[dahart]

So what? The U.S. food and drug laws aren’t protecting against things that accidentally work, they are protecting against things that don’t work. These laws are hard won and represent many people lost to both ignorance and greed.

If something has efficacy, then trials will eventually prove it, it’s just a matter of time. You just made a case that the process works. If efficacy can’t be shown, then it’s very risky for people to try the treatment, riskier than using something with known outcomes, and potentially riskier than doing nothing at all.

Either way this is all irrelevant to your bogus claim at the top that the FDA has anything to do with the perception that treatments aren’t improving. The top comment’s hypothesis is incorrect, which adds to the multiple reasons your proposed explanation is wrong.

[adastra22]

Where did I make the case of process works? It doesn’t. there are hundreds of examples of promising medication that will never be approved because there is no money or will to do phase 3 trials. Often because those drugs fell out of patent protection during some normal, typical snag in the testing process.

[dahart]

This may reach nobody, but FWIW I meant to use this link in the sibling comment: https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/147475-evolving-ethics-...

“The Right to Try Act was ‘unnecessary in the first place’, according to Kearns. Terminally or seriously ill patients have had the ability to access investigational drugs via the FDA Expanded Access (EA) pathway for decades.”

“most people overestimate the odds researchers will determine an experimental drug is safe and effective”

“if an adverse event occurs in a patient who took the drug outside a clinical trial, it could lead to negative repercussions for eventual drug availability. […] Right to try also could divert patients away from participating in clinical trials.“

And to answer your question, your first sentence made the case. All currently approved drugs represent previously unapproved treatments. The FDA is approving 100-200 drugs per year, and processing around 2000 investigational drugs per year. No idea what you mean when you claim progress has stopped, that comment doesn’t reflect reality. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/histories-fda-regulated-produc...

[dahart]

It doesn’t work? So no new medications are being approved? I suspect that’s not quite correct. ;) Is it possible the examples you’re thinking of simply don’t have enough backing because they’re either not effective, or they have serious side effects? What drugs specifically do you believe are being overlooked?

It is true that regulating drugs and having an approval process causes new drugs to take time, causes some to be rejected, and that people who could use them don’t get them until approved. It is true that some people could die waiting for drugs to be approved that will be shown effective. I lost a friend this year to a cancer that had an experimental treatment that he wasn’t eligible for, and it’s incredibly frustrating. Yet this has been thoroughly debated for hundreds of years, and what we have is a system that is fairly effective at minimizing harm and maximizing effectiveness given the science we have at hand.

Your argument so far has completely ignored:

- The FDA’s Investigational Drug program.

- The Right To Try Act, and all the preceding debate and legislation.

- The fact that most new drugs developed are not effective and some have very serious consequences.

- The fact that unscrupulous actors exist, and there are widespread and serious problem with fake medicines. You have nothing to say about the data I linked to on the distribution of fake drugs currently killing children by the hundreds of thousands???

If you can’t even acknowledge the basis on which the FDA was founded (regulating drugs was made a requirement by Congress) or the fact that they are balancing competing public health benefits, then your argument will get nowhere and is not being made in good faith. If you want to demonstrate why drugs should be unregulated and why we should suffer the harm that would cause, or make the case for relaxing the regulations more than the New Investgational Drug program allows and spell out how it would lead to more benefit than harm, I’m all ears!

You might not be considering the possibility that relaxing drug testing and regulations could backfire and make it harder for effective drugs to reach the market. Maybe it’s worth researching the history of this debate a bit more?

https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/59/10/1492