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

The Collapse of the FDA

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 220 posts

Re: The Collapse of the FDA

#211

Post by LorenPechtel »

KaiserPro wrote: post #184
LorenPechtel wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fentanyl is not a bad drug. It's deadly *on the street* because of it's tendency to clump, meaning that your average drug dealer is not competent to dilute it properly. That's not a problem when handled by professionals.

my friend, opiods out of acute settings are super bad. Being prescribed opiods to take home, is a sure fire way to get someone addicted https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/opioids-risk-of-depend... What is even more bad is companies running competitions to encourage family doctors prescribe opiods for long term use. sure heroin on the streets is bad, don't get me wrong, but giving it to unsuspecting patients, getti…

Surefire? That doesn't say that. And I see a problem:

Typical signs of addiction are: ... Expression of a need for more, or reporting additional use of other pain-relief medicines

In other words, if the doctor doesn't prescribe a high enough dose for the situation the patient has an addiction problem.

Re: The Collapse of the FDA

#212

Post by watwut »

kongolongo wrote: post #207
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #33

I wish someone would convince RFK that prescription drug ads are bad for his brand of quack medicine. We could at least get rid of that societal cancer while the rest is torn down.

Why are prescription drug ads bad? Its not like consumers can prescribe or buy it for themselves. If there is a problem with overconsumption or misuse of prescription drugs isn't the blame on the medical professionals that prescribe them? Ads to the general public seems far down on the list of culprits here.

The strategy of "making it increasingly hard to resist the pressure, increasing the pressure and then blaming the group of people for failing to resist the predictable pressure" fails.

Eventually, doctors that resist the pressure loose in the market, because they end up less liked and more criticized. And that is about it.

Re: The Collapse of the FDA

#213

Post by kongolongo »

vel0city wrote: post #210
kongolongo wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers can directly buy alcohol and tobacco, they cannot buy prescription drugs directly. If there is a problem isn't the primary culprit the prescriber?

If consumers can't even buy these drugs, why do the direct marketing at all? Are you trying to suggest the consumer doesn't have much weight in the prescribing decisions of their doctors? Clearly the pharmaceutical companies think there's a strong reason to directly market these drugs to consumers even if they can't directly purchase these drugs. The ads almost always say "ask your doctor about..." not "think about p…

>If these ads didn't do much the industry wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on them.

Thats speculative. Companies spend exorbitant amounts of money on things they lose money on all the time. What's not speculative is consumers cant buy the drugs themselves. They might ask doctors about it, but if the doctors are misprescribing that's on them or their training and not the consumer.

Re: The Collapse of the FDA

#214

Post by kongolongo »

watwut wrote: post #212
kongolongo wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are prescription drug ads bad? Its not like consumers can prescribe or buy it for themselves. If there is a problem with overconsumption or misuse of prescription drugs isn't the blame on the medical professionals that prescribe them? Ads to the general public seems far down on the list of culprits here.

The strategy of "making it increasingly hard to resist the pressure, increasing the pressure and then blaming the group of people for failing to resist the predictable pressure" fails. Eventually, doctors that resist the pressure loose in the market, because they end up less liked and more criticized. And that is about it.

>Eventually, doctors that resist the pressure loose in the market, because they end up less liked and more criticized. And that is about it.

Sounds like the incentives for doctors are misaligned. They shouldnt be subject to market demand for improper prescribing, for example that should be offset by fines or license revocation for misprescribing. Consumers cant be expected to know if a treatment is appropriate, so they consult doctors and if doctors are swayed by financial incentives to prescribe thats on the doctors.

Re: The Collapse of the FDA

#215

Post by vel0city »

kongolongo wrote: post #213
vel0city wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If consumers can't even buy these drugs, why do the direct marketing at all? Are you trying to suggest the consumer doesn't have much weight in the prescribing decisions of their doctors? Clearly the pharmaceutical companies think there's a strong reason to directly market these drugs to consumers even if they can't directly purchase these drugs. The ads almost always say "ask your doctor about..." not "think about p…

>If these ads didn't do much the industry wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on them. Thats speculative. Companies spend exorbitant amounts of money on things they lose money on all the time. What's not speculative is consumers cant buy the drugs themselves. They might ask doctors about it, but if the doctors are misprescribing that's on them or their training and not the consumer.

You're acting as if people shopping around for doctors to get whatever pills they want isn't a thing. That consumers will ask their first GP about a drug, get told no, and then drop it to never ask again.

What's not speculative is consumers will find a way to buy the things they want to buy, and advertising has some amount of influence on purchasing decisions of most consumers.

Either way, can you draw this back to allowing or disallowing direct to consumer prescription drug advertising? Are you honestly suggesting the billions spent on drug advertising has no impact on drug sales?

