FDA - CWSA 2496 6-5-24

 there's an FDA advisory

16:18

panel that uh turned down an application for a specific psychedelic for a

16:24

specific company that they were going to do lyos Therapeutics they warant use a

16:29

an MDMA like substance um well actually MDMA and they

16:36

had some kind of a therapeutic uh process that would go with that and they applied and the FDA said uh no a 10 said

16:44

nope the risks outweigh the benefits now what's the first thing you

16:51

think when you hear that an FDA advisory panel now the FDA itself hasn't voted

16:57

these are just the advisory panel we expect it would go the same as the advisory panel because it was you know 8

17:03

to2 but um what's the first thing you think

17:08

when you see the FDA might turn down a MDA based MDMA based therapy do you say

17:16

to yourself well here's some honest people who looked at the data and decided to protect us by keeping us away

17:24

from this kind of a risk is that what you think is that your first thought or is your first thought the some number of

17:30

these advisory panel people they have to be experts in the field right what would

17:37

be the point of an advisory panel unless they were experts in this kind of

17:43

stuff now what would you expect of an expert of this kind of stuff well one

17:49

thing I'd expect is if they ever wanted to make big money they have to work for a big pharmaceutical company do you

17:56

think that there are too many big Pharmaceutical companies who are super interested in seeing psychedelics

18:02

destroy the biggest Cash Cow they've ever had which is anxiety and anti-depressant

18:09

drugs so I asked myself is there really any possibility that the

18:15

FDA is even structured in a way that they could possibly approve something

18:20

that's insanely good for uh the country and you might not even need a

18:25

professional to help you with it now ideally you wouldn't want to do any

18:30

psychedelics without you know some kind of professional guidance and you know quality control and all that but people

18:37

will I mean in the real world they'll take some mushrooms and see see what happens so I've got a feeling that the

18:44

FDA as structured is not the entity we should ever trust for something that

18:50

would reduce our costs by 100% basically cost of treatment and and

18:57

also would fix you almost immediately according to many many reports so I don't know I'd love to

19:05

think the advisers got it right but we live in such a zero trust environment that I just automatically assume they

19:12

didn't get it right do you have the same reaction I my working assumption is it's

19:17

is it's crooked do you have the same I have no evidence it's just a working

19:25

assumption