No—that would be relevant if I were claiming that the FDA should be abolished. Here, I’m only claiming that they do not, in fact, approve a drug if its expected benefits outweigh its expected costs. Approval appears to require something closer to a 10⁄1 benefit/cost ratio.
sorry, I was thrown off by your last sentence “Exercise for the reader: Find other cases where cautionary measures are more dangerous than nothing.” Seems like a fairly explicit point about how the fda is worse than nothing.
this is only relevant if you can give us data on the drugs that would kill thousands that the fda prevents from being marketed.
No—that would be relevant if I were claiming that the FDA should be abolished. Here, I’m only claiming that they do not, in fact, approve a drug if its expected benefits outweigh its expected costs. Approval appears to require something closer to a 10⁄1 benefit/cost ratio.
sorry, I was thrown off by your last sentence “Exercise for the reader: Find other cases where cautionary measures are more dangerous than nothing.” Seems like a fairly explicit point about how the fda is worse than nothing.
Oh. I see what you mean.