FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc • Hacker News Board

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#31

Post by loceng » Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #29

loceng wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point? Not having proper oversight is a different beast than big pharma trying to gain control. I've spent nearly $100,000 over the last 3 years on stem cell treatments because they permanently heal injuries. I researched doctors and clinics first, felt them out along with their knowledge, and then have done plenty more than a single treatment with them because they proved to know what they were doing. Ce…

Who do you propose should do the oversight of stem cell treatments, if not the FDA? One person's "proven" is an anecdote. Scientific clinical trials are how we actually demonstrate efficacy (versus the very real placebo effect), safety, etc. Plus, there's the bonus of actually proven procedures being easier to get insurance to cover, which should be appealing to someone who's shelled out six figures.

You're still confounding and not understanding what I'm saying.

Whatever organization has oversight of that doctors should have oversight - that doesn't negate the challenges of regulatory capture that is occurring.

That you're completely dismissing my own personal experience, that I'm willing to spend $100k of money I'd much rather spend elsewhere, shows just how dismissive you are. I didn't argue my own experience as part of the data that does exist relating to stem cell treatments either, like you're seeming to counter argue with.

You should probably dive into the existing research, and not depend on using whatever mainstream sources you've used to develop your narrative and arguments - seems you're falling into the narrative mainstream media wants you to follow.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#32

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 6:39 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #31

ceejayoz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who do you propose should do the oversight of stem cell treatments, if not the FDA? One person's "proven" is an anecdote. Scientific clinical trials are how we actually demonstrate efficacy (versus the very real placebo effect), safety, etc. Plus, there's the bonus of actually proven procedures being easier to get insurance to cover, which should be appealing to someone who's shelled out six figures.

You're still confounding and not understanding what I'm saying. Whatever organization has oversight of that doctors should have oversight - that doesn't negate the challenges of regulatory capture that is occurring. That you're completely dismissing my own personal experience, that I'm willing to spend $100k of money I'd much rather spend elsewhere, shows just how dismissive you are. I didn't argue my own experience…

> That you're completely dismissing my own personal experience, that I'm willing to spend $100k of money I'd much rather spend elsewhere, shows just how dismissive you are.

Look, people have "personal experience" that prayer cured their cancer, that essential oils fixed their bipolar disorder, that aliens anally probed them, etc.

Having invested large amounts of money can make one susceptible to sunk cost fallacies, too.

"I say it works" is worthless by itself. Sometimes, worse than worthless - actively harmful. The FDA approval process may not be perfect, but some sort of scientifically rigorous "does this work and is it safe?" is necessary.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#33

Post by dekalbcountyman » Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

so stop putting baby powder on my nuts during the summer? :(

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#34

Post by swiley » Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #17

mikestew wrote: post #10

It was over seventy years, after it was decided lead in fuel was a bad idea, before it was banned in road-going vehicles. [0] Keep that in mind when some politician or business owner goes on about "bureaucrats". Because "bureaucrats" to them means "someone who stands between me and more profits". "Bureaucrats" to you should mean "people that make sure this shit gets enforced". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyl…

When these regulators stop "retiring" to cushy jobs in the industry, I'll believe it's the politicians and not the regulators openly taking bribes in the form of future "jobs". An easy fix would be for congress to pass a law preventing regulators from working in the industry they regulated, but then the politicians wouldn't also receive those same cushy "jobs".

That sounds like it would prevent competent people from regulating.

Better would be to prosecute people who conspire to harm others by intentionally distorting policy. That's how literally all the other legal stuff seems to work.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#35

Post by vkou » Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 7:22 PM UTC

costcopizza wrote: post #13

And we can't vote these regulators out nor boycott them. Stories like this erode my faith in...everything.

You can vote them out, by voting in politicians that care about good governance, as opposed to politicians that actively campaign for no governance (At this point, pretty much the entire Republican party), or politicians that do not actually perform good governance (At this point, this is much, but not all of the Democratic party).

