Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Techniclone (TCLN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3115)	5/31/1999 7:33:00 PM
From: Bob L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3702

I don't think the FDA claims to protect the public against all unproven treatments. I think they try to prevent manufacturers from selling drugs and certain devices until the manufacturer has shown the item in question is safe and efficacious for at least one indication. So indirectly they prevent doctors from prescribing unproven treatments when that treatment hasn't been approved for market at all. I think we would have to pay for a much bigger FDA if they were going to require approval for all uses of a drug. Maybe that would be good. I doubt it. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure its not what we have today. Put another way, the FDA doesn't supervise the practice of medicine. They regulate manufacturing and marketing. If my doctor prescribes the wrong medicine, it is an issue for the local Institutional Review Board, medical licensing or disciplinary agency, or the courts, not the FDA. It isn't anarchy. It is generally the doctor's professional judgment and patient's informed consent, against this backdrop of a bureaucratic approval process for drug marketing.