Dr. Joseph Fraiman

Or, you know, and that's a base, a general idea that people say.

It's going to have to be so big that, but then if you think about it,

What are we talking about?

Instead, should we approve a drug that we don't know if the benefits outweigh the harms and possibly the harms are going to outweigh the benefits?

Should we approve that rather than paying for the trial to figure it out?

Instead of paying an investment today, we're just going to approve it and then pay for it forever because we're never going to figure out if this thing harms or helps more or have a lot of difficulty figuring it out.

and pay a thousand fold, 10,000 fold more for the product than to pay for a trial that actually determines, does this make me live more?

Does this make me go to the hospital less?

Because if it makes me go to the hospital more, I don't want it.

And I definitely don't think that we should be paying for it.

And the people who make money on these products should pay for the, you know, they could pay for the trials.

It would even be better if the government put in the money to pay for the trial, even though it's not fair that people who make the money should pay for it, but it would be smarter if the government even just paid for the trial instead of just paying, because we pay with Medicaid, Medicare, the VA.

Pay is...

Many fold more and they do it every year after year and every year that any drug is passed, we spend more on that drug than the clinical trial would have cost to do it.

I think that we have to think about this from a perspective of what's...

what's the point of approving drugs?

And what's the point of studying them before we give them out?

And it's to know that it gives you benefit over harm.

And to not do what we know how to do, it's really a shame, especially when you start dealing with things like vaccines, where we're giving them to healthy people.

And if the benefit is real small, because you're going to have to do a trial of a million people,