Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after FDA approval

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 167 posts

Re: Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after FDA approval

#131

Post by Broken_Hippo »

cgmg wrote: post #128
exergy wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AEI operates with so much of an agenda that it would be impossible for me to pick up that book and read it without the filter of AEI published it. I'd constantly be on guard for where the authors tries to inject "Regulation? Booooo, hisss" sentiments.

You didn't answer the question.

Yes, he did. It was specific. I have a similar opinion.

Because the publisher also engages in climate change denial and other such thing, it is hard to trust anything in This book - even though it is a different subject. I couldn't read it and trust any factual bits presented to me - the worst case scenario is that I get these "facts" mixed up with things that are from more credible places without having the time or inclination to fact-check everything in the book.

Re: Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after FDA approval

#132

Post by Broken_Hippo »

warent wrote: post #98
tvural wrote: post #93

Negative press like this probably contributes to the FDA being so conservative. They get none of the benefits when a great new drug is approved, but get scapegoated when they approve something dangerous even to small numbers of people. So they just approve as few drugs and medical devices as they can get away with - it's a massive misalignment of incentives. One might think drugs would be more dangerous if the FDA we…

"The far bigger problem than drugs with side effects is a lack of drugs." I'm not so sure about that. Arguably the market is actually oversaturated with drugs, and too many people rely on them to an absurd extent rather than changing behaviors and habits to improve overall health.

I'll fully agree with the other replies. To add to the other things posted:

The other thing with drugs is that there are quite a few diseases and afflictions, quite a few of which need special drugs. Some drugs don't work so well for some folks as others. Migraines and seizures are like this. Sometimes, we have new drugs because they generally come with fewer side effects than the old drug it theoretically replaced, yet the old drug is still in production because it still works better than the new on in them.

Re: Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after FDA approval

#133

Post by saiya-jin »

warent wrote: post #98
tvural wrote: post #93

Negative press like this probably contributes to the FDA being so conservative. They get none of the benefits when a great new drug is approved, but get scapegoated when they approve something dangerous even to small numbers of people. So they just approve as few drugs and medical devices as they can get away with - it's a massive misalignment of incentives. One might think drugs would be more dangerous if the FDA we…

"The far bigger problem than drugs with side effects is a lack of drugs." I'm not so sure about that. Arguably the market is actually oversaturated with drugs, and too many people rely on them to an absurd extent rather than changing behaviors and habits to improve overall health.

While I understand what you want to say, wording is a bit poor. Quite a few extremely useful new drugs without any good equivalent are/were released too - for example in last 2 years we can actually cure Hepatitis C and get it out of the body for good! Till now it was almost a death sentence with high probability of liver cancer down the road.

(I know it since my fiancee is a doctor and she accidentally stabbed herself with needle from a patient who is extremely contagious with Hep C, so we did our research. luckily she didn't get it, the stab was quite shallow).

Or new drugs that enable HIV patients to lead +- normal life - they were not here 10 years ago. There are some overused and overprescribed medicines (painkillers, antibiotics in 3rd world countries being handed out like skittles).

Re: Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after FDA approval

#134

Post by Mikushi »

jamescostian wrote: post #106
warent wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The far bigger problem than drugs with side effects is a lack of drugs." I'm not so sure about that. Arguably the market is actually oversaturated with drugs, and too many people rely on them to an absurd extent rather than changing behaviors and habits to improve overall health.

> too many people rely on [drugs] to an absurd extent rather than changing behaviors and habits It's not that simple. If I go to school and someone gets me sick, you wouldn't "this is your fault, you shouldn't have such bad habits like going to school." Furthermore, what are these good behaviors and habits? I can find a million articles on the internet telling me that cold showers are a good habit and another million…

> can find a million articles on the internet telling me that cold showers are a good habit and another million saying hot showers are a good habit - which one is objectively right?

The one that works for you? We are all different, depending on ethnicity, medical history, and a million other factor your diet, life style and life choices will affect your health differently.

Re: Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after FDA approval

#135

Post by Fnoord »

dcolgan wrote: post #2

In one of my favorite books, Antifragile, Nassim Taleb argues that health is largely subtractive - if you want to be healthy, remove unnatural things from your body (sugar, medicines, sitting too much, etc), and only undergo surgery, go to the hospital, or take medicine in very serious cases where the harm of not doing something outweighs the potential complications. Especially since hearing more about more about how…

> if you want to be healthy, remove unnatural things from your body (sugar, medicines, sitting too much, etc)

You should not stop using medicine without discussing this with your MD. I said medicine; you should do the same with drugs. Some drugs should not be quit cold turkey. To name one, alcohol.

