werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (03/28/86)
> It seems absurd to claim that it is his responsibility to prove that > therapy is worthless (or detrimental). Does the FDA have to prove that > a medication is worthless in order to ban it? If it is a natural product, then the FDA does have to prove that the medication is worthless in order to ban it -- which is why all quack medications are in the vitamin and natural product field - the burden of proof is so stringent, people can claim anything and get away with it. The very idea of the statement "Prove to me that this doesn't work" is a perversion of the whole idea of burden of proof. If it a synthesized compound, the manufacturer must prove that it is both safe and efficacious, i.e., that at the worst, it won't do any harm, and in fact will do some good. Then, and only then, will the FDA approve it. I believe that there is a legal distinction between an unapproved and a banned drug, but then again, I'm not a lawyer. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "Reading is sometimes an ingenius device for avoiding thought."