"Is your poor health due to being a night owl, or is your poor health causing you to be a night owl? This study doesn't answer that question."
True.
"There is about as much validity to "biological clocks" as there is to biofeedback mania of the 70's. There is no such thing as biological clock determinism."
So this would be you making an assumption without evidence? There has been evidence of a biological clock or circadian rhythm and adverse health effects to violating it. It was assumed this was the same for everyone because of a few thousand years agriculture making us assume being attuned to the sun cycle was natural. New evidence suggests large swathes of people have a different clock. As a night owl I can and do adapt to what I must to live in society but give me a week or two of vacation and my natural cycle will gradually begin phasing in and I'll sleep later and later... give it enough time and few enough outside factors (post office interactions, family obligations, etc) and I'll eventually be getting up of 3pm or later.
"Your not born a morning lark or night owl. There is no genetic trait that determines it."
More assertion... or at least partial assertion. You definitely aren't born a morning lark or night owl, as a parent I can attest to that. You are actually born a polyphasic sleeper with a round the clock cycle. I've experimented with polyphasic sleep before and it is challenging but probably not impossible to adjust if there weren't others in your world you had to interact with. It is quite possible this is the natural sleep cycle for humans. Possibly even closer to that of cats who while most active at night actually sleep on a polyphasic schedule.
There are still some detectable patterns. Talk to most people 60+ yrs old and you'll discover that regardless of their patterns before they start to find themselves going to sleep earlier and earlier.
Most restaurants close by 9pm. Most offices close by 6pm. Government services definitely close by 6pm. In fact, most towns are effectively dark by 10pm and even the vast majority of options in cities are shut down by 10pm. Day cares don't usually have night hours, your options for classes in school are certainly slim to non-existent. What you mention are examples of things slowly changing but alarm clocks are for people who aren't morning larks and that is most people.
If you are "morning lark" or day walker as I call it none of the times either of us mentioned is really a problem for you... we aren't talking about 5am - 8am here, we are talking about services focused on a proper waking schedule of 5pm - 8am.
As a parent I assure you that children start out on a polyphasic round the clock sleep cycle of about 2hr duration. It is actually parents who start guiding their sleep schedule with a great deal of difficulty from there.
Children get up early because they go to bed early, they go to bed early so their parents can have a couple hours to themselves, or even to more easily accomplish chores without having to juggle managing them.
"We have all that now, but a million years or more of evolution have trained our bodies to be more sunlight synchronized."
Recent research has indicated this is false. Mere thousands of years of agricultural based society have attuned our artificial environment to revolve around sun cycles. People do not all share a "day lark" rhythm. It is questionable that most even do given the prevalence of alarm clocks to get up for early work start times.
The summary is badly written, probably with the bias of a day lark. This study was showing that night owls have the most disruption to their night owl circadian rhythms. The old idea that the circadian rhythm is the same for everyone has been disproved by a great deal of research and night owl/day lark/etc are the common terms used to designate the known general biological clocks.
Except the night owl demographic is most of the people I know. I really don't know many people getting to work at 9am without the use of an alarm clock.
People were never primarily day larks, agriculture BECAME the primary motivator to rise recently in our history and it fit well with the whole sun cycle thing so we assumed that was how it naturally should be. We ignored that there are no shortage of natural creatures which are nocturnal.
As far as I can tell most people actually shift slowly toward day lark status as a function of aging. Most of the 60+ year old people I know wake before the sun and if they weren't used to that already they'll tell you it just started to happen that way. Most of the 20-40yr olds I know will wake at noon or later if allowed to wake and sleep as the urge strikes naturally for a month or less regardless of what schedule they started with.
Not only that, there are a hell of a lot more of night owls than the "day walkers", call them larks if you want, care to acknowledge. Sure, most people expect the post office to be open during daylight hours and the night shift is slow in most businesses... that isn't because there aren't enough of us to keep them busy, it's because we are all being forced onto day walker schedules.
Not just if they have any kind of normal job but because everyone being forced into day larks hours means they can't do business at any of the places that employee others who work those jobs. Great, work the night shift, you still can't go to restaurant, attend your nieces birthday party, go a funeral, mail a letter, get a permit to build a shed, work with a contractor, etc etc etc without sleep deprivation.
