Wait - so you want to take the at risk group and give them a drug that failed human safety tests?
EDIT: I am trying to say that while obesity is 'bad', giving them a drug that adds to their risk levels is not a solution.
If you are still pro your position, bear in mind that you are now throwing dice and hoping that: (people who improve) >= (people who suffer + nothing happens).
Are you qualified to play dice with peoples lives?
One of the reasons why the FDA rejected Qnexa was that one of the components in the drug was thought to cause cleft palates in babies born to mothers who take the drug.
Mind you, this drug is already approved for use in humans. The FDA made the call that preventing cleft palates in babies (mind you the company offered to restrict the label to "non-child bearing women") was more important that reducing levels of obesity.
The FDA "suggested" the company run a 10,000 person clinical trial (estimated at $100M) to prove it didn't.
Did a quick search, 3 drugs were removed and of them 1 had abused rumors in rat trials, the other increased risk for heart attacks and the final was qnexa.
Tht was in 2010.
From what it looks like the FDA is going to renew qnexa by April 2012.
He's not advocating giving drugs to anyone, what he advocates is letting the at risk group decide whether or not they want to roll the dice with their own lives. You advocate forbidding this to happen. In other words you're hoping that: (people who suffer + nothing happens) > (people who improve). If you're wrong, then preventing the release of the drug is literally killing people.
Uh. You are taking the opposite position on a random event. It's still a bet.
And we have already gone past "letting the at risk group decide for themselves." it's hard to be succinct and explain the many reasons why we dont use that particular system when it comes to medication.
The discussion should not be about "efficacy and no risks", but the comparison of risks versus the benefits the drug can provide. That should be the only rationale when you go on treatment: understanding the risks on each side. Just like cancer drugs are usually not harmless (side effects can be pretty nasty), they can make you live longer than if you go untreated.
The communication to the patient should be fully transparent, and it should be up to the patient to choose what they want to do, not just regulators.
EDIT: I am trying to say that while obesity is 'bad', giving them a drug that adds to their risk levels is not a solution.
If you are still pro your position, bear in mind that you are now throwing dice and hoping that: (people who improve) >= (people who suffer + nothing happens).
Are you qualified to play dice with peoples lives?