Furthermore, the reason you should try to not use too many medicine, is because medicine (and drugs, and herbs) have side effects. So you (and your MD) need to think critical if the good outweighs the bad, and this should be reflected throughout the lifetime of the usage of the medicine. Because before you know it, you end up using medicine B, C, and D all because of side effects related to medicine A.

As for 'unnatural', criley2 touched upon that subject; how do you define that? Is synthetic counterpart always worse than natural counterpart? I find such advice downright dangerous. Following that logic, St John's Wort is always better than a synthetic anti depressant. St John's Wort has its place (if standardised!), but it has a lot of contra indications. It doesn't work well with a LOT of other medicines and drugs. For example, it is dangerous if used together with an SSRI or with MDMA. Yet, if people follow the advice by this writer, they'd prefer to resort to a herb like this (perhaps not even standardised) because "its natural".

I knew people who ate raw meat regularly, and had to be administered to hospital because of food poisoning. Yet refused, because the hospital wasn't 'raw food' enough. Don't tell me this "it has to be natural" bullshit. It stems from a fear of the unknown, technology or science. It claims to argue that only Earth and nature are good. I'm not buying that (I'm not buying the 'natural is bad' either though). What is good or bad for you has to stand on its own merit. Drawing the line between 'natural' and 'unnatural' (whatever that indeed might be) is a silly oversimplification. Don't buy into it! People who use it are trying to grab your money out of your pocket to make a run for it.

Re: Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after FDA approval

#136

Post by Noseshine »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #131
cgmg wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't answer the question.

Yes, he did. It was specific. I have a similar opinion. Because the publisher also engages in climate change denial and other such thing, it is hard to trust anything in This book - even though it is a different subject. I couldn't read it and trust any factual bits presented to me - the worst case scenario is that I get these "facts" mixed up with things that are from more credible places without having the time or…

> Yes, he did. It was specific.

It was specific about the authors, but the question was about specifics of the book. Still not one bit of information about the book in sight in this sub-thread.

I don't care either way, as a bored HN reader going through this and that thread I just noticed the discrepancy, and while I have nothing to say about the subject being discussed I am able to see that the discussion itself does not have much substance but lots of partisan voting in lieu of substance. Come on guys, you do what you routinely accuse the other side of doing.

Re: Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after FDA approval

#137

Post by cancelNYTimes »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #131
cgmg wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't answer the question.

Yes, he did. It was specific. I have a similar opinion. Because the publisher also engages in climate change denial and other such thing, it is hard to trust anything in This book - even though it is a different subject. I couldn't read it and trust any factual bits presented to me - the worst case scenario is that I get these "facts" mixed up with things that are from more credible places without having the time or…

Yes, this is why I cancelled my New York Times subscription, and have been recommending everyone else do as well. They are now in the business of publishing climate denial propaganda for profit. Don't support it.

Re: Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after FDA approval

#139

Post by omginternets »

Alex3917 wrote: post #47
conanbatt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or harder still, how many drugs never get to the public because of the expensive process of FDA approval that skyrocket costs and kill people without getting reasonably priced low-risk medicine.

> how many drugs never get to the public None. FDA approval isn't required to manufacture, sell, or purchase drugs. It's only required for companies that want to make marketing claims about the ability of drugs to treat various illnesses and conditions. As long as the drug you want isn't scheduled by the DEA, you're free to go online and order however much you want.

Are you referring to the nutritional supplement exception?

A great many drugs don't qualify for that.

Re: Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after FDA approval

#140

Post by narrowrail »

Fnoord wrote: post #135
dcolgan wrote: post #2

In one of my favorite books, Antifragile, Nassim Taleb argues that health is largely subtractive - if you want to be healthy, remove unnatural things from your body (sugar, medicines, sitting too much, etc), and only undergo surgery, go to the hospital, or take medicine in very serious cases where the harm of not doing something outweighs the potential complications. Especially since hearing more about more about how…

> if you want to be healthy, remove unnatural things from your body (sugar, medicines, sitting too much, etc) You should not stop using medicine without discussing this with your MD. I said medicine; you should do the same with drugs. Some drugs should not be quit cold turkey. To name one, alcohol. Furthermore, the reason you should try to not use too many medicine, is because medicine (and drugs, and herbs) have sid…

What is the difference between medicine and drugs?

It seems highly relevant since there seems to be some quibbling about using the word natural and that it has no meaning (I agree, but another comment mentioned exactly what Taleb meant by natural).

Post reply on HN