4 ms·

I find this hard to believe. It’s beneficial for everyone including manufacturers for their products to be proven safe. If we assume manufacturers are intentio

I find this hard to believe. It’s beneficial for everyone including manufacturers for their products to be proven safe. If we assume manufacturers are intentionally malicious, what prevents them from outright submitting a dummy saline shot for testing instead of the real thing, guaranteeing absolutely zero side-effects?

dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
>I find this hard to believe. It’s beneficial for everyone including manufacturers for their products to be proven safe. The world does not work that way unfortunately. >what prevents them from outright submitting a dummy saline shot for testing instead Perfectly possibly.
noodles_nomore 4y ago
It's not so much lying as it is a nefarious combination of motivated reasoning, plausible deniability, blind compliance, responsibility dispersion, greed-motivated short-term thinking, etc.
PKop 4y ago
>It’s beneficial for everyone including manufacturers for their products to be proven safe Yes, and to many on here, "they were"...and the company benefited from that. Make sense? It would also benefit the company to cut corners, do as much as they can but not stop the rollout for more, which would take years to be "proven" beyond some threshold as safe. Much of this proof would require long term testing, impossible to do up front so they would benefit from just releasing them anyways. >what prevents them Perhaps there is some optimal range, within which they benefit from best-effort (in a given period of time) attempt at producing what they think does something, what they think doesn't do bad things, and then releasing in full volume to cash in. Everything I'm saying doesn't require them to be nefarious either, even just a little negligence can result in "not actually safe". If they have cover from government, media, and a willing populace ready to assume safety and efficacy, then what do they have to lose?
pwned1 4y ago
When the company has legal immunity... well I think you can answer your own question.

dennis_jeeves1 4y ago

>I find this hard to believe. It’s beneficial for everyone including manufacturers for their products to be proven safe. The world does not work that way unfortunately. >what prevents them from outright submitting a dummy saline shot for testing instead Perfectly possibly.

noodles_nomore 4y ago

It's not so much lying as it is a nefarious combination of motivated reasoning, plausible deniability, blind compliance, responsibility dispersion, greed-motivated short-term thinking, etc.

PKop 4y ago

>It’s beneficial for everyone including manufacturers for their products to be proven safe Yes, and to many on here, "they were"...and the company benefited from that. Make sense? It would also benefit the company to cut corners, do as much as they can but not stop the rollout for more, which would take years to be "proven" beyond some threshold as safe. Much of this proof would require long term testing, impossible to do up front so they would benefit from just releasing them anyways. >what prevents them Perhaps there is some optimal range, within which they benefit from best-effort (in a given period of time) attempt at producing what they think does something, what they think doesn't do bad things, and then releasing in full volume to cash in. Everything I'm saying doesn't require them to be nefarious either, even just a little negligence can result in "not actually safe". If they have cover from government, media, and a willing populace ready to assume safety and efficacy, then what do they have to lose?

pwned1 4y ago

When the company has legal immunity... well I think you can answer your own question.