How Good (or Bad) Is The Fda - Food And Drug Administration?

[Captain Rex]

source- hairlosscure2020

Everything is just a "NO" - I think this should be their motto.

seriously???
Even when your treatment/method is far from causing any adverse consequences, what's the point of imposing so many regulations and clinical trials which requires a lot of budget?

Yes, I do agree they have good intentions. But what about the fact the first guy (in that video) pointed out

"With these government organisations, their whole goal is NOT TO SAY ANYTHING THAT COULD LATER BE USED AGAINST THEM" - it's true and just because of their politics, we shouldn't red tape everything. It's just doesn't make any sense at all.

It's like you are killing the innovations right from the beginning.

I hope these bio-hackers will find a way around FDA's regulation or flee to some other countries to discover something new and groundbreaking and market them.

New discoveries and innovations shouldn't be halted especially when it is obvious that they are safe.

sometimes, videos like these make me realise why we haven't cured baldness yet.
maybe, it requires a few days to do the experiment but it takes months and years to approve that small experiment. BULLSHIT.

 

[InfamousOne]

I've been saying it for a while, the FDA is detrimental to progress. It costs roughly 3 billion dollars to get FDA approval, that's just the cost. Let's not forget the time investment, we're talking 5+ years of opportunity cost. That's probably 4-5 billion dollars to get something to market.

This forces companies to jack up prices to recoup their losses when/if it hits market. In addition to, dropping any items that are marginally better than current available treatments with large market shares. I have very little doubt that we would have better treatments for hairloss without the FDA today. Maybe not a cure, but definitely better options.

The FDA needs to f**** off. They should allow two seperate categories. FDA approved drugs, and non-FDA approved drugs. Once a drug passes the proof of concept stage/safety stage, let it be available to market for consumers to test. Keep the costs lower, give companies incentive to bring marginally better treatments to market. 1000 baby steps is better than 0 steps!

 

[hellouser]

I've been saying it for a while, the FDA is detrimental to progress. It costs roughly 3 billion dollars to get FDA approval, that's just the cost. Let's not forget the time investment, we're talking 5+ years of opportunity cost. That's probably 4-5 billion dollars to get something to market.

This forces companies to jack up prices to recoup their losses when/if it hits market. In addition to, dropping any items that are marginally better than current available treatments with large market shares. I have very little doubt that we would have better treatments for hairloss without the FDA today. Maybe not a cure, but definitely better options.

The FDA needs to f**** off. They should allow two seperate categories. FDA approved drugs, and non-FDA approved drugs. Once a drug passes the proof of concept stage/safety stage, let it be available to market for consumers to test. Keep the costs lower, give companies incentive to bring marginally better treatments to market. 1000 baby steps is better than 0 steps!

These liars claim that they're doing it to ensure safety but you don't come to a conclusion for safety if you don't let people actually USE it.

 

[InfamousOne]

These liars claim that they're doing it to ensure safety but you don't come to a conclusion for safety if you don't let people actually USE it.

And, I think you can pretty accurately make the argument that the FDA has killed more people than these drugs probably will. Marginally better (and safer) drugs are never brought to market because they can't justify the cost. So, although not necessarily with hairloss, tons of people have died WAITING for drugs to come to market (because of the FDA), or died because it wasn't profitable to bring a certain drug to market, or they couldn't afford the treatment because of the additional 3B deficit the companies had to recoup in sales, etc.

If all you had to prove was preliminary safety. Then it'd be an arms race to the next best solution. Finasteride might cause sexual dysfunction? Another pill comes out that doesn't. That pill might cause headaches? Another comes out that doesn't, etc. You can keep getting marginally better, and that leads to more progress. Right now it's a HR or bust for the company. No one has any interest in hitting a single. 20 singles is better than 1 HR. The FDA kills innovation. It happened with RU I believe? It was reported to have given similar results to finasteride with no side effects in prelims, but it wasn't put through clinical trials because the marginal improvement (of less sides) wasn't worth the cost...

 

[resu]

It's a not an effective process that costs too much money. They had no business closing Dr.Lee's Xandrox or the original Lipogaine with Azelaic Acid.