• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    381 year ago

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

    • @HootinNHollerin
      link
      English
      34
      edit-2
      1 year 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.

      • @Anticorp
        link
        English
        -71 year ago

        Not when you’re the wealthiest person in the world. All hurdles are trivial when you’re wealthy.

        • peopleproblems
          link
          English
          281 year 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -5
            edit-2
            1 year 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
              English
              21 year 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.