The summary was poor. Sleeping in didn't increase death. A person with a night owl circadian rytheme being forced to sleep and live in a manner that matches a day larks circadian rhythm resulted in increased death. Day larks should be awake and work during the day, night owls should sleep during the day and work at night. Post offices, doctors offices, dmv's, restaurants, etc generally only allow for one of these rhythms to exist without regular disruption.
The summary almost tries to hides the why. Probably for the same reason many people misread the bit about circadian rhythm. Not long ago it was believed everyone had the same circadian rhythm. Much medical literature and treatments, even diseases, are still dependent on this idea. But it has been shown to be false. Night owls are more likely to die because they are forced to conform to a world that is based on a day larks circadian rhythm rather than a night owls.
The only reason society has evolved to match the patterns of the day lark is because they most closely relate to natural light sources which are crucial to agriculture. There are no shortage of nocturnal creatures in nature and no particular reason to assume humans would all be innately attuned to match the sun cycle, agriculture was just so a crucial part of our lives for so long (but not evolutionary scale long) everyone just thought that was natural and those who didn't easily adapt were lazy.
"To even get out of bed in time we have to add unhealthy chemicals to our body that increase our blood pressure."
Both caffeine and cocaine are potentially unhealthy chemicals people are taking to manage the sleep patterns that arise from night owls having to adapt to a world which has a schedule catered to day larks as an artifact of having once been centered around natural lighting and agriculture.
Today we are familiar with cocaine as an ultra pure extract of insane concentration being used by drug addicts, when it was outlawed it was generally a very dilute tea made from leaves with similar properties to caffeine and milder side effects. It was outlawed because the tea and coffee industries had a better lobby. The highly concentrated stuff mostly came about because it is smaller and easier to smuggle that way. If you treated caffeine the way we've come to treat cocaine it wouldn't be highly addictive only because you'd be dead. Nobody researches positive health effects of cocaine but it shares many of the same mechanisms believed to be responsible for the positive effects of caffeine. It may be trivia but it is worth challenging societal and preconceived notions now and then. In countries where they grow naturally it is quite common for workers to chew coca leaves in a use similar to our drinking of coffee or British drinking of tea.
"Making the competitors (Amazon, Google, Apple, Netflix, etc) come together to make a replacement."
Gives a very strong clue as to why free licensed solutions continue to get development. They just get developed by funding from people who actually need the solution rather than a middleman who wants to build it and license to all those people.
"As with VP9 earlier, the first reference AV1 encoder is absolutely slow: currently it's an order of magnitude slower [doom9.org] than x265's veryslow preset (which is extremely slow to begin with). "
Sure but that reference encoder isn't even optimized. People are going a little crazy assuming this will need dedicated hardware to become useful when it was designed to be easy to optimize and has not yet been optimized. Bitching because the brand new shiny and cool codec isn't as mature as the codecs of 5-6yrs ago is a little ridiculous.
True, although they actually do provide extremely low dose meth for ADHD but they sell it under another label and charge a fortune for it. Compared with D-Amphetamine (aka Adderall) Methamphetamine is actually mild.
I would think what would get you (assuming a court didn't label all this standard industry practice in tech) is that the condition is effectively a thinly veiled blanket condition to prevent competition on repairs and components.
You can't just say cell phones must be worked on in a dry environment and we assume liquid caused micro-shorts if we didn't control that environment. You have to provide solid case specific investigation and rational to prove the damage was caused by the end user. So for your hard drive, they need to prove that the drive failed due to dust contamination not simply work from the assumption a clean room wasn't used for the repair.
Yes, and in the sane world in which these consumer protections were put in place they'd update the law to fix that loophole and incur treble damages if the manufacturer has included what a reasonable person might conclude to be such components without publicly and freely documenting them.
There are hell of a lot more Coffee addicts in a position to fund research. There aren't many studies to look for the health benefits of Cocaine.;) Before some states rebelled and researchers were finely able to perform studies without DEA approval the only studies related to Marijuana were negative as well.
Just pointing out the little known fact that Cocaine was targeted alongside many other substances in the same times as the reefer madness propoganda. The winners in different industries were largely based on lobbying and commercial interests. In high concentrations such as those produced by drug smugglers to make cocaine as compact and low weight as possible is where most of the negative effects are found. There is little to known indication that in the concentrations found in chewed Coca leaves or teas brewed from the natural leaf Cocaine is harmful at all.
"The question in the case of the car manufacturers is "where are the really important parts made?" - engines and computers especially. Where is the need for tech and know-how?"
