[bitvoid]

If the FDA didn't exist, how many more harmful drugs would there be? Would those harmful drugs that had approval retracted still be out there being prescribed?

Just because the FDA is not perfect does not mean that it's a net negative.

[fallingknife]

Easy to have the best of both worlds, though. FDA can continue to collect and publish data on safety and efficacy of medications which is incredibly useful and absolutely worth the tax money. But if you want to take something not approved, then they should have no right to tell you that you can't take the risk.

[RandomLensman]

And if you get seriously sick from that we let you die by the wayside?

The first way to take advantage there is to outsource the cost of dangerous experiments to (sometimes) desperate people and then to society at large for picking up the pieces.

[fallingknife]

Yes. I'm not willing to have government busybodies take away my rights to make my own choices and live with the consequences so that you feel better.

[RandomLensman]

Well, then you either get enough people to agree with you to change things or move to where things are the way you like.

[nateabele]

That's the hypothetical half of the equation. The tangible, measurable half is how many people the FDA has killed by denying access to life-saving treatments. A number of studies[0] have been conducted on this topic.

[0] https://www.fdareview.org/issues/theory-evidence-and-example...

[IggleSniggle]

Right, of course. Any preventative treatment is difficult to justify, as it's a risk waylaid, whereas treating symptoms has a visible direct impact on problems faced today; nevermind that it costs 500x as much and has worse outcomes.