When did medical science go from legitimate breakthroughs and

File: wrong.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>1974268

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR

>>1974268
It didn't.

The only thing you're semi-right about is that the pharmaceutical industry has too much influence over the government.

Try making this sort of thread on /sci/ and see what happens.

Really? Did you need to make a second thread to complain about regulations while the other one is still running?

Fucking sage.

>>1974268
>It seems like medically, we stalled in the early 80's.
I FUCKING WISH, then I wouldn't have to studdy new research material every fucking day just so I don't become completely unable to do my job.
Disregard the snake oil merchants anon, medicine is progressing at a very fucking quick pace.

The only thing you're potentially right about is the fact that only a fraction of successes are successfully replicated later on, such that the rate of actual new developments is lower than what it appears to be, and the ability for any one person to remain fully informed becomes more and more out of reach due to the sheer volume of information.

>Now, my shitty strawman of science is some kind of weird new age religion, where scientists don't want to get proven wrong, and don't want to move humanity forward.

fify

Also, if you think 'current' science is completely invalid, why don't you start your own version of it that doesn't have any of the flaws you point out?

>>1974404
I never said it was invalid
I said it's filled with too many dogmatic people who believe "the science is settled" and even when faced with tantamount evidence to the contrary will ignore it

There are many such cases but the most obvious one is that Australian guy who proved ulcers were caused by bacteria, nobody believed him so eventually he had to infect himself and cure himself to even get them to listen

>>1974268
>>It seems like medically, we stalled in the early 80's
No it doesn't "seem like", you just "feel like it does", but your feelings mean jack shit and you have no idea about the advancements of medical science.

>>1974418
>that Australian guy who proved ulcers were caused by bacteria, nobody believed him so eventually he had to infect himself and cure himself to even get them to listen
You've got your timeline wrong anon. The guy theorized about H. Pilori causing ulcers, but always failed to prove it until he poisoned himself. That was his actual first successful experiment (well relatively, it absolutely did not go as expected) and unsurprisingly after that the scientific world started reacting positively towards the theory.

>>1974440
It was like 30 years after he infected himself that the medical community finally agreed that h. pylori caused ulcers.

The main point here: the medical community moves too fucking slow compared to how it used to be.

Whereas back in the day you'd get legitimate life saving drugs to market in 5 years, it takes 30+ years to do anything nowadays.

Even drugs that are already proven to be safe in places like australia, japan, germany, uk, take 30+ years to go through the fda in the us.

>>1974463
>It was like 30 years after he infected himself that the medical community finally agreed that h. pylori caused ulcers.
30 years would mean last year. Dude got a nobel prize a decade ago. Dude got his first medical award for the discovery in 1994, meaning that by then the theory was widely accepted already.
12 years between the first experiment and antibiotics becoming standard protocol for peptic ulcer in the US. That's a pretty short time, no matter how you slice it.
>back in the day you'd get legitimate life saving drugs to market in 5 years
And together with it you'd get a shitton of outright poison brews and snake oil. The modern way is better, thank you very fucking much.

>>1974474
>And together with it you'd get a shitton of outright poison brews and snake oil

This is just not fucking true at all.

>>1974478
If only you knew how much shit gets thrown out by the FDA, you wouldn't think so.
If only you knew how much shit gets past it you'd call for even stricter controls.

>>1974463
>the medical community moves too fucking slow compared to how it used to be.

The medical community has always been dogmatic and arrogant.

Read about Ignaz Semmelweis.

>>1974487
Big difference between having 0 to no regulations at all(early 20th century) having a fair amount of regulations(mid 20th century) and having WAY too many fucking regulations(our current situation)

>>1974504
>having WAY too many fucking regulations(our current situation)
What are even your arguments for current regulations being too much?
>inb4 time
No anon, it doesn't take 30 years. That's bullshit and you know it. New drugs take from a couple years (for minor modifications to existing drugs) to 6-15 years for completely new drugs (half of this time with the drug being effectively available for use by accepting to take part to clinical trials).
And note anon, only 8% of new drugs who manage to get past toxicological trials make it past clinical screening, so yeah all these checks are absolutely required not to be flooded with shit full of collateral effects.

>>1974512
>What are even your arguments for current regulations being too much?
It cost a billion fucking dollars to get a single drug on the market, and most of that is regulation/approval. The ONLY reasons drugs cost so fucking much are 1) FDA over-regulates the shit out of them and 2) companies have to charge abusive amounts of cash just to recoup.

