All my friends are dying
josiahzayner.com
josiahzayner.com
For example, many people would like to have more control but would also like the government to let them know what is safe, based on careful studies and analysis, rather than having to adopt medicine as a hobby.
You think I'm not aware of the gradations?
Nothing prevents one from asking for help, does it?
There's groups that advocate feeding bleach solutions to cure autism. [0] Should I ask those people? How about the ones that believe vaccines cause autism? We already know we get an opioid crises and overdoses when people self-administer those...
[0] Seriously, I wish I was joking. Search for "autism mms".
Well there is no clear answer as to who has the right answer. Most people tend to rely on the first licensed MD that will give them advise. Someone like me will may go in for a second and third opinion, and sometimes based solely on my existing knowledge and opinion of an MD at all. As with with all hard decisions, the answer is: 'it depends'
>At some point, you're either trusting unverified word of mouth,
Mostly, yes. But there are nuances.
>or you're verifying with the same type of data that the FDA is responsible for collecting and verifying.
What makes you think that FDA is the only source of truth? It could be my blood letting friendly barber for me. Well, I'm exaggerating, but you do get the point?
Just to be clear: Other than this point surrounding education, I generally agree that prescription law is too restrictive in the US. I wish we had a layout closer to doctors diagnose and pharmacists prescribe, instead of doctors doing both. Pharmacists are supposed to be the expert in the drugs, but other than drug interaction screening and equivalent / generic replacement, that job has been stripped from them.
We are on to something, You think all people have essentially the same fundamental capacity to reason? And all that differs from person to person is information, experience and knowledge?
>But at least in the FDA we have a relatively good source of information which was gathered using scientific methods to educate ourselves with.
Wrong, _you_ think it's a good source of information. I don't.
Anyway we probably are essentially talking one and the same thing.
I think that decision making is a skill. And like all skills, having those things will improve it. It's also a very difficult skill to judge, because value systems range so broadly. Just because it doesn't look like a "reasonable" choice to you -- which is pretty much defined by "the set of things I would have picked" -- doesn't mean that it wasn't for that person. For instance, I would not care to inject myself with unknown-to-myself drugs, because I'm naturally risk adverse and don't have a need compelling enough to take the risks I associate with such an action. But I also acknowledge that others have different aversions and needs than myself.
> Wrong, _you_ think it's a good source of information. I don't.
OK. Is it because you don't trust their methods? Or their implementation? Regardless, I agree that this seems to be the end of the conversation. If it's the former, than that's a irreparable disconnect in our ideologies. If it's the latter, then I'm undereducated and won't attempt to discuss.
Do keep in mind that I'm separating the FDA's evaluations from things that hinge on that evaluation. The FDA could still be doing its thing, even if drugs could be sold without their approval. (Though they would certainly not get the level of cooperation that they currently enjoy.)
We have a very fundamental difference of opinion, and we will have to leave the discussion at that. And the difference is this: my opinion is that people will significantly vary in their decision making skill, everything else being equal (training, knowledge, experince etc.)
>Is it because you don't trust their methods? Or their implementation?
Both. It's because the vast majority of people in my (subjective) analysis are worse decision makers than me. The FDA is no exception. The FDA is also prone to being corruptible, as is any human enterprise. It's a fundamental difference of opinion I have with you. Look through my profile, and you will see a cynic. Josiah Zayner, the guy who's article is posted would be a guy of similar disposition.
> Look through my profile, and you will see a cynic. Josiah Zayner, the guy who's article is posted would be a guy of similar disposition.
I'm fine with cynicism. I just don't buy into the "burn the world" version of it. And it's not even a decision based on facts, but rather that operating that way is just untenable for me. If I strip away all the layers of trust, there's simply nothing left. Yes, we live in a world and society that is terribly broken in many ways. But, regardless, we still have to live in it. And so I choose to accept some baseline axioms, simply to survive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_Sulfanilamide
... And then tighter regulations were required for testing new medicines, after incidents such as the Thalidomide birth defects scandal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defect_crisi...
Having a regulatory framework for the pharmaceutical industry is essential to public safety. But the framework we currently have, as it has evolved, isn't fit for purpose any more.
Regulating drug development is a complex problem, and the people best qualified to supervise the approvals/licensing process are typically folks who've worked in the industry. But this opens the system up to Regulatory Capture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
TLDR is, you get a revolving door between the regulated industry and the regulators, and the regulators are co-opted into maintaining barriers to entry that keep insurgents out (thereby providing a profitable oligopoly to their former -- and usually future -- employers).
There is also a toxic interaction with the WTO-endorsed patent system, which is w-a-y too complex to get into in this comment but which ensures that new antibiotics (which we desperately need) are unprofitable but the price of drugs that are decades out of their original patent coverage (such as insulin) can be made to spiral profitably by tweaking the intellectual property playing field.
I'm sorry, but I don't have a simple/easy answer for this: it's a really gnarly problem that will require not only legislation but international treaty negotiations to mitigate, and simplistic attempts to cut the red tape are likely to lead to snake oil scandals and, quite possibly, a considerable death toll, not just new breakthrough treatments.
I agree with the spirit of the article but this paragraph and their conclusions has me concerned....
On the medical side, my prescriber made me visit every 3 months for a 30 minute checkup to get the same drugs for several years. The checkup lasted all of 5 minutes and billed insurance. She literally just made me visit so she could insert the same order on the computer. Such a scam. Finally found a doctor who would prescribe me whatever I wanted during a yearly checkup with few questions. Such a dumb and wasteful system.
Why are we getting sick in the first place? Are we eating too much? Are we eating too much garbage? Are we too sedentary?
The medical system is for sick people. I'd rather not get sick in the first place.
"Regulations" exist to prevent unreasonable, dangerous externalities from being socialized onto the people, like the 1976 swine flu vaccine that killed a number of people because clinical trials were skipped.
There's a reason those regulations exist.
Also, what do you have any thoughts about regulation that stops experimental treatment decisions from being made by those who are destined to die anyways?
Should we use the terminally ill like Guinea pigs, no. But there should be a path to waive liability and consent to experimental drug treatment in cases of terminal illness.
That goes for "off label" uses of scheduled substances too. If I have cancer and am on my deathbed, dose me with LSD please.
A lot of the gouging we currently see happens through FDA-approved treatments that are given monopolies due to regulatory capture.
The laetrile hoax cure for cancer (https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.3322/...) and similar incidents before before and since show that people who are dying become desperate and are easy prey for people selling snake oil.
Any measure has positive and negative side. And some are positive for society but bad for individuals.
Education, not regulation, should be tried. Introduce medicine, nutrition and friends in the primary school, inspire people to take care on their bodies and do not promote health outsorcing.
This person will not even check their spelling let alone their drug formulas. I would steer clear of any advice to impersonate a PhD and make your own.
If you want to judge his more serious work, you could take a look at his DIY peptide vaccine guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xk5S0DwdXy8bVY30PJA07Z_u...