I am not calling to abolish all regulation.

But please consider this:

How many people’s lives could have been saved if FDA regulations didn’t make medical approvals take 10 years? How many life-saving medications could have been invented if the cost of approval didn’t limit innovation to the biggest companies?

It's as unanswerable a question as "how many lives would have been lost by dangerous medications with long-term side effects that didn't become apparent in the term of testing?"

We can't really know whether it was a net good or a net bad because we can't take a look at the reality that didn't happen. What we do know is that there were deadly medications on the market before the FDA. There were medications available over the counter that were outright poisonous. Arsenic and mercury were in common medicines.

It is a balance. You can sacrifice lives through inaction, or sacrifice lives in the way of progress. Lack of regulation is bad, but so is overregulation.

Actually there is a huge amount of research into this. The wide consensus seems to be that the FDA is far too conservative and overall having more lax approvals would have saved many more lives in net.

Studies saying that the "FDA is too conservative" does not mean that the optimal situation would be no FDA at all.

I would like to see this research.

This is a very balanced comment, strange that it is getting downvoted.

And how many have been saved because medical approvals are difficult?

We don’t know! But to ask incredulously about only one side of these questions is disingenuous.

History has those answers, recent history I mean. E.g. Contergan.

Medical regulations are written in literal blood and dead people. Really good example for Chesterton's fence.

Maybe we would have a cure for most cancer by now.

You cannot see the damage done by regulation, but it exists.

Regulation is always a trade-off.

It’s not “us vs them”. It’s us vs us.

Jesus, no idea what to say here... Just one thing: mRNA vaccines, coming out of cancer treatment research, one of the most sucessful companies is actually German, and they use the mountains of cash they made during Covid, partnering with Pfizer on Covid vaccines, to really push the cancer research.

Unregulated medical research is bad, like in really, literall Nazi doctor bad. Shocking it still has to pointed out...

this is a straw man, less regulation does not immediately mean Nazis. I mean come on be reasonable

A buncjlh of the EU rules around medical research and drug development is, in fact, based on experience with leteral Nazo experimentation done by the likes of Dr. Mengele. Dor once not an internet drope, but rather historical fact.

Sometimes it feels like allowing scammers and crooks is kind of the goal, isn't it?

What? I don’t follow the logic. How could regulation in favour of protecting the rights of citizens over corporations be intentionally facilitating scammers?

I meant that being to scam people is an actual goal of people opossing rwgulations like the discussed AI act or GDPR. Or financial regulations, the whole crypto space, last weeks over hyped society saving tech, is built on the assumption financial reulations don't apply to crypto.

I am all in favor of reasonable, individual rights protecting regulation. The EU AI act might just be one, as is GDPR.

Ah, sorry. I guess I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying!