Sunday, February 15, 2015

The FDA is a bottleneck on technological advancement

This chip right here, could save lives in the emergency room. But we still have to wait months-years, for it to be approved by the FDA.

Another very recent example is the recent petition made by Nick Grillo, a person who was been diagnosed with ALS.

In this petition which you can view and i urge you to sign here he mentions that there is a drug called GM6. This drug has the potential to extend his and other peoples lives who have been diagnosed with this debilitating disease. It is not a cure, but it could at least extend their lives long enough for a cure to be found.

Yet the drug is still awaiting time consuming approval, it will likely take 3 years before patients will have access to this drug. Yet most people with ALS are only given 2-5 years to live. This means that most people currently living with ALS wont be around to see it reach the market.

This is unacceptable, and a clear example where the FDA does absolutely more harm than good, as well many others.

The FDA is one of many government entities acting as a bottleneck on technological progress. Soon technology will advance faster than they can keep up.

The FDA needs to be done away with if we wish to experience the beneficial effects of technology as soon as they are made.

This is not 1920, we do not need some vague entity making decisions anymore. We have advanced telecommunications technology. We can research the information ourselves, and can make knowledgeable decisions for ourselves.

All drugs and procedures have pros and cons, and it should be up to you to weigh those pros and cons.

The FDA, or atleast their power, needs to be removed. 

This is only one example of many where technological advancement is stifled by government intervention.

The Google car is another example, held back not by the FDA, but nonetheless other government entities.

Even though the car drives better than any human, can see in all directions, all at the same time. Does not get drunk, or distracted, it still faces inevitable, but time consuming approval.

Ray Kurzweil, a truly amazing individual who is director of engineering at Google. Has made many predictions about the future of technology, the far majority of them correct. The problem is, he predicted that we would have driverless cars on the road by 2009. He was wrong. But the interesting and rather worrying fact is that he was not wrong due to the lack of technology, but due to the inefficiency of government. Due to this his prediction was off by, I believe 4-5 years. If you've ever read his predictions, which you can read here. You would realize that 4-5 years, is a very long time.

He made another prediction that by 2019 computers will do most of the driving, and humans will be prohibited from driving on highways unassisted. From this perspective, i am sure that we all can agree, this prediction will be false as well. But again not due to technology, but the inefficiency of government.

For me and my fellow Transhumanist, i am sure this is very worrying, and that we can all agree that something, whatever it is, needs to be done.


  1. Life saving products cannot be reviewed only after use by consumers as you suggest. Firstly, people have to suffer and die because of faulty medicine, and then the relatives are supposed to write a review to say that it does not live up to their expectations?

    Secondly, customers do not conduct the best experiments, are not as meticulous and critical as scientists. (also think about placebo effects) They aren't even motivated to do their best. Their reviews will reflect that.

    There's always need for a government entity to control businesses to ensure that their operations and products are not harmful to humans directly, or indirectly, by affecting the environment.

    Of course, if such an agency fails, then we ought to see what can be improved. An agency that checks health products should obviously acquire people that have studied medicine or biotechnology.

  2. So what is the chip?

    Kurzweil is not the Director of Engineering at Google, although he leads his own group.

    You're also not quite right about the car. The core concern is liability. If an autonomous vehicle causes a car accident, who pays for the damages? Google for not testing it thoroughly, the owner, or the manufacturer? No one is going to be willing to sell an autonomous vehicle until it's been thoroughly tested.

    1. Car accidents no matter what are going to happen. But it is an absolute fact that if every car on the road was autonomous. The number of car accidents, and as such, death from car accidents, would drastically decline.

      The solution to the inevitable car accidents that will happen. Is simply take away insurance, no one besides the owners of their cars, pays for the cars damages. It will simply be regarded as a necessary risk of driving.

      Also based off of this article he is the director of engineering:

  3. next time try doing a little research like for this. Drugs that include Xarelto (blood thinner), Avandia (diabetes), Risperdal (antipsychotic), Actos (diabetes) and Lipitor (statin), all approved after the PDUFA, caused a number of side effects that patients were not warned about – some fatal.
    this is a poorly researched article that is trying to be dramatic and fails in every way.

    1. This article is not poorly researched, and i understand the potential effects of these drugs just fine. There are pros and cons, and no matter what you must weigh those pros and cons. One of the cons, is lack of information, and the only way to get that information. Is through clinical trials, which time, valuable, time. This weighing of pros and cons should be in the hands of the people.

      By the way, has done many questionable things and anyone who has done their research would realize this.