Hint: One of those two parties is fixable, and it can be done through their primaries.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#36

Post by coryrc » Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #22

ceejayoz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without citations, this is pegging my woo-meter. A stem cell treatment provider recently lost a court case where they argued they're not subject to FDA approval, claiming it's not a medication, drug, or treatment. That seems like an untenable position to me.

Citations would require the doctors that I have had multiple of both fat and bone marrow derived stem cell treatments from over the last 3 years including last month. The FDA has considered your own stem cells as a medication to bring it under their control - honestly that claim alone is pretty disingenuous, stem cells and properties of your blood are your body's natural healing mechanisms; with these treatments they…

While I'm expecting it will turn out to be bunk, I'm glad you currently have the right to spend your own money on what you want. I'm sure that will soon go away though.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#37

Post by vkou » Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 7:27 PM UTC

Invictus0 wrote: post #30

loudmax wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can absolutely vote out the politicians responsible for for giving authority to these regulators. In fact, it's your duty to vote out crooked politicians. Even when both candidates for an office are crooked, they won't be equally crooked. Figure out which will do the least damage and support that candidate despite their flaws. And don't give up hope. Crooked interests are absolutely counting on voters' cynicism t…

It's not so simple as good and crooked. How can you even traceback which politician gave which authority to what regulator, and how can you possibly know that the opposing candidate would do a better job? Fringe issues like this are completely out of scope for voters and will not even show up on the politician's platform. If you care deeply about a fringe issue, you need to either hire a lobbyist or become a politici…

> It's not so simple as good and crooked. How can you even traceback which politician gave which authority to what regulator,

It doesn't matter who gave authority to the regulator, what matters is whether or not they are currently responsible for that regulator, and are doing a good job of it.

There's a congressional committee on pretty much every department under the sun. Follow the chain of command.

> and how can you possibly know that the opposing candidate would do a better job?

"Billy really sucks at doing his job, but we can't fire him because we don't know if we hire someone worse" isn't a good reason to keep Billy employed. Keep sacking the ones that are doing a terrible job, until you find one that does a good one.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#38

Post by sfkdjf9j3j » Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #23

costcopizza wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any links or ways to push back on this?

The source is from doctors I've had stem cell treatments from. The state of California also has had a lot of difficulty - spending $4 billion on stem cell research, only to run into problems with FDA who greatly limit treatments that the science of regenerative medicine shows to be greatly effective. There aren't many regenerative medicine doctors at the moment and the public isn't educated enough to push back agains…

I think people mean citations of the medical research behind these procedures, not that there exist doctors willing to perform them.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#39

Post by merpnderp » Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 8:06 PM UTC

swiley wrote: post #34

merpnderp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When these regulators stop "retiring" to cushy jobs in the industry, I'll believe it's the politicians and not the regulators openly taking bribes in the form of future "jobs". An easy fix would be for congress to pass a law preventing regulators from working in the industry they regulated, but then the politicians wouldn't also receive those same cushy "jobs".

That sounds like it would prevent competent people from regulating. Better would be to prosecute people who conspire to harm others by intentionally distorting policy. That's how literally all the other legal stuff seems to work.

I like it, but the conspiracy would be almost always impossible to prove. People in these positions don't 'conspire', they say "wouldn't it be nice" to a golfing buddy, who then does what they can to make it happen.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#40

Post by Invictus0 » Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 8:13 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #37

Invictus0 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so simple as good and crooked. How can you even traceback which politician gave which authority to what regulator, and how can you possibly know that the opposing candidate would do a better job? Fringe issues like this are completely out of scope for voters and will not even show up on the politician's platform. If you care deeply about a fringe issue, you need to either hire a lobbyist or become a politici…

> It's not so simple as good and crooked. How can you even traceback which politician gave which authority to what regulator, It doesn't matter who gave authority to the regulator, what matters is whether or not they are currently responsible for that regulator, and are doing a good job of it. There's a congressional committee on pretty much every department under the sun. Follow the chain of command. > and how can y…

"Steve is our best salesman but he keeps burning popcorn in the microwave. Joe Janitor just put in his resume: I don't know if he's better with the popcorn but let's fire Steve anyway."