What about the number of children that die each year because the FDA has made the process prohibitively expensive and so drawn out? There are thousands of drugs that with tremendous potential but since it costs at least $500 MILLION to meet the FDA's requirements and the drug company sees that the demand is very small (rare diseases) that they simply cannot afford to develope it.
I can definitely sympathize with the activists who are trying to reform a slightly antiquated regulatory agency.
My only point was that there is always going to be a trade-off in these types of situations.
Most often, it involves assessing the potential damage a prescription drug may do, versus the potential benefit that may accrue to the wider society through its approval and dissemination.
I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't want to live in the 'Gilded Age', where patent medicines were the standard treatment for ailments like cancer, dropsy, colic, consumption, influenza etc., etc.
It costs alot of money to develop anything new, drugs, whatever. The bigger problem with drug companies trying to find help/cures for illnesses, etc, is that it truly is R & D.
NOT EVERY drug works for EVERY PERSON.
But--EVERY PROMLEM works for EVERY LAWYER, it seems.
All drugs would be alot cheaper if the legal crap were removed.
It costs alot of money to develop anything new, drugs, whatever. The bigger problem with drug companies trying to find help/cures for illnesses, etc, is that it truly is R & D.
NOT EVERY drug works for EVERY PERSON.
But--EVERY PROBLEM works for EVERY LAWYER, it seems.
All drugs would be alot cheaper if the legal crap were removed.