My Opinion: FDA Stands for Foolish Drug Authorization?

   I have begun to wonder-actually for years now-why the FDA continues to approve drugs whose side effects are worse that the symptoms they are offered to relieve. Or worse, have fatal side effects potential for even treating allergies, or hives, or even minor discomforts.
   The labeling required and the Disclaimers in advertising are designed to put the public on notice of side effects, but beg the question of why in the first place. I seem to remember a time when drugs were developed as cures.
   When was the last time you saw a cure offered?

   Ninety-nine percent plus of FDA approved drugs offered today are for symptomatic relief, not cures.
   And yet the number of life-threatening diseases and the millions affected by them continues to grow. The drug companies have sidelined and under-emphasized most of their research into cures, preferring instead to work on high-profit drug development for relief of symptoms.
   Erectile Dysfunction?– a wonderful series of products, multiple drugs from multiple manufacturers, helping millions of men have satisfying sex. All came out within a year or so of each other, virtually same day in FDA approval terms.
   Sleeplessness? Same story, multiple drugs. Ever wonder how they all show up at the same time?
I do.
   Do the drug companies get together and sit around a table and say. “Let’s try to do something about insomnia. Or, how about Erectile Dysfunction? My wife wants more sex.”

   Cancer? Oops, sorry nothing yet. That is, we have chemotherapy, radiation. But the underlying cause, discovery and prevention is just not there, and it looks like forever will come first.
   Arthritis? Many billions for symptomatic relief, no cure on horizon.
   Alzheimer’s? Some symptom relief drugs being offered or in trials, no cure yet.
   Drug companies emphasize that high drug prices are required to provide money for research and development of new drugs. If that were true, wouldn’t there be years when R&D costs would cause losses? Yet for most drug companies, their Return on Equity, Return On Investment, Gross Profits and Net Profits remain higher than any other industry, when viewed over a consistent period for the last twenty years.
   Tax policies, using your tax dollars, help immensely.

   Why is most cancer research being conducted or sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, instead of at drug companies on their own dime? A cure would mean Billions, even Trillions in sales.
   Here’s what really gets me. Causes are pretty well known for most diseases, some cancers.
   Is it more profitable for drug companies to treat symptoms over a lifelong period as in Arthritis, or develop a cure for which the period of usage and profitability are much shorter?
   Here’s something else I wonder. Would we have all these diseases without modern technology and the chemicals and accouterments that go with our standard of living?
   If X-Rays can cause cancer and radiation from many things can cause cancer, why is there no discussion about the proliferation of radio waves and TV frequencies, which are just a shorter form of X-Ray waves?
   How? Radiation causes cell mutations and free radicals to interact negatively with your cells. When it happens often enough, you get the big “C” Cancer. Sunlight is just another form of radiation, ergo Melanoma, skin cancer.
   Since it’s unlikely that radio and TV stations and satellites will stop broadcasting, the need for a cure becomes all the more pressing.
   What do you think?