved. I wonder how that happened.

Hans
[i]Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe...[/i]

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:57 pm

MRC_Hans wrote:That's strange. During the recent years several variations on aspirin HAVE been approved. I wonder how that happened.
Maybe because we've got 100+ years of human use to draw on that wouldn't be there if aspirin were to be introduced today?
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni » Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:04 pm

shanek wrote:
So it wouldn't even get past the animal testing phase.
You appear to have made a leap that doesn't work. There are several drugs on the market that are known to be a bad idea when it comes to dealing with pregant women.