>>1974521
>It cost a billion fucking dollars
You're wrong by one zero. The average cost of FDA drug approval is around $100m.
Yes, that's a lot, but then on average developing new drugs costs a business $2.6b, so FDA approval is peanuts by comparison.
And it still doesn't justify not having those regulations. Seriously, when you see how much shit is weeded out by those trials why would you ever consider laxening the standards?

>>1974268

I wouldn't go so far as to say we 'stalled', but we all know there is a 'publish-perish' mentality in science which can make the status quo difficult to change, this can also apply to medicine specifically.

>>1974535
Wrong, that's excluding the costs inherent to increasingly expensive and excessive trials. The technology to design drugs has only gotten cheaper (better computing methods, better organic chemistry, more target structures freely available from the PDB, etc).

How much shit is weeded out? How much damage does that shit cost? Inb4 "muh thalidomide", let's just say for the sake of the argument that new drugs aren't allowed to be used on pregnant women wanting to carry to term.

Not to mention the liability companies face even when their drugs are approved. You have fluoroquinones, incredibly effective antibiotics that are safe for most people, but because a fraction of a percent experience muscle degeneration when overused, companies face billion dollar lawsuits. It's horseshit

>>1974544
>Inb4 "muh thalidomide", let's just say for the sake of the argument that new drugs aren't allowed to be used on pregnant women wanting to carry to term.
It isn't about pregnant women specifically. It is about testing for every single possible contingency before people are allowed to consume the product. It is why software testing and QA costs so much, in case someone decides to shut off their computer 31 ms into saving a file as opposed to 32 ms, and both situations must be accounted for along with every other.

>>1974556
>It isn't about pregnant women specifically. It is about testing for every single possible contingency before people are allowed to consume the product.
This is literally impossible. If this was how the FDA currently operated, you would never see drug recalls (nor would you ever seen drug approvals).

>>1974544
>The technology to design drugs has only gotten cheaper
And the complexity of drugs has only gotten greater. We're not dealing with Jesuit's bark anymore.

>How much shit is weeded out?
I've told you. If 8% passes, it means 92% is weeded out.

>Not to mention the liability companies face even when their drugs are approved.
This is ridiculous, you want to cut the red tape, yet complain about liability? This shit would skyrocket with a lax FDA, unless you also want to eliminate liability, at which point you'd be revealing yourself as a big pharma shill in bad faith.

>>1974568
>And the complexity of drugs has only gotten greater. We're not dealing with Jesuit's bark anymore.
Not that much greater. Organic chemistry hasn't changed *that* much when it comes to things that can be reasonably put into a human being. Binding enzyme pocket X is the same now as it was 50 years ago.
>I've told you. If 8% passes, it means 92% is weeded out.
Implying every drug not approved is because it's bad for you, and not a result of fear-mongering or some FDA-pharma monopoly buddy-buddy.
>This is ridiculous, you want to cut the red tape, yet complain about liability? This shit would skyrocket with a lax FDA, unless you also want to eliminate liability, at which point you'd be revealing yourself as a big pharma shill in bad faith.
Why should a company be liable when an FDA-approved drug is found to hurt less than 0.1% of the people that take it? Why should the liability exceed the damages incurred by the drug, as long as it was not sold with malicious foresight of its detrimental effects?

>>1974563
It is just that what is a possible contingency changes as more and more situations become within the realm of possiblity or likely enough to be considered.

>>1974580
What do you mean "more and more situations become within the realm of possiblity"? What is changing in existence to cause this?

>>1974585
For example, antibiotics are wonderful if taken "as intended," to combat a specific bacterial infection. When taken as an antiviral to shut up soccer moms or to promote growth in livestock, they have become disastrous to the viability of human life on this planet. Ideally, we want to anticipate and account for such issues in the future.

>>1974590
Sure, but that's talking about greater public health, preventing epidemics. Pockets of genetically defective individuals suffering mild/moderate adverse reactions to an otherwise great drug is not the same thing. It's like saying "Small bridges need to cost $100 million to prevent the 0.1% that collapse and kill a couple random unlucky people, because just imagine if a major gas line had a catastrophic error and blew up an entire city." Small liability and small regulation should exist for things of small risk.

>>1974598
The problem is that the percentage liability becomes huge in terms of actual risk once you reach a certain threshold of penetration. A very small minority of Samsung phones actually catch fire, but so many Samsung phones are sold that the number of phones that do pose a risk becomes non-negligable.

>>1974521
Ah yes, it's the FDA's fault that pharmaceutical companies charge so much...

