[Reelin]

Woah. Hold up.

I will repeatedly and loudly criticize the US government response to COVID-19 so far as inept, particularly the FDA in the early days. Brittle laws combined with their failure to move quickly hamstrung our chance at containment.

Under normal circumstances though, health and safety oriented regulatory bodies such as the FDA play an absolutely essential role in protecting us from bad actors. The only reason I have confidence when purchasing medications of any sort is because of them. They also protect our food supply from all sorts of misguided and dangerous production practices.

Even in an emergency situation, they have an essential role to play in preventing bad actors from popping up left and right peddling snake oil. There certainly needed to be more flexibility and speed in responding to the current crisis, and I'd argue that states ought to have _significantly_ more autonomy in a number of areas, but that's a far cry from calling them irrelevant.

(As an aside, I was disappointed that none of the states defied the federal government in this instance. I had hoped for a state-level authorization for established medical labs to develop in house tests, and a subsequent court case challenging federal law on the matter. As far as I understand, the FDA only derives its authority from the frequently abused interstate commerce clause.)

[tathougies]

> (As an aside, I was disappointed that none of the states defied the federal government in this instance. I had hoped for a state-level authorization for established medical labs to develop in house tests, and a subsequent court case challenging federal law on the matter. As far as I understand, the FDA only derives its authority from the frequently abused interstate commerce clause.)

Yeah, seriously. Every state is happy to defy DEA with marijuana. You'd have near universal support for defying FDA in this instance, and it would be a welcome breath of fresh air for the states, who have honestly been continuously disempowered by the federal government.

[akiselev]

The political and human consequences of ignoring the FDA if something goes wrong are far, far greater.

[Symmetry]

In general having a drug regulatory agency is a good thing, I'd certainly agree. But the FDA is known for being excessively paranoid compared to similar bodies in other countries. So we didn't have UVA sun screen until long after Europe did, basically only have Epi-Pens which are subject to price jacks when Europe has 12 competing brands, got beta-blocking drugs a decade after Europe, etc. Though in fairness we also managed to avoid thalidomide so that's a point in the FDA's favor.

[kjaleshire]

> Under normal circumstances though, health and safety oriented regulatory bodies such as the FDA play an absolutely essential role in protecting us from bad actors.

Does it though? There's a perception that government agencies are impartial watchdogs, but this belies the reality that governments have agendas of their own. The FDA is so politically removed from the people it was created to ostensibly protect that there's now little incentive for it to relieve real suffering today. A brief example:

My brother and thousands of people suffer from type-1 diabetes. We have had the technology for years now to create an artificial pancreas, but FDA and EMA regulatory procedures have stopped any device from being sold. People are creating their own DIY systems because no commercial, professionally-developed, reasonably-priced alternative exists yet.

This isn't snake oil. There are solutions for many people's ailments available today. And the FDA is a massive giant standing in the way of people living healthier, unencumbered lives.

Treat people like adults. On the whole they're pretty good at figuring out what's best for themselves and taking care of each other.

[jngreenlee]

I think you reacted too strongly, IMO. I only said some. People and their doctors are the MOST concerned with their lives...not you, not politicians, and not FDA staffers.

If I want to treat my (illegal war) PTSD, depression or anxiety with novel treatments like 2CB, LSD, or MDMA, that is my choice. It immoral to restrict my supply with the barrel of a gun.

[hcknwscommenter]

The FDA is not what is restricting your supply of 2CB, LSD, and MDMA though. I think this present crisis is a perfect illustration of why the FDA is incredibly important. Just look at all the misunderstanding about chloroquine, hyrdoxychloroquine, chloroquine sulfate, etc. flying around.

[Reelin]

I completely agree - I had (mis)interpreted what you previously wrote to mean throwing them out entirely. I just can't stress enough that despite all their issues, the FDA still plays an absolutely essential role in keeping our society functioning.

[csomar]

> People and their doctors are the MOST concerned with their lives

That's exactly what makes them the most vulnerable. They are, in extreme conditions, desperate for a medicine and they'll lose sense because of that.

[CaptSkinny]

Don't make the mistake of conflating concern for one's life with a desperation to avoid losing it. Safety concern is our own in-built countermeasure to desperate irrationally.

The fallacy that patients cannot act rationally in the face of adversity is a common excuse for compulsory regulatory bodies. While there is value in having a centralized body like the FDA provide consumers with qualified advice on drugs and food, a certification authority can provide that information for individuals to use at their own prerogative.

[landryraccoon]

You're conflating a different issue. Congress made those drugs illegal. The FDA can't unilaterally make those legal without the support off the President or Congress.

If you want that policy to change, it'll have to happen at the voting booth, not because some FDA bureaucrat decided it.

[Hello71]

the fda doesn't regulate any of those drugs, that's the dea.