• @Bitrot
    link
    English
    4011 months ago

    FDA had denied, company presumably made some sort of changes that were not publicized (or paid off the right people), FDA approved.

    • @HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      If you’ve ever dealt with getting a medical device approved by the FDA, you’d know they don’t fuck around. They’re so hardcore it’s scary.

        • peopleproblems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2811 months ago

          In my experience, I’ve seen a muti billion dollar company denied new product testing for errors on paperwork.

          My former employer had to etch “not for human use” in the devices because the FDA didn’t clear them. They took them to use on sheep instead.

          The FDA, as long as it doesn’t fall prey to the revolving door like every other regulator, is extremely effective.

          • @ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -5
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I wouldn’t say “effective”. They’re good at rejecting bad things, but they accomplish that largely by being very risk-averse. People who suffer because a treatment wasn’t approved should count for more than they do. The best possible policy might be one that lets a few bad things through if it also lets through a lot more good things.

            • peopleproblems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              211 months ago

              That’s exactly what we would hear everytime we asked about the paperwork from the FDA authorizing human trials. I’m sorry, but it works.