Comment Failed to learn from the bad US example. (Score -1) 15
Pseudo-official drug agencies, like the FDA in the US or the newly proposed African Medicines Agency (AMA), act as gatekeepers of death, not guardians of health. By enforcing a "safe *and effective*" mandate, they block patients from accessing existing, potentially life-saving medicines unless they're backed by billion-dollar clinical trials. This isn't about safety; it's about entrenching a monopoly for pharmaceutical giants.
The "safety" obsession already stifles innovation, but demanding proof of effectiveness at scale crushes smaller players entirely. Only mega-corporations can afford the $2-3 billion and 10-15 years required for FDA approval. As economist Milton Friedman warned "The FDA has done a great deal of harm by preventing people from obtaining drugs that would have saved their lives... The harm done by the FDA is not in the drugs that are banned, but in the lives that are lost because the drugs are not available."
In the 1980s, the FDA delayed approval of Misoprostol (a cheap ulcer drug) for use in medical abortions by over a decade; despite its proven safety and efficacy in other countries. During that time, thousands of women in the US resorted to illegal, dangerous procedures. The delay wasn't about science; it was about bureaucratic "caution" (safety cultism) and political pressure. The same pattern repeats globally: the proposed AMA risks mirroring this by harmonizing Africa's 54+ regulatory systems into one slow, centralized bottleneck: delaying generics and off-patent drugs that could treat malaria or HIV today.
Lawsuits, reputation, and market competition already punish bad actors. We don't need new rule-makers to "protect" us by pricing medicine out of reach and ensuring only Big Pharma profits. True healthcare freedom means patients and doctors, not agencies, decide what risks are worth taking.
The "safety" obsession already stifles innovation, but demanding proof of effectiveness at scale crushes smaller players entirely. Only mega-corporations can afford the $2-3 billion and 10-15 years required for FDA approval. As economist Milton Friedman warned "The FDA has done a great deal of harm by preventing people from obtaining drugs that would have saved their lives... The harm done by the FDA is not in the drugs that are banned, but in the lives that are lost because the drugs are not available."
In the 1980s, the FDA delayed approval of Misoprostol (a cheap ulcer drug) for use in medical abortions by over a decade; despite its proven safety and efficacy in other countries. During that time, thousands of women in the US resorted to illegal, dangerous procedures. The delay wasn't about science; it was about bureaucratic "caution" (safety cultism) and political pressure. The same pattern repeats globally: the proposed AMA risks mirroring this by harmonizing Africa's 54+ regulatory systems into one slow, centralized bottleneck: delaying generics and off-patent drugs that could treat malaria or HIV today.
Lawsuits, reputation, and market competition already punish bad actors. We don't need new rule-makers to "protect" us by pricing medicine out of reach and ensuring only Big Pharma profits. True healthcare freedom means patients and doctors, not agencies, decide what risks are worth taking.
