For example, this article, on the FDA and off-label uses seems to suggest that at least the WSJ editorial board (and some federal judges) recognize the FDA does more to impede progress than help. And if you think about it, imagine aspirin was a prescription drug. When the evidence came out it would help against heart disease, someone would have had to go to the FDA, gone through tons of tests, proved it is not just "safe and effective" (according to some nebulous standard), but better than existing drugs, and it still may get rejected or not approved, or just held up in testing forever. We might still not know to take aspirin to help prevent heart disease. (See "The Problems With "Safe and Effective"", "Gun Control, The FDA and Regulating the Law Abiding" and ""Better Safe Than Sorry" Usually Leaves Us Even More Sorry, And Much Less Safe".)
A comment following that article seems relevant as well:
As a physician and libertarian leaning conservative, I have to admit I'm running out of fight. Since starting training in 1980, the slide to serfdom for docs has been ever faster, accelerating with each malpractice wave, every FDA power grab ( the two are related, just watch the trial attorney ads), state and federal regulatory agency onslaught, state licensure board threat, commercial insurer mandate, hospital peer review oversight, and sadly, even a tow-the-line attitude among a bureaucratically insatiable specialty Board empire ( read about the maintenance of certification scam sometime). So despite this small triumph, most docs young and old are crying "uncle", submitting, and giving patients what they voted for... The party line. Resistance is futileAnyone else hear some echoes of my arguments against medical regulation? (See "Medical Regulations", "Medical Regulation II", "Some Thoughts on Medicine", "High Cost of Medical Care","Government Efficiency", "Medical Reform, An Overview", "The Absurdity of Mandatory Insurance", "Clarification of my Argument for a Free Market in Medicine", "Preexisting Conditions", "Misunderstanding Profits", "Government Quackery", "Two Examples of "Inefficiency" in Capitalism", "The Devil is in the Definitions (And Assumptions)", "Bad Economics Part 10", "Bad Economics Part 18", "Cutting "Costs"", "A Different Look at "Health Care Reform"", "Reviving Nonsense in the White House", "The Problems With "Safe and Effective"", "Again?" and "Collective Ventures Versus Government".)
Finally, this article, seems to support the arguments I made about how assumptions within a given field of study, an established orthodoxy, can lead to peer review failure. (See "The Failure of Peer Review", "Publish Or Perish", "The State Versus Universities", "Debunking "Debunking Global Cooling"", "Funding and the Corruption of Science", "Again Improving Science Misleads", "Private and Public Coexisting" and "Twice in a Row".)
Not that every article supports every point I have made, or that I agree with every argument made by the authors of these essays, but it is nice to get at least some confirmation I am not that far off track.