It's also, where are the really expensive/profitable parts made? Trump is right about one thing, we are a massive nation with plenty of raw natural resources of most every type and a huge trading deficit. As long as we can continue to steal talent from elsewhere it wouldn't really hurt the United States if we just used our resources and labor. For the most part it has been the US or US funding that has developed the things we buy, some things might be less costly because of global trade and in some cases it might make sense to seed our landfill mines with everyone elses resources and use our own when they are all out but we don't particularly NEED all this outside trade.
This is largely a problem with how habit formation is assessed. At the dose you'd find in coca leaf tea, Cocaine is less habit forming with fewer side effects than caffeine.
Cocaine addiction is highly dependent on the quantity hitting the bloodstream to the point where snorted cocaine and smoked cocaine (which allows large quantities to simultaneously enter the bloodstream across the surface area of the lungs) might as well be entirely different drugs. Caffeine... well we don't really know, if you go concentrating caffeine and passing it into the blood at that rate in a manner comparable to cocaine you'd be too dead to let us know how the cravings were.
That said, the negative side effects of lower doses of snorted cocaine use that have been significant enough to show withdraw symptoms look like having a bit too much coffee... the negative side effects of caffeine withdraw includes much of the same combined with an intense headache and pain. I'd hate to see what caffeine withdraw equivalent of snorted cocaine looked like.
Ah. I haven't needed it when the place was open but the pharmacy was closed in years but they used to just keep a clipboard to record the information at the front checkouts instead of the actual pharmacy after the pharmacy closed. They might have locked it down even further but it didn't technically require anyone special they were just required to log who bought it.
I think it is fair to say most of us aren't lucky enough to have meth dealers who will deliver. I'm surprised you don't have a 24hr Walgreens, CVS, or Walmart within a few blocks.
But if that really is the boat you are in, a light dose of meth will clear your sinuses and really doesn't carry any (physical) risks that don't also go on the label of the sudaphed. Either one will keep you up all night if you aren't careful in how you time it. There is a nighttime formula for sudafed but it falls right back in the "placebo to convince suckers there are other choices" category.
"get all nasty looks if more than one member of my family has had a cold this month"
In fairness, some people give nasty looks when you try to walk up to the counter and buy meth for the third or fourth family member as well.
Marijuana, even inhaled marijuana has a dramatically lower probability of being a key factor in your death than whisky.
Frankly I don't agree with the FDA regulating consumption, use, and access to drugs no matter how safe or dangerous. Study them, publish and inform people, control safe manufacture and production, accurate labeling and advertising, that sort of thing.
We should take that data and correlation out of the control of either doctors or government. Build a peer to peer blockchain based system for collecting voluntary anonymous health data to build a databank and provide the most stastically useful answers. Nothing would stop doctors and the FDA from using such a system of course. Think this or that natural remedy actually works better whether we are able to prepare a proper control on a study for it or not? Well this system would innately show that result without prejudice.
It removes the most important bias which is always crippling any field where someone is making a lot of money... the person with the biggest wallet no longer gets to determine the questions. No amount of researchers being honest and transparent about the answers is ever going to matter when you can selectively fund the right questions.
"Pharma companies make their money from introducing new drugs. They are not going to stop that just because the risks are higher. Instead, they will find ways to manage the risk."
There are definitely things companies stop because the risks are higher, some risks must be accepted and priced into what you do, some you "manage" by finding less risky answers or insurance (such as testing). If the FDA and legal immunity it grants drug companies went away tomorrow they'd likely INCREASE testing and safety protocols on new drugs because they can't just dump a list of everything they can think of to the FDA and become immune to a civil suit when it happens to someone.
I say get rid of the FDA machine, let them regulate drugs the way they regulate food. It's always been fairly sketchy whether the government had a place regulating what individuals could and couldn't take anyway. Just like food, aspects of clear and accurate labeling and safe production can still be regulated.
What people forget is that the FDA testing isn't to make sure drugs are safe, it is make sure drugmakers are safe from lawsuits. Take away that level of regulation and you also remove the protection. Don't throw up a big mandatory expense to produce a new treatment and get it out there... just leave it at the default, doing anything too obviously shady on purpose is going to carry billions of dollars in civil suit backlash and intentionally producing and selling something unsafe is too expensive a risk to justify to your shareholders.
