Hey Tim! Thanks so much for offering me the opportunity to respond. My take on this criticism and others like it is that it's a piece about motives and speculation but not about the real story that actually matters which is that government overreach and bad policy destroys patients' lives. There is a lot of hemming and hawing based on what we like or don't like about the Commissioners approach but as a clinician I don't really care about any of that. I am concerned with how bad policies based on culture wars or political bs from 2 decades ago is actively harming my patients today. In the case of testosterone warnings for prostate cancer and other concerns discussed above, we are hurting men, shortening their lives by lying to them on top of continuing to destroy trust in public health. The only way to improve things is by telling the truth transparently. If the science supports the policy IDC if the Commissioner hires the Washington Commanders Cheerleading team to present the findings. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but not by much :-)
I'm all for credible science, and patients/consumers like me want the truth...not speculation, conspiracies, nor pseudo science. Kennedy and the present Administration is suspect.
So what I like about the panels is that they don't just expect you to trust their recommendations, they provide the evidence that they are using to make them. Happy to go through the studies they provided, but the evidence I've looked at on TRT is solid not pseudo science at all!
I prefer to deal in actual policy actions rather than trying to read minds or motives. Just show me data. I’ve had decades of shady characters running these agencies who covered stuff up and had shady motives and were in bed with the regulated entities they were supposed to be protecting the public from. If we swing to the other side, it looks so unfamiliar it feels crazy. But the past approach is what is crazy and part of why our nation’s health is in such crisis.
Well said Katy. If the goal is better health and the proposed changes will achieve that outcome, motives become a moot point.
The trillions we've funneled into 'public health' through our beloved agencies have resulted in a population that is devastatingly sad, overmedicated and unhealthy by any measure. In the private sector, when you fail to achieve stated goals and instead lead in the opposite direction, everyone involved gets fired. They're disgraced. Instead our failed health leaders go work for Harvard. I suspect Harvard students deserve better and certainly the American people do.
Given this background, you'd think anything not resembling status quo would be celebrated - but instead here we are. Hummm.
It's really interesting and I had the same thought myself. I suspect if we were living a life that was compatible with our biology we wouldn't need all of this intervention, but until we solve for our environment, this seems like an incredibly reasonable shift.
100%. If you think about how much plastic and fragrances - both significant endocrine disruptors - we touch every single day, that are literally on our genitals all day between the spandex and the tide-pods, and it starts to make sense.
Just found out that Substack allows for a pinned comment!
Would appreciate hearing your perspective on this counter argument.
https://open.substack.com/pub/gooznews/p/makarys-fda-stacks-another-panel?r=44uij&utm_medium=ios
Hey Tim! Thanks so much for offering me the opportunity to respond. My take on this criticism and others like it is that it's a piece about motives and speculation but not about the real story that actually matters which is that government overreach and bad policy destroys patients' lives. There is a lot of hemming and hawing based on what we like or don't like about the Commissioners approach but as a clinician I don't really care about any of that. I am concerned with how bad policies based on culture wars or political bs from 2 decades ago is actively harming my patients today. In the case of testosterone warnings for prostate cancer and other concerns discussed above, we are hurting men, shortening their lives by lying to them on top of continuing to destroy trust in public health. The only way to improve things is by telling the truth transparently. If the science supports the policy IDC if the Commissioner hires the Washington Commanders Cheerleading team to present the findings. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but not by much :-)
I'm all for credible science, and patients/consumers like me want the truth...not speculation, conspiracies, nor pseudo science. Kennedy and the present Administration is suspect.
So what I like about the panels is that they don't just expect you to trust their recommendations, they provide the evidence that they are using to make them. Happy to go through the studies they provided, but the evidence I've looked at on TRT is solid not pseudo science at all!
I prefer to deal in actual policy actions rather than trying to read minds or motives. Just show me data. I’ve had decades of shady characters running these agencies who covered stuff up and had shady motives and were in bed with the regulated entities they were supposed to be protecting the public from. If we swing to the other side, it looks so unfamiliar it feels crazy. But the past approach is what is crazy and part of why our nation’s health is in such crisis.
Well said Katy. If the goal is better health and the proposed changes will achieve that outcome, motives become a moot point.
The trillions we've funneled into 'public health' through our beloved agencies have resulted in a population that is devastatingly sad, overmedicated and unhealthy by any measure. In the private sector, when you fail to achieve stated goals and instead lead in the opposite direction, everyone involved gets fired. They're disgraced. Instead our failed health leaders go work for Harvard. I suspect Harvard students deserve better and certainly the American people do.
Given this background, you'd think anything not resembling status quo would be celebrated - but instead here we are. Hummm.
It's interesting that a similar tragedy happened with HRT for women. Perhaps there was moralizing about sex hormones.
It's really interesting and I had the same thought myself. I suspect if we were living a life that was compatible with our biology we wouldn't need all of this intervention, but until we solve for our environment, this seems like an incredibly reasonable shift.
100%. If you think about how much plastic and fragrances - both significant endocrine disruptors - we touch every single day, that are literally on our genitals all day between the spandex and the tide-pods, and it starts to make sense.
I did not expect to open up substack and see “… on our genitals …” today. Thanks for the giggle!