Short answer: FDA is totally toothless these days after decades of industry lobbying and Republican budget cuts. The industry has decided how they want things to work.
Correct. When liabilities grow too big, the company will spin off the liabilities to a shell company without means to pay for damages caused. (this is called a "Texas two-step" bankruptcy)
Of course not. Side effects ? Which side effects ? /s
The fda budget much like every other agency has grown incredibly in the last 50 years ( <1bnin 1992 to >6bn today). You can look at more recent numbers and see it’s still rising. When you hear cuts I’m spending it’s often cuts in proposed increases in spending which are often double digits. So you can grow an agency 10% a year for decades and then a single slow down or reversion to levels from just a year or two ago is seen as drastic cuts that will result in poison into our water.
It varies a little by division/subject matter, but they basically have to run everything by industry and are subject to FOIAs and public shaming by senators and representatives beholden to industry.
Source: long-term partner of FDA employee, though this stuff is pretty widely understood.
How is that relevant?
But instead of doing that you’ve decided to just write this comment instead and post something that looks quite silly for those that have taken the first approach.
The numerous “not approved” decisions makes that plainly obvious. Not to mention all the times FDA has said “you have to do X to get approved” and the company happily complies despite it delaying sales by several quarters.
To the question at hand “why do publications come after FDA approval”, the FDA has access to all the data (actually more) before publication, so the publication is irrelevant to approval.
The company happily complies?
Or just does it begrudgingly because not doing it delays sales a few more quarters if not indefinitely?
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea from that a company would happily do anything additional. It's a cost of doing business. Let's not pretend they're angels, they're in it for the money not the greater good.
And if that last statement needs a rationale, tell me who is doing the work to find the next antibiotic or any other non chronic disease medication
Even if the cost of the change are very high, getting it approved is probably worthwhile. To say that they would do so happily implies that there's a motive beyond getting approval.
Based on these comments, maybe my interpretation was just off
[1]https://www.fda.gov/science-research/science-and-research-sp...
The funny thing about short answers is that they're often partly or wholly full of shit and don't describe the underlying reality. For example, see how different things get when you look at actual information instead of pulling ideological talking points out of your ass without knowing what the hell is even the case? (A common thing on this site among so many self-described highly intelligent people)
This is the FDA's actual funding history over the last 3 decades (page 6 of the PDF), showing a steadily increasing budget across both Republican and Democrat admins. Curiously, some of its bigger budget increases coincided with the first Trump administration even. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44576.pdf
If only the Democrats had been in power in that period. And if only lobbying weren't something that was impossible to prevent by a neutral third party paid for by taxes to do exactly that.