Slashdot Mirror
"Is your poor health due to being a night owl, or is your poor health causing you to be a night owl? This study doesn't answer that question."
True.
"There is about as much validity to "biological clocks" as there is to biofeedback mania of the 70's. There is no such thing as biological clock determinism."
So this would be you making an assumption without evidence? There has been evidence of a biological clock or circadian rhythm and adverse health effects to violating it. It was assumed this was the same for everyone because of a few thousand years agriculture making us assume being attuned to the sun cycle was natural. New evidence suggests large swathes of people have a different clock. As a night owl I can and do adapt to what I must to live in society but give me a week or two of vacation and my natural cycle will gradually begin phasing in and I'll sleep later and later... give it enough time and few enough outside factors (post office interactions, family obligations, etc) and I'll eventually be getting up of 3pm or later.
"Your not born a morning lark or night owl. There is no genetic trait that determines it."
More assertion... or at least partial assertion. You definitely aren't born a morning lark or night owl, as a parent I can attest to that. You are actually born a polyphasic sleeper with a round the clock cycle. I've experimented with polyphasic sleep before and it is challenging but probably not impossible to adjust if there weren't others in your world you had to interact with. It is quite possible this is the natural sleep cycle for humans. Possibly even closer to that of cats who while most active at night actually sleep on a polyphasic schedule.
There are still some detectable patterns. Talk to most people 60+ yrs old and you'll discover that regardless of their patterns before they start to find themselves going to sleep earlier and earlier.
Most restaurants close by 9pm. Most offices close by 6pm. Government services definitely close by 6pm. In fact, most towns are effectively dark by 10pm and even the vast majority of options in cities are shut down by 10pm. Day cares don't usually have night hours, your options for classes in school are certainly slim to non-existent. What you mention are examples of things slowly changing but alarm clocks are for people who aren't morning larks and that is most people.
If you are "morning lark" or day walker as I call it none of the times either of us mentioned is really a problem for you... we aren't talking about 5am - 8am here, we are talking about services focused on a proper waking schedule of 5pm - 8am.
As a parent I assure you that children start out on a polyphasic round the clock sleep cycle of about 2hr duration. It is actually parents who start guiding their sleep schedule with a great deal of difficulty from there.
Children get up early because they go to bed early, they go to bed early so their parents can have a couple hours to themselves, or even to more easily accomplish chores without having to juggle managing them.
"We have all that now, but a million years or more of evolution have trained our bodies to be more sunlight synchronized."
Recent research has indicated this is false. Mere thousands of years of agricultural based society have attuned our artificial environment to revolve around sun cycles. People do not all share a "day lark" rhythm. It is questionable that most even do given the prevalence of alarm clocks to get up for early work start times.
The summary is badly written, probably with the bias of a day lark. This study was showing that night owls have the most disruption to their night owl circadian rhythms. The old idea that the circadian rhythm is the same for everyone has been disproved by a great deal of research and night owl/day lark/etc are the common terms used to designate the known general biological clocks.
Except the night owl demographic is most of the people I know. I really don't know many people getting to work at 9am without the use of an alarm clock.
People were never primarily day larks, agriculture BECAME the primary motivator to rise recently in our history and it fit well with the whole sun cycle thing so we assumed that was how it naturally should be. We ignored that there are no shortage of natural creatures which are nocturnal.
As far as I can tell most people actually shift slowly toward day lark status as a function of aging. Most of the 60+ year old people I know wake before the sun and if they weren't used to that already they'll tell you it just started to happen that way. Most of the 20-40yr olds I know will wake at noon or later if allowed to wake and sleep as the urge strikes naturally for a month or less regardless of what schedule they started with.
Not only that, there are a hell of a lot more of night owls than the "day walkers", call them larks if you want, care to acknowledge. Sure, most people expect the post office to be open during daylight hours and the night shift is slow in most businesses... that isn't because there aren't enough of us to keep them busy, it's because we are all being forced onto day walker schedules.
Not just if they have any kind of normal job but because everyone being forced into day larks hours means they can't do business at any of the places that employee others who work those jobs. Great, work the night shift, you still can't go to restaurant, attend your nieces birthday party, go a funeral, mail a letter, get a permit to build a shed, work with a contractor, etc etc etc without sleep deprivation.
