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

Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

sciencealert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 153 posts

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#51

Post by briffle »

criley2 wrote: post #29
dannykwells wrote: post #18

Everyone yelling about how the FDA is corrupt or should only screen for safety are completely ignorant of history and basic facts. Medicine is not like trying out a new coding framework - in some cases, like cancer: i) There is no ability to "try it out for your self" - you are either all in or not ii) There are extreme risks to taking the drug (most cancer drugs are actually somewhat to extreme toxic...just less tox…

With respect to cancer drugs, while generally no one can be prescribed medication that has not passed clinical trials, in the case of terminal patients who could potentially be saved by a drug currently in trials, there is a system for allowing them access to the medication. It's called "Expanded Access" (also known as "Compassionate Use") https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/expanded... The other reas…

> If you spent a billion dollars and a decade on a project, you will consider the data you collected to be a trade secret and would protect it with everything you can, because you have to now take this drug to market and make up the billion you spent making this drug.

You would also be heavily incentivized to make sure the numbers show that your drug is effective, with very limited side effects..

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#52

Post by homonculus1 »

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #8
hirundo wrote: post #4

I think it's bad policy for the FDA to screen medicines not just for safety but also efficacy. From this study it appears to be frequently unjustified but it gives the drug a seal of approval that has a tendency to replace the judgement of doctors and patients. It's not that the FDA decision makers are corrupt or incompetent. These are wildly complex issues that nobody can get right consistently. Better not to concea…

Efficacy is important as many drugs have significant side effects. If a drug is not going to actually reduce your chance of heart attack or help treat aggressive cancer it's likely not worth the trade-off with side effects.

Not to mention cost, and the opportunity costs that emerge from it.

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#53

Post by la_barba »

geggam wrote: post #22

Frankly, Me and most of America think the FDA approves things according to the highest bidder. This is one of the biggest contributing factors to the anti vax movement. | The trust in our govt and all govt agencies is simply gone.

No, the trust is not gone, and the opinions of an uneducated fringe groups such as the anti-vaxers do not represent the majority in any way. The only reason they get any coverage is because of the perverse click-bait atmosphere of news. Its the tabloidization of news.

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#54

Post by SuoDuanDao »

criley2 wrote: post #33
geggam wrote: post #22

Frankly, Me and most of America think the FDA approves things according to the highest bidder. This is one of the biggest contributing factors to the anti vax movement. | The trust in our govt and all govt agencies is simply gone.

Anti-vax comes from anti-intellectualism, just like your opinion does. Two sides of the same coin. It has nothing to do with "trust in agencies" and everything to do with intellectualism. We live in a society where academics, data, evidence, etc are all maligned. How can you trust in an agency if you aren't willing to trust anyone at all? The cancer is not trust in agencies, it's your culture of anti-intellectualism…

Experts are incentivised to be dishonest like everyone else. It's the appeal to authority rather than facts that fuels distrust in agencies.

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#55

Post by jstarfish »

geggam wrote: post #35
criley2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-vax comes from anti-intellectualism, just like your opinion does. Two sides of the same coin. It has nothing to do with "trust in agencies" and everything to do with intellectualism. We live in a society where academics, data, evidence, etc are all maligned. How can you trust in an agency if you aren't willing to trust anyone at all? The cancer is not trust in agencies, it's your culture of anti-intellectualism…

Good way to convince people... Call them stupid ;)

You were never going to be convinced otherwise by a rational argument. You've literally dismissed the credibility of the American government and the entire field of medicine in a single comment.

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#56

Post by throwayEngineer »

geggam wrote: post #35
criley2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-vax comes from anti-intellectualism, just like your opinion does. Two sides of the same coin. It has nothing to do with "trust in agencies" and everything to do with intellectualism. We live in a society where academics, data, evidence, etc are all maligned. How can you trust in an agency if you aren't willing to trust anyone at all? The cancer is not trust in agencies, it's your culture of anti-intellectualism…

Good way to convince people... Call them stupid ;)

How else do we describe the misunderstandings of the uneducated.

Can you blame a high school grad for seeing 1 vaccine death and not understanding those are extremely low probability vs death due to disease?

I think everyone should know Math, but if they cannot, they should defer to professionals.

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#57

Post by magduf »

criley2 wrote: post #33
geggam wrote: post #22

Frankly, Me and most of America think the FDA approves things according to the highest bidder. This is one of the biggest contributing factors to the anti vax movement. | The trust in our govt and all govt agencies is simply gone.