Re: The Collapse of the FDA

#216

Post by kongolongo »

vel0city wrote: post #215
kongolongo wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If these ads didn't do much the industry wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on them. Thats speculative. Companies spend exorbitant amounts of money on things they lose money on all the time. What's not speculative is consumers cant buy the drugs themselves. They might ask doctors about it, but if the doctors are misprescribing that's on them or their training and not the consumer.

You're acting as if people shopping around for doctors to get whatever pills they want isn't a thing. That consumers will ask their first GP about a drug, get told no, and then drop it to never ask again. What's not speculative is consumers will find a way to buy the things they want to buy, and advertising has some amount of influence on purchasing decisions of most consumers. Either way, can you draw this back to a…

Sure it might have an impact, but again the culpability of harm isn't on the consumer or advertiser. If people able to shop around for doctors to get any prescription then isn't that the problem, not the advertisement?

It doesn't matter if the adverts have an impact on sales, if it does then doctors are to blame, tv adverts cant prescribe people medication.

Re: The Collapse of the FDA

#217

Post by vel0city »

kongolongo wrote: post #216
vel0city wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're acting as if people shopping around for doctors to get whatever pills they want isn't a thing. That consumers will ask their first GP about a drug, get told no, and then drop it to never ask again. What's not speculative is consumers will find a way to buy the things they want to buy, and advertising has some amount of influence on purchasing decisions of most consumers. Either way, can you draw this back to a…

Sure it might have an impact, but again the culpability of harm isn't on the consumer or advertiser. If people able to shop around for doctors to get any prescription then isn't that the problem, not the advertisement? It doesn't matter if the adverts have an impact on sales, if it does then doctors are to blame, tv adverts cant prescribe people medication.

If we had heroin advertisements on TV showing how great life is while doing heroin, just ask your doctor, would you still say there is no culpability of harm on the company paying for the ads (the same company supplying all the heroin to the market)? And then remember, actually that was reality, they just didn't call it heroin.

If consumers didn't have in your face advertising about how this new magical wonderdrug will solve all your life problems and you'll be happy again just like all these paid actors, you think they'd still be shopping around doctors as hard? You think they'd even know to shop around for that wonderdrug or pressure their doctor to try it?

Do you think people's decisions to shop around for doctors has zero relation to the drug advertisements they see on TV, on billboards, on the side of busses, in magazines, on the radio, on websites, etc?

Do you think people would still buy as much Coca Cola if they stopped advertising?

With your logic we might as well allow marketing of tobacco to minors again. After all, stores aren't legally allowed to sell it to the minors, so it's just a fault of the stores and the kids.

Do you think we as a society are better off or worse off having pharmeceuticals directly advertised to consumers?

Re: The Collapse of the FDA

#218

Post by Xss3 »

dude187 wrote: post #196
Xss3 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are serious cyber security implications too. A recent discovery was a heart rate monitor used in hospitals that sent all data, including full patient details, to Chinese servers, and would accept arbitrary code updates from said servers. If you wanted to kill a diplomat, muting or spoofing heart rate data while they have a cardiac event in hospital would be a very sneaky way to do it.

But the FDA didn't stop that...

They're still the body in charge of approving medical devices and cutting their funding isnt going to solve any problems in this area

Re: The Collapse of the FDA

#219

Post by KaiserPro »

mistrial9 wrote: post #201
KaiserPro wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the nanny state is to stop aggressive actors causing widespread harm. not allowing companies to poison people for profit, ensuring people are qualified to do safety critical jobs. Making sure that companies can't cut OSHA for profit, ensuring that buildings are built to withstand the weather properly, even though it costs more. A lot of the "nanny state" shit is there because people died. Now, of course…

this is moronic twaddle lacking any middle ground. If you want to prove that public forums are a doomed method of communication, this post is a great start. I mentioned none of those things

There is no need to be so emotional, I'm not after your first born.

If you want a debate, you'll need to engage with the subject, rather than get angry and fire off a bunch of logical fallacies.

Especially when you explicitly mentioned the "nanny state"

Re: The Collapse of the FDA

#220

Post by ineedaj0b »

IAmBroom wrote: post #130
ineedaj0b wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

some drug are moneymakers. lots of people can take them. viagra was that or now ozempic etc. but there's lots of novel drugs that never get past testing because they cost too much or the market too small to recover profit. these studies struggle to find candidates, the testers rarely have serious side effects, so i think on the net this will not cause the harm you worry. however! i would be worried taking new broad m…

More of your "lots", "rarely", "fewer"... but zero actual data at all. Two large posts of your opinion, and no information to back it up.

i'm not outing myself to prove a point. keep your power levels hidden.
Post reply on HN