In what way does the Montana law make snake oil salesmanship hard? Why can't a bad actor just repeatedly file INDs, go through Phase 1 (soon will be close to trivial given AI-enabled drug discovery/design), then sell to unsuspecting consumers as a panacea, then rinse and repeat?

▲

niklas_anzinger 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well that'll be a pretty sophisticated scheme, requiring $5-10m funding per phase-1 trial. I suppose that's possible but it would be a highly legible scheme.

Also what would be the bad outcomes here? If those drugs end up not being safe (that is prevented by the requirement to not withhold safety data), or being effective?

If effectiveness is what you're thinking of, keep in mind things like off-label are already allowed, so even in the current system you have drugs that aren't proven effective for what they're used and we don't call the physicians that prescribe off-label bad actors necessarily.

▲

ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Also what would be the bad outcomes here? If those drugs end up not being safe (that is prevented by the requirement to not withhold safety data), or being effective?

Barring a time machine, safety data reporting is gonna lag at least some of the bad outcomes.

▲

niklas_anzinger 6 hours ago | parent [-]

That is the same with all post-market monitoring for drugs. And maybe we can do better because more nimble/startup approach in a small state

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Isn't this pre-market, though?

	▲	niklas_anzinger 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Relative to the federal approval it's pre-market. In Montana, if your treatment is approved by a review board it's in market

▲

colingauvin 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

INDs and phase 1s are expensive and not trivial in any sense.