Reagan called, he wants you to come back to hell and finish your game of 'find the blanket worm'.

>>1974616
The risk is minimized by the fact that most people don't need to take most drugs. If you don't have cancer, you don't take chemo. If you don't have HIV, you don't take NNRTIs. These are drugs, not candy, anyone taking them without assuming some inherent risk deserves whatever they have coming.

>>1974629
Tell me, what is stopping companies from releasing competitors to the EpiPen, if not the FDA?

>>1974535
>laxening
this made me giggle. The word 'lax' is already a short form of 'relax', so the verb you're looking for is... 'relaxing'.

Not disagreeing with your point though.

>>1974575
>Why should the liability exceed the damages
This is down to American legal culture, nothing to do with the FDA.

>>1974630
Of course. It is just that you and the government disagree on what the threshold for acceptable inherent risk entails. Though I do support the Right to Try in terminal cases.

>>1974641
The existence of the FDA allows a system where liability is applied arbitrarily in a frequently-changing between government ego, corporate profit, and consumer entitlement. Without it, you would need real tort reform rather than a shitty bureaucratic bandaid
>>1974642
No shit

>>1974632
Patents.

>>1974657
The FDA uses the same court system as all Americans. Lawyers are selected based on their ability to milk as much damages as possible from a vict---plaintiff.

>I don't know shit about a subject, but I have strong feelings about it

>>1974268
>when scientific discovery will always be at the whim of capitalism
>we could be doing loads of things to try and reduce climate change and prepare for the adverse effects but we won't because it's not profitable
>we could be developing new antibiotics for when things go to shit and all our antibiotics don't work but we won't because it's not profitable

>>1974633
You're right that laxening isn't a real word, but lax is absolutely not a short form of relax. In fact, relax is actually the latin verb laxare plus the particle re-

>>1974670
Wrong, alternatives have been invented, they just haven't been approved
>>1974672
You don't understand my point. If there was no FDA, you're right that initially, you would see an acceleration in law suits as riskier drugs enter the market. However, in light of company-destroying suits that would inevitably unfold, there would have to be an equilibrium reached. The solution would be to put a real number on the value of a human life rather, but instead the FDA gets to play middle-man and invent arbitrary thresholds of necessity.
>>1974677
Capitalism is at the whim of crony capitalism/statist corruption

>>1974677
>climate change

My sides.

>>1974708
Don't you have some new videos to be making lindy?

>>1974684

Why not just put an "fda aprooved seal" and "fda aprooved farmacy" while liberating everything, no bullshit?

>>1974708

He's right though, all planets in the solar system are getting hoter. It's a more widespread phenomenon than wecould ever hope at resiting.

>>1974544
>inb4 muh thalidomide
That's literally the poster child for "unexpected side effects".

Who would have guessed that chirality of a single atom would be the difference between morning sickness alleviation and your baby having malformed or nonexistent limbs?

You have to make sure that the chemical that you're about to introduce to the body only affects one biological pathway and not another. And there are so fucking many that you need people to dedicate part of or the whole of their careers to study one or two. Some we know basically nothing about, and there are likely others that we haven't even observed yet.

Why are you retarded?

File: it's exactly the opposite.jpg (7KB, 324x324px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 324x324px

>>1974463
>>1974474
>>1974487
It's the opposite, medical "advancements" are being released faster than ever, because the FDA no longer has any teeth.

In the 60's and 70's, you could easily expect some new pill to take 10 to 20 years to hit the market. Even older pills, verified to work, had to undergo periodic review and beat double blind tests every few years.

That's all gone now. Thanks to changes in the 90's and 00's, it's very rare for anything to take more than two to five years to hit the market, and nothing at all is subject to double blind review.

If something fails to hit the market, it's usually because a pharmaceutical company doesn't want it to. They sometimes use the FDA as a tool for that, but more often, they simply buy out the patent, or create counter studies damning the product.

There's just far too much dosh to be made on treatments for certain chronic conditions to actually cure them.

File: usrs.jpg (131KB, 824x1100px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 824x1100px

>>1974268
scientists do want to be proved wrong, they just don't want to be memed by religious nuts, conspiracy theorists and SJWs

>>1974682
The words "relax" and "lax" are etymologically related. It is not properly a short form, true. They both have different routes into the English language, which are closely related.

>>1974422
This. Please stfu and stop making /his/ look like /x/

>>1974950
Like I said, prohibit pregnant women from taking drugs, let everyone else do whatever they want.