I know you are making an argumentum ad absurdum, but many hold exactly this position.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @matthewherper @VPrasadMDMPH
We need the FDA primarily to assure drug safety and quality, including that medicine sold as X is exactly X. Efficacy as value is subjective, and also fluid in context of new and competing Rx. So what's questionable is if the FDA can--or should--judge efficacy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ESchattner @VPrasadMDMPH
The FDA should judge efficacy, and without that I don’t know what trials we get.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Unfortunately, the current administration wants through deregulation and "faster track" approval, in essence, to go to a de facto standard that resembles the pre-1962 standard where the FDA only had to require evidence of safety, but not efficacy.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
-
Replying to @ESchattner @matthewherper
I, however, am not. Drugs are much more expensive now than they were in 1962 and the potential for disaster is much greater now than it was in 1962.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @matthewherper
I'd suggest that the potential for another "thalidomide" disaster is much lower now, because of the internet and Twitter and how information spreads. Patients are not so vulnerable as in 1962.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
You do realize, don't you, that that sounds a lot like Balaji Srinivasan and his "Yelp!" for drugs. 
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.