>>14180756>Ignoring anecdotesIf by anecdotes you mean "I heard something", I would never use one
If by anecdotes you mean "Single cases", fuck off.
I'll write up some at the end
>drug regulation agencies are very incentivized to always err on the side of rejection and skepticism.I could write a lot to this point, but I will summarize all I have to say with this: There is no incentive for them to err on any side. They are administrators, not regulators. They will do what is politically and administratively expedient.
>I thought the regulatory system was actually pretty good.Anon, many of the people in charge of regulations are industry veterans. There is a swinging door between industry and regulation. Hell, EPA and FDA aren't even really allowed to conduct independent confirmative research. They can audit studies but they NEVER do (source: BMJ whistleblower from a few months back). They control the claims drug companies can make based on their studies and that's it.
>ExamplesOff the top of my head, Seroquel.
No clinical evidence of effectiveness
Teratogen with significant safety hazards, which was still prescribed to pregnant women anyway
FDA approved and standard-issue for manic-bipolar patients up until 2010 when the patent expired.
My usual heuristic for FDA is that when drugs are submitted and they accept them, independently research the effects. But when drugs are submitted and they reject them, DO NOT trust that drug.