The summary was poor. Sleeping in didn't increase death. A person with a night owl circadian rytheme being forced to sleep and live in a manner that matches a day larks circadian rhythm resulted in increased death. Day larks should be awake and work during the day, night owls should sleep during the day and work at night. Post offices, doctors offices, dmv's, restaurants, etc generally only allow for one of these rhythms to exist without regular disruption.
The summary almost tries to hides the why. Probably for the same reason many people misread the bit about circadian rhythm. Not long ago it was believed everyone had the same circadian rhythm. Much medical literature and treatments, even diseases, are still dependent on this idea. But it has been shown to be false. Night owls are more likely to die because they are forced to conform to a world that is based on a day larks circadian rhythm rather than a night owls.
The only reason society has evolved to match the patterns of the day lark is because they most closely relate to natural light sources which are crucial to agriculture. There are no shortage of nocturnal creatures in nature and no particular reason to assume humans would all be innately attuned to match the sun cycle, agriculture was just so a crucial part of our lives for so long (but not evolutionary scale long) everyone just thought that was natural and those who didn't easily adapt were lazy.
"To even get out of bed in time we have to add unhealthy chemicals to our body that increase our blood pressure."
Both caffeine and cocaine are potentially unhealthy chemicals people are taking to manage the sleep patterns that arise from night owls having to adapt to a world which has a schedule catered to day larks as an artifact of having once been centered around natural lighting and agriculture.
Today we are familiar with cocaine as an ultra pure extract of insane concentration being used by drug addicts, when it was outlawed it was generally a very dilute tea made from leaves with similar properties to caffeine and milder side effects. It was outlawed because the tea and coffee industries had a better lobby. The highly concentrated stuff mostly came about because it is smaller and easier to smuggle that way. If you treated caffeine the way we've come to treat cocaine it wouldn't be highly addictive only because you'd be dead. Nobody researches positive health effects of cocaine but it shares many of the same mechanisms believed to be responsible for the positive effects of caffeine. It may be trivia but it is worth challenging societal and preconceived notions now and then. In countries where they grow naturally it is quite common for workers to chew coca leaves in a use similar to our drinking of coffee or British drinking of tea.
This:
"Making the competitors (Amazon, Google, Apple, Netflix, etc) come together to make a replacement."
Gives a very strong clue as to why free licensed solutions continue to get development. They just get developed by funding from people who actually need the solution rather than a middleman who wants to build it and license to all those people.
"As with VP9 earlier, the first reference AV1 encoder is absolutely slow: currently it's an order of magnitude slower [doom9.org] than x265's veryslow preset (which is extremely slow to begin with). "
Sure but that reference encoder isn't even optimized. People are going a little crazy assuming this will need dedicated hardware to become useful when it was designed to be easy to optimize and has not yet been optimized. Bitching because the brand new shiny and cool codec isn't as mature as the codecs of 5-6yrs ago is a little ridiculous.
True, although they actually do provide extremely low dose meth for ADHD but they sell it under another label and charge a fortune for it. Compared with D-Amphetamine (aka Adderall) Methamphetamine is actually mild.
I would think what would get you (assuming a court didn't label all this standard industry practice in tech) is that the condition is effectively a thinly veiled blanket condition to prevent competition on repairs and components.
You can't just say cell phones must be worked on in a dry environment and we assume liquid caused micro-shorts if we didn't control that environment. You have to provide solid case specific investigation and rational to prove the damage was caused by the end user. So for your hard drive, they need to prove that the drive failed due to dust contamination not simply work from the assumption a clean room wasn't used for the repair.
Yes, and in the sane world in which these consumer protections were put in place they'd update the law to fix that loophole and incur treble damages if the manufacturer has included what a reasonable person might conclude to be such components without publicly and freely documenting them.
There are hell of a lot more Coffee addicts in a position to fund research. There aren't many studies to look for the health benefits of Cocaine. ;) Before some states rebelled and researchers were finely able to perform studies without DEA approval the only studies related to Marijuana were negative as well.
Just pointing out the little known fact that Cocaine was targeted alongside many other substances in the same times as the reefer madness propoganda. The winners in different industries were largely based on lobbying and commercial interests. In high concentrations such as those produced by drug smugglers to make cocaine as compact and low weight as possible is where most of the negative effects are found. There is little to known indication that in the concentrations found in chewed Coca leaves or teas brewed from the natural leaf Cocaine is harmful at all.
"The question in the case of the car manufacturers is "where are the really important parts made?" - engines and computers especially. Where is the need for tech and know-how?"
