The FDA Does More Harm Than Good

I will respond to each of Con's rebuttals. 1. That earlier attempts at prohibiting alcohol failed doesn't change the fact that the FDA allows you to use these dangerous substances while restricting access to widely used, low-risk medicines, like antibiotics. Here's another example for a non-recreational drug: Tylenol is available over the counter and yet it is quite easy to overdose on it, which can cause deadly liver failure. Why can you buy Tylenol without a prescription, but you can't get an antibiotic for your throat infection without spending time and money visiting a doctor? http://1.usa.gov... 2. "If the FDA feels that something should be taken off the market, inspected, and then re-approved to be out on the market to protect consumers than there is nothing wrong with that." I don't think the manufacturers of these drugs, who have been doing so safely for decades, or the people who would rather buy these drugs for much less then the 'approved' prescription versions, feel that there is 'nothing wrong with that.' And if Con is worried about bias, perhaps he shouldn't cite the FDA's explanation of why it's necessary to support his pro-FDA argument. As for dietary supplements, I never said that they couldn't be dangerous. Too much of anything is dangerous. However, Con's references prove that the FDA needn't get involved in the regulation of dietary supplements- both media outlets and research groups such as Consumer Reports have done a fine job of letting people know that they should take care when taking dietary supplements. Con's definition of 'drug' is, in fact, the government's definition of a drug (from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). And unsurprisingly, it is so vague as to put anything that you consume regarding your health under the jurisdiction of the government. It's also unsurprising that the FDA would attempt to regulate Cheerios because the box claimed that eating them was 'clinically proven to reduce cholesterol.' It is by the nature of the food that Cheerios was touted to be healthy, not because it was altering a chemical process in your body like a pharmaceutical drug. As such, General Mills was not attempting to defraud or otherwise trick people into buying their product because of its claim to reduce cholesterol. http://1.usa.gov... The FDA asserted that "these claims indicate that Cheeriosï¿½ is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia." Any rational person can tell that Cheerios was NOT intended by General Mills to be ‘used for lowing cholesterol,' but that by consuming Cheerios as food, you may also enjoy some health benefits. Therefore the FDA's actions here cannot be defended as being for the public good, as there was no evidence the General Mills was being fraudulent, nor was there evidence that the offending labeling put anybody in danger. It is much more likely that, given the evidence of FDA corruption cited in my second round, drug companies and not consumers had something to lose while these cholesterol claims were on the Cheerios box. If a doctor gives a patient the option to change their diet or go on medication, they may be more inclined to change their diet, knowing foods like Cheerios can help reduce their cholesterol, rather than solicit the drug companies. Regarding example 4, the article isn't 'biased' as much as it's simply explaining how the FDA allowed drugs that were known to cause dangerous side-effects to be on the market, while not allowing alternatives that had been proven to be effective and safe to be sold. The conclusion is that the FDA's actions have led to needless deaths, which is reflected in the title. 3. I never argued that the FDA is harmful because it's not perfect. People make mistakes. However, it has been slow to remove some dangerous drugs from the market, such as Rofecoxib (Vioxx), as referenced in round 2, point 3, examples 2 and 4. Since the FDA controls what drugs are allowed to be sold, it must be trusted as the authoritative source for ‘safe' drugs. But its conflicts of interest (see round 2, point 2), questionable safety record (see point 3), and lack of competitors make it a less than ideal authority. Here is a link to an interview with Dr. David Graham, a longtime member of the FDA, who called out the FDA on the Vioxx debacle. In it he explains how the FDA protects the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of patient safety and the multitude of conflicts of interest that cloud the agency's judgment. http://www.naturalnews.com... 4. Con asserts "…companies must go through far more vigorous experimentation to ensure that whatever drug they are manufacturing is up to date with safety codes, because if it isnt a couple thousand dollars saved on a drug could end up as a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the company." This sounds like a pretty big incentive for drug companies make sure their drugs are safe, regardless of what FDA regulations mandate. As it is, FDA's ever-increasing list of demands have increased the cost of developing new drugs without a comparable increase in patient safety. Of the 33 drugs on the following list of drugs recalled by the FDA since 1980, 21 of them had been approved since 1990. (I'll link the list again) http://bit.ly... Another thing to think about is that the big pharmaceutical companies can afford to pay for the costs of approving new drugs, while small laboratories are much less able to do so. In addition, because the FDA is the sole determiner of what drugs are legal to sell, any increases in development costs go directly to the consumer and are industry-wide. This creates a cartel-like situation for the big drug companies, since they can charge more and more for their drugs and they don't have to worry about low-cost alternatives. In conclusion: yes, the FDA's control of the drug market allows for a semi-independent judge of which drugs are safe and which are not, and its actions may have been helpful in some cases. However, the Con's assertion that drugs and medical equipment "would not go through any kind of inspection or testing and corporations would begin to market just about anything to make a quick buck while consumers pay the price" is unfounded. Would you go buy medicine that wasn't approved by anybody except the company that manufactured it and had no history of safe use? Of course not. Consumers want to be as sure as possible that the drugs they take are safe, and consumer safety laboratories could sufficiently perform that task more objectively and less expensively then the FDA. By having competition between ‘drug safety' laboratories (see my final link in round 2), they would be very careful to ensure the safety of the drugs they inspect. Something akin to the Vioxx incident in the FDA would spell bad news for that 'safety' laboratory, where the FDA, a monopoly, can continue, unchanged. Drug companies would be more than willing to submit their drugs for testing, since an unapproved drug would find few buyers in the market. The FDA's total control of the drug market breeds corruption and has led to the highest-priced prescription market in the world. http://bit.ly... It has limited patients' access to safe and effective treatments while allowing dangerous prescriptions to be sold. It can pick and choose what drugs require prescriptions and which don't, with these decisions reflecting little on the danger of the drug (Alcohol, Tobacco, & OTC Tylenol vs. Prescription Amoxacillin). It restricts the rights of patients to use whatever treatments they and their doctor deem appropriate, such as experimental treatments for a terminal condition. For these reasons and more, the FDA does more harm than good, and patients would not only be just as safe with private laboratories doing the safety testing, but would have more and lower-cost treatment options.