Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after FDA approval

Re:Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after... by pas on Tuesday May 16, 2017 @06:12AM (#14348516)

The book is tained by the publisher. It's a perfectly valid reason in a very complex and delicate debate, such as climate change and pharma innovation regulation.

Even if the book is fine, it might not be the total picture, thus it could mislead you by omission. And it can be totally in good faith, it's just bias.

So, even if the book is a good overview, it's just a voice in a discussion, and without hearing what others think of the book, it's pretty good to go by what one knows of the publisher.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after... by Noseshine on Tuesday May 16, 2017 @08:14AM (#14348934)

> Even if the book is fine

There is the crux of your... argument. How about you read the book and then come back? You sure have a lot to say about something you never looked at.

You can't improve how "the other side" is arguing (or not arguing), but you sure have 100% control over your own behavior and discussion habits. Attacking the people instead of the work is as bad as it gets, especially if you never even set eye on the latter. I won't read it either, but I don't have an opinion about it that I'm trying to share.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after... by WalterBright on Tuesday May 16, 2017 @10:18AM (#14349743)

Looks like I'm the only person who ever read the book :-(

https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-...

BTW, it was published in 1987, long before climate change became a thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nearly 1 in 3 drugs have a significant safety issue after... by dkural on Tuesday May 16, 2017 @10:27AM (#14349812)

reading a book is a significant investment of time. when published by untrustworthy institutions, i am not willing to make that investment.

[ Parent | on HN ]