It's also, where are the really expensive/profitable parts made? Trump is right about one thing, we are a massive nation with plenty of raw natural resources of most every type and a huge trading deficit. As long as we can continue to steal talent from elsewhere it wouldn't really hurt the United States if we just used our resources and labor. For the most part it has been the US or US funding that has developed the things we buy, some things might be less costly because of global trade and in some cases it might make sense to seed our landfill mines with everyone elses resources and use our own when they are all out but we don't particularly NEED all this outside trade.
This is largely a problem with how habit formation is assessed. At the dose you'd find in coca leaf tea, Cocaine is less habit forming with fewer side effects than caffeine.
Cocaine addiction is highly dependent on the quantity hitting the bloodstream to the point where snorted cocaine and smoked cocaine (which allows large quantities to simultaneously enter the bloodstream across the surface area of the lungs) might as well be entirely different drugs. Caffeine... well we don't really know, if you go concentrating caffeine and passing it into the blood at that rate in a manner comparable to cocaine you'd be too dead to let us know how the cravings were.
That said, the negative side effects of lower doses of snorted cocaine use that have been significant enough to show withdraw symptoms look like having a bit too much coffee... the negative side effects of caffeine withdraw includes much of the same combined with an intense headache and pain. I'd hate to see what caffeine withdraw equivalent of snorted cocaine looked like.
Ah. I haven't needed it when the place was open but the pharmacy was closed in years but they used to just keep a clipboard to record the information at the front checkouts instead of the actual pharmacy after the pharmacy closed. They might have locked it down even further but it didn't technically require anyone special they were just required to log who bought it.
I think it is fair to say most of us aren't lucky enough to have meth dealers who will deliver. I'm surprised you don't have a 24hr Walgreens, CVS, or Walmart within a few blocks.
But if that really is the boat you are in, a light dose of meth will clear your sinuses and really doesn't carry any (physical) risks that don't also go on the label of the sudaphed. Either one will keep you up all night if you aren't careful in how you time it. There is a nighttime formula for sudafed but it falls right back in the "placebo to convince suckers there are other choices" category.
"get all nasty looks if more than one member of my family has had a cold this month"
In fairness, some people give nasty looks when you try to walk up to the counter and buy meth for the third or fourth family member as well.
Marijuana, even inhaled marijuana has a dramatically lower probability of being a key factor in your death than whisky.
Frankly I don't agree with the FDA regulating consumption, use, and access to drugs no matter how safe or dangerous. Study them, publish and inform people, control safe manufacture and production, accurate labeling and advertising, that sort of thing.
Assume it is true and if we all start doing so it will eventually become true.
We should take that data and correlation out of the control of either doctors or government. Build a peer to peer blockchain based system for collecting voluntary anonymous health data to build a databank and provide the most stastically useful answers. Nothing would stop doctors and the FDA from using such a system of course. Think this or that natural remedy actually works better whether we are able to prepare a proper control on a study for it or not? Well this system would innately show that result without prejudice.
It removes the most important bias which is always crippling any field where someone is making a lot of money... the person with the biggest wallet no longer gets to determine the questions. No amount of researchers being honest and transparent about the answers is ever going to matter when you can selectively fund the right questions.
"Pharma companies make their money from introducing new drugs. They are not going to stop that just because the risks are higher. Instead, they will find ways to manage the risk."
There are definitely things companies stop because the risks are higher, some risks must be accepted and priced into what you do, some you "manage" by finding less risky answers or insurance (such as testing). If the FDA and legal immunity it grants drug companies went away tomorrow they'd likely INCREASE testing and safety protocols on new drugs because they can't just dump a list of everything they can think of to the FDA and become immune to a civil suit when it happens to someone.
I say get rid of the FDA machine, let them regulate drugs the way they regulate food. It's always been fairly sketchy whether the government had a place regulating what individuals could and couldn't take anyway. Just like food, aspects of clear and accurate labeling and safe production can still be regulated.
What people forget is that the FDA testing isn't to make sure drugs are safe, it is make sure drugmakers are safe from lawsuits. Take away that level of regulation and you also remove the protection. Don't throw up a big mandatory expense to produce a new treatment and get it out there... just leave it at the default, doing anything too obviously shady on purpose is going to carry billions of dollars in civil suit backlash and intentionally producing and selling something unsafe is too expensive a risk to justify to your shareholders.