What really bothers me is, given this is not arcane maths, people in the pharmaceutical companies and the regulators must know. Yet still the companies do it and the regulators ignore it. Surely someone, with integrity, would want to know the truth of whether the products actually work and are safe. Normalisation of deviancy?
There is a rather bleak hypothesis. Suppose that companies, governments, institutions, and people who seek power and influence are amoral: why would they *not* do Thing X? Mutilate children sexually and lower the barriers we put in place to protect them from predators; criminalise criticism and call it preventing hate; falsify therapy efficacy and safety data to increase profits; commit genocide and call it self defence?
The test of a hypothesis is whether it explains and predicts reality.
Dan I would encourage it, and for exactly that reason. I find the process of organising the evidence required to make an argument that will survive scrutiny enormously clarifying. I've abandoned a few where I discover that things were not in fact as I supposed them when I stated it. If other people benefit, that's a pleasure but it needn't be the purpose.
What really bothers me is, given this is not arcane maths, people in the pharmaceutical companies and the regulators must know. Yet still the companies do it and the regulators ignore it. Surely someone, with integrity, would want to know the truth of whether the products actually work and are safe. Normalisation of deviancy?
There is a rather bleak hypothesis. Suppose that companies, governments, institutions, and people who seek power and influence are amoral: why would they *not* do Thing X? Mutilate children sexually and lower the barriers we put in place to protect them from predators; criminalise criticism and call it preventing hate; falsify therapy efficacy and safety data to increase profits; commit genocide and call it self defence?
The test of a hypothesis is whether it explains and predicts reality.
...
I am pondering starting a Stack, just to help me think these issues through. Certainly, there is something very wrong, however you conceptualise it.
Dan I would encourage it, and for exactly that reason. I find the process of organising the evidence required to make an argument that will survive scrutiny enormously clarifying. I've abandoned a few where I discover that things were not in fact as I supposed them when I stated it. If other people benefit, that's a pleasure but it needn't be the purpose.
I think GSK is the most highly fined pharmaceutical company & Pfizer are second
https://www.pharmaceuticalprocessingworld.com/gsk-pfizer-and-jj-among-the-most-fined-drug-companies-according-to-study/
They are all psychopathic entities preying upon the people they purport to benefit.