Anti-vax comes from anti-intellectualism, just like your opinion does. Two sides of the same coin. It has nothing to do with "trust in agencies" and everything to do with intellectualism. We live in a society where academics, data, evidence, etc are all maligned. How can you trust in an agency if you aren't willing to trust anyone at all? The cancer is not trust in agencies, it's your culture of anti-intellectualism…

He has a point. Lately, our federal agencies have really ruined the trust people had in them for so long. Just look at the FAA for instance, not doing their job with Boeing's 737MAX and proving themselves to just be in Boeing's pocket. No one can really trust the FAA any more, and we have to look for European and even Chinese (!) regulators for proper regulation and approving new aircraft before we can trust that they're safe for the flying public to use.

Why is the FDA different? What makes it immune to the sheer corruption that has infected the FAA and other US federal agencies?

And where are foreign drug-regulation agencies anyway? The US isn't the world's gatekeeper to medicine.

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#58

Post by geggam »

jstarfish wrote: post #55
geggam wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good way to convince people... Call them stupid ;)

You were never going to be convinced otherwise by a rational argument. You've literally dismissed the credibility of the American government and the entire field of medicine in a single comment.

Of course I did. After watching the govt and the FDA in action for 5 decades, detassling corn for Monsanto, watching Monsanto sue farmers into submission, seeing increased rates of cancer autism and other issues. Being told everything is ok.

Then I travel the world eating food in other countries and notice the difference in my health. I see the cancer rates in Africa.

You say I am uneducated and stupid. I say I have experience and that experience doesnt jive with your experts statements.

So yeah.... prove you are trustworthy

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#59

Post by mola »

criley2 wrote: post #33
geggam wrote: post #22

Frankly, Me and most of America think the FDA approves things according to the highest bidder. This is one of the biggest contributing factors to the anti vax movement. | The trust in our govt and all govt agencies is simply gone.

Anti-vax comes from anti-intellectualism, just like your opinion does. Two sides of the same coin. It has nothing to do with "trust in agencies" and everything to do with intellectualism. We live in a society where academics, data, evidence, etc are all maligned. How can you trust in an agency if you aren't willing to trust anyone at all? The cancer is not trust in agencies, it's your culture of anti-intellectualism…

That's not true. Trust is a major issue and is directly responsible for anti vaxxer movement. Major corporations and media outlet have made bending the truth (PR spins etc) a legitimate common place practice. Any talking head you see on television /other media is not genuinely trying to convince you. They are all hired hands which will say whatever it takes to produce the results their employers demand. The amount of half truths exaggerations and out right lies we encounter daily is staggering. We thought critical thinking might be the answer, but the overwhelming quantities of adversarial content makes a critical thinker into a conspiracy theorist. If alot of experts lie and tell half truths to benefit themselves why should you believe any expert?

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#60

Post by LitFan »

criley2 wrote: post #29
dannykwells wrote: post #18

Everyone yelling about how the FDA is corrupt or should only screen for safety are completely ignorant of history and basic facts. Medicine is not like trying out a new coding framework - in some cases, like cancer: i) There is no ability to "try it out for your self" - you are either all in or not ii) There are extreme risks to taking the drug (most cancer drugs are actually somewhat to extreme toxic...just less tox…

With respect to cancer drugs, while generally no one can be prescribed medication that has not passed clinical trials, in the case of terminal patients who could potentially be saved by a drug currently in trials, there is a system for allowing them access to the medication. It's called "Expanded Access" (also known as "Compassionate Use") https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/expanded... The other reas…

This is a good argument for government funded R&D, and government owned drugs.

They cost a ton of money and take forever to create, so the product becomes very expensive, and rights to it are owned by the creating company. The government empowers a body to regulate the flow of new drugs on the market, and once the drug meets regulatory requirements, the government - in many cases - pays on behalf of the patient.

A company is interested in making a profit on their time investment, whereas the government could be content to break even (for the good of their citizens).

If the government instead paid a company to do the R&D, maybe even providing access to approved facilities where the work is to be done, the government could then retain ownership of that product and then create agreements with drug manufacturers to produce those drugs.

This solves a couple of problems, like sole producers of a product arbitrarily increasing prices (it is expensive and time consuming to set up production for a new drug, even if it is off patent), as well as supply issues (I don't think right now the FDA has any rules saying a drug company must be able to supply a certain amount of a drug to get their license to distribute).

Post reply on HN