You clearly don't understand the issue lefthandedturd.
Here let me provide you with an example.
One of the arguments in the Mifepristone case that the plaintiffs made was that many of the approvals for Mifepristone by the FDA were not appropriate. They stated, without factual basis that Mifepristone was unsafe, they relied on some anti-reproductive freedom website posts by anonymous bloggers as "proof". 5th Circuit Judge Matthew Kazmaryk accepted that argument and put a stay on the use of Mifepristone. The stay was lifted by the SC until the argument was adjudicated. The SC found that the plaintiffs did not have standing. They did NOT comment on the merits of the case. Thus, if the standing issue hadn't played out OR if the SC decided not to hear the case, Mifepristone would have been outlawed due to a Federal Judge's interpretation of anonymous blog posts.
Mifepristone is safer than Tylenol.
These are the facts of the issue
A federal judge ordering a safe drug taken off the market due to anonymous posts.
Not science
Not the federal agency which studied the medicine
A federal judge.
But let's play out your hypothetical.
You are saying the FDA is run by large corporations.
Now the large corporations will just get the courts to do their bidding. So instead of scientists at the FDA making the approval, pharmaceutical companies will argue before a judge that the FDA is being a meanie and the federal judge-not the scientists at the FDA to approve the drug. The decision will be profit driven and not driven by safe science
I do not disagree that large corporations have too much sway on the regulatory agencies but the solution is NOT to farm out oversight to radical, partisan, corrupt judges. The solution is to properly fund and reform the agencies.
He seems to be the only magat around here defending it.
Should be interested to see how this affects the polls. It is a scary narrative to elect a nut job like ------- to be king. Even some Magats might balk at that.