NahNah: Literally, no one said this. Of course, the FDA can be questioned.

Wait, so you can’t even comprehend the words you write?

NahNah: The FDA is an appropriate appeal to authority. I have passed the burden.

And I didn’t say anything about Trump’s physician. This was a treatment being used for covid 19 long before Trump started talking about it.

It would seem to me that reasonable minds could disagree over whether, in the absence of conclusive data, the FDA or an attending physician is the superior authority.

Another nothing burger.

Hubert: So please don’t tell me the F D fucking A is an infallible scientific institution whose authority can’t be questioned.

Literally, no one said this. Of course, the FDA can be questioned. That you think Trump’s attending physician is the right person to question their authority, is, um, a big nope.

listen – my sincere apologies if i ever become overly invasive…i don’t know…i just strongly feel like we are all simply Flawed Dogs…instead of hiding that fact – i beleive we should revel in it…

hubie – other than house cleaning, work, modeling and sensual interludes with your neighbor – do you have other hobbies? do you get bored easily? why do you engage, when it’s clear the sole purpose of the exercise to to wind you up to dance like a circus bear for the entertainment of others…

if the answer is: entertainment – i totally, sort of, a little bit understand maybe why…yeah, okay…if it amuses you, that is more than enough…

nah nah nah nah – what kind of law do you focus on?

but it sounds like they were older than the three cited in the period covered by the article you linked.

I found the three in the article under the tab “results”:

1. Valdecoxib – this is the chemical name for Bextra, one of the drugs I cited.

2. Tegaserod – this the chemical name for Zelmac, the Novartis drug with the Z that I mentioned.

3. Efalizumab – I never heard of this one. According to Wikipedia, 1 in 500 patients who took it developed progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, which can be fatal and doesn’t sound like my idea of a good time.

Oxycontin is not in the study bc it was approved in the 90s. But it’s approval wasn’t the issue. It was originally approved for short term use for severe pain. The FDA’s sin, for which I would argue it has forever forfeited its status as an unassailable authority, was to recommend it for long term use to treat moderate pain and downplay the addictive side effect of doing that. It did this without any evidence or studies, at the behest of Purdue Pharma. That is a fact, look it up. There were no studies done to generate that recommendation. So please don’t tell me the F D fucking A is an infallible scientific institution whose authority can’t be questioned. You can’t make that argument and pretend you’re different than strat.

NahNah: Talk about a bad appeal to authority! I had a vested economic interest in the outcome of these stocks, so trust me.

Then spend some time on google and fact check my recollection.

Hubert’s take is basically that since dangerous drugs make it through the FDA system, then the whole system stinks. So Trump can do whatever he wants.

My take is what I say. Not what you say I say.

It seems to me, based on the link you provided, that the FDA has studied this drug for a long time and it has some known risks. It approves prescription of the drug when the known benefits outweigh those risks. Right now it’s saying it hasn’t had enough time to study the benefits to see if it merits approval.

So that’s one authority. And it makes perfect sense to me.

On the other hand, you have physicians. They’re an authority, too. And long before Trump came along and talked about this drug, they were prescribing it and seeing positive results. This evidence is noteworthy but not conclusive because it’s limited and anecdotal. There were no control groups. It’s unscientific. Of course, we don’t always have time to wait for studies to be finished, and we often have to rely on the expert in the field (the doctor) to make a judgment.

You have an eye test-level opinion that the authority of the FDA is more significant than the authority of an attending physician. You’ve offered no evidence to back this up. It’s just your opinion. And there is, in fact, a long history of attending physicians and even pharmacists being better authorities on specific situations than the FDA, but you dismiss this evidence because…. it wasn’t in the article you read.

I haven’t expressed my opinion at all. I’m just framing yours as the eye-test bullshit that it is. You’re strat and the FDA is your Phil. You’re a hack. That’s all there is to it.

KnickfaninNJ:
I agree about the OxyContin one. That was and is bad. I haven’t heard about the other ones, but it sounds like they were older than the three cited in the period covered by the article you linked.

When you have a tragedy as disastrous as the OxyContin epidemic, typically multiple institutions have failed. I have no doubt that plenty of shade can be thrown at the FDA, along with other government and health organizations. How any of this relates to HCQ and the current debate, well, it doesn’t really.

The same analysis for COVID. Multiple state leaders (including liberals in NY and NJ) were slow to get up to speed. Fair criticism. To lob them into the same basket as our Dear Leader, well, nope.