3 ms·

Do they? The distinction may be lost on consumers, and if an uncertified drug harms people or fails to work and they die before further methods can be tried, it

Do they? The distinction may be lost on consumers, and if an uncertified drug harms people or fails to work and they die before further methods can be tried, it may harm people's trust in the medical system as a whole, causing them to turn to snake oil treatments with even less of a scientific foundation / vetting for harmfulness. If snake oil can kill Steve Jobs, don't think you and your loved ones are immune.

renewiltord 6y ago
I don't think I'm immune. I don't think the ones I love are immune. But for myself (and them) I'm willing to take the risk. If you want me to take a test, so be it. If you want me to post a $100k bond so be it. It's not like there's universal healthcare anyway so my costs to you are upper bound.
- sithadmin 6y ago
  > But for myself (and them) I'm willing to take the risk I truly don't think you have the education, training, or exposure to the field to actually make an informed judgment about what such risks would be. This isn't an insult to you, it's simply a fact of life: We can't all be subject matter experts in all things. This is precisely why regulatory apparatuses, licensure for the practice of certain disciplines, and product safety standards exist.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Ah, but there lies the rub. The regulators don't have the education, training, or exposure either. And crucially, they don't have access to my risk tolerance. This is most obvious in anti-mask rhetoric from the top public health service in America but also is common in that regulators are safetyists. They will let a million die so that not one will die by their hands. That's okay for them, but not so much for me.
    - sithadmin 6y ago
      >The regulators don't have the education, training, or exposure either. Again, you clearly have no understanding of what the FDA approval process actually entails.
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        Haha, I'm pretty sure I know more than you do. Just reading Wikipedia doesn't make you an expert, mate. But please, regale us with your expert knowledge.
- skyfaller 6y ago
  I think anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers hostile to attempts to protect the population are obvious examples of how you losing trust in the medical system could directly endanger me and my health. Imagine a covid vaccine is rushed to be released without being certified as safe. It is later discovered to harm many people in some horrifying way, as thalidomide did. Now not enough people are willing to try the next vaccine, and it becomes impossible to eradicate covid even once a safe and effective vaccine is developed. Now imagine that, except for every single public health threat. The public has an interest in the medical system being trustworthy, and uncertified treatments undermine that trust in a dangerous fashion. EDIT: If it isn't clear, I don't think you could post enough money to cover even one death as a result of your actions, let alone e.g. being responsible for a superspreader event that leads to many deaths. Even if the drug in question is not for an infectious disease, memes are infectious and if you spread distrust in the medical system that leads people to e.g. drink bleach you are still responsible for that death, even if it is indirect / hard to prove and you cannot be legally held accountable. I'd rather use regulations to prevent the harm in the first place rather than trying to chase down and sue people after the harm has already been done. This attitude is one reason the USA has a reputation for being litigious/sue-happy.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    The anti-maskers were the medical system. I don't think I'm eager to forget that. Centralization of medical certification leads to this sort of situation where loss of trust in a single organization leads to loss of trust in the methodology. However, in a decentralized system with multiple certification authorities, loss of trust in one just loses trust in that one. An example of this is helmets: DOT has a helmet rating, but Snell does too. Everyone aims to get helmets that are certified to meet Snell standards, which are superior to DOT standards. Public health is too important to give it to those who are not capable of making the correct decisions. The CDC killed two hundred thousand Americans. There are certainly many among those who would be alive if there had been alternative health authorities capable of speaking scientific truth. Besides, there's the obvious answer: price in the externalities. Reduce the costs of filing suits against people who (while sick) visited places where people fell sick immediately after their visit. If my child transmits measles to yours, I should be paying your costs (real and opportunity). EDIT: Just read your edit. > ...if you spread distrust in the medical system that leads people to e.g. drink bleach you are still responsible for that death, even if it is indirect / hard to prove and you cannot be legally held accountable. I think I see the difference in our world-views and I don't think I'm willing to expend the effort to reconcile them. I believe in human agency to a greater deal than you do. For instance, if I were scammed, I would prioritize self-modification to improve scam resistance. You would prioritize society-modification to reduce scam incidence. Okay.

renewiltord 6y ago

I don't think I'm immune. I don't think the ones I love are immune. But for myself (and them) I'm willing to take the risk. If you want me to take a test, so be it. If you want me to post a $100k bond so be it. It's not like there's universal healthcare anyway so my costs to you are upper bound.

sithadmin 6y ago
> But for myself (and them) I'm willing to take the risk I truly don't think you have the education, training, or exposure to the field to actually make an informed judgment about what such risks would be. This isn't an insult to you, it's simply a fact of life: We can't all be subject matter experts in all things. This is precisely why regulatory apparatuses, licensure for the practice of certain disciplines, and product safety standards exist.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Ah, but there lies the rub. The regulators don't have the education, training, or exposure either. And crucially, they don't have access to my risk tolerance. This is most obvious in anti-mask rhetoric from the top public health service in America but also is common in that regulators are safetyists. They will let a million die so that not one will die by their hands. That's okay for them, but not so much for me.
  - sithadmin 6y ago
    >The regulators don't have the education, training, or exposure either. Again, you clearly have no understanding of what the FDA approval process actually entails.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Haha, I'm pretty sure I know more than you do. Just reading Wikipedia doesn't make you an expert, mate. But please, regale us with your expert knowledge.
skyfaller 6y ago
I think anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers hostile to attempts to protect the population are obvious examples of how you losing trust in the medical system could directly endanger me and my health. Imagine a covid vaccine is rushed to be released without being certified as safe. It is later discovered to harm many people in some horrifying way, as thalidomide did. Now not enough people are willing to try the next vaccine, and it becomes impossible to eradicate covid even once a safe and effective vaccine is developed. Now imagine that, except for every single public health threat. The public has an interest in the medical system being trustworthy, and uncertified treatments undermine that trust in a dangerous fashion. EDIT: If it isn't clear, I don't think you could post enough money to cover even one death as a result of your actions, let alone e.g. being responsible for a superspreader event that leads to many deaths. Even if the drug in question is not for an infectious disease, memes are infectious and if you spread distrust in the medical system that leads people to e.g. drink bleach you are still responsible for that death, even if it is indirect / hard to prove and you cannot be legally held accountable. I'd rather use regulations to prevent the harm in the first place rather than trying to chase down and sue people after the harm has already been done. This attitude is one reason the USA has a reputation for being litigious/sue-happy.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  The anti-maskers were the medical system. I don't think I'm eager to forget that. Centralization of medical certification leads to this sort of situation where loss of trust in a single organization leads to loss of trust in the methodology. However, in a decentralized system with multiple certification authorities, loss of trust in one just loses trust in that one. An example of this is helmets: DOT has a helmet rating, but Snell does too. Everyone aims to get helmets that are certified to meet Snell standards, which are superior to DOT standards. Public health is too important to give it to those who are not capable of making the correct decisions. The CDC killed two hundred thousand Americans. There are certainly many among those who would be alive if there had been alternative health authorities capable of speaking scientific truth. Besides, there's the obvious answer: price in the externalities. Reduce the costs of filing suits against people who (while sick) visited places where people fell sick immediately after their visit. If my child transmits measles to yours, I should be paying your costs (real and opportunity). EDIT: Just read your edit. > ...if you spread distrust in the medical system that leads people to e.g. drink bleach you are still responsible for that death, even if it is indirect / hard to prove and you cannot be legally held accountable. I think I see the difference in our world-views and I don't think I'm willing to expend the effort to reconcile them. I believe in human agency to a greater deal than you do. For instance, if I were scammed, I would prioritize self-modification to improve scam resistance. You would prioritize society-modification to reduce scam incidence. Okay.