3 ms·

You can't prove a negative. Technology progresses and finds new things we didn't know 10 years ago. What you're suggesting is impossible.

by refurb 3y ago

tankenmate 3y ago
That's not strictly true; for example new drugs are tested on animals and humans all the time.
- ironSkillet 3y ago
  Negative effects can manifest themselves over timescales beyond any scientific test.
  - californical 3y ago
    Does that mean that you shouldn’t try just because it’s imperfect?
user_7832 3y ago
> You can't prove a negative. Technology progresses and finds new things we didn't know 10 years ago. What you're suggesting is impossible. From the first Google result I found (https://biorius.com/biorius-group/comparison-between-the-us-and-eu-cosmetics-regulations/ https://biorius.com/biorius-group/comparison-between-the-us-...) > In Europe before selling anything, you must indeed make sure and confirm it will not harm anyone! So I guess that’s why cosmetics and consumer goods don’t exist in the EU, eh?
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
To be honest it’s very unclear to me why we hold medicine to the standard of “demonstrably more helpful than harmful” but we hold the material your pill bottle is made out of to the standards of “innocent until proven guilty”. I can’t help but think that’s an oversight from lack of imagination and lack of intuitive understanding of how much leaching and abrading goes on.
- refurb 3y ago
  but we hold the material your pill bottle is made out of to the standards of “innocent until proven guilty” No they don't. Drug packaging is regulated too. It's tested for leeching, stability, etc. I'm starting to get the feeling that many people are upset in this thread because they don't actually know what the current regulations are.
  - AbrahamParangi 3y ago
    There are regulations on quite a number of things but the evidentiary standards are not equal because a treatment has to demonstrate a health benefit whereas a packaging additive just has to "demonstrate an absence of harm" which is actually a lax criteria because proving a negative is inherently "impossible". The practical implication is that your bloodstream is filled with relatively few small-molecule drugs and relatively many synthetic chemicals.
    - refurb 3y ago
      There are regulations on quite a number of things but the evidentiary standards are not equal because a treatment has to demonstrate a health benefit whereas a packaging additive just has to "demonstrate an absence of harm" which is actually a lax criteria because proving a negative is inherently "impossible". That makes no sense. Of course a "packaging additive" only has to prove a lack of harm. What else would you prove?
peteradio 3y ago
And I'm mandated to take a novel vaccine?

You can't prove a negative. Technology progresses and finds new things we didn't know 10 years ago. What you're suggesting is impossible.

by refurb 3y ago

You can't prove a negative. Technology progresses and finds new things we didn't know 10 years ago. What you're suggesting is impossible.

tankenmate 3y ago

That's not strictly true; for example new drugs are tested on animals and humans all the time.

ironSkillet 3y ago
Negative effects can manifest themselves over timescales beyond any scientific test.
- californical 3y ago
  Does that mean that you shouldn’t try just because it’s imperfect?

user_7832 3y ago

> You can't prove a negative. Technology progresses and finds new things we didn't know 10 years ago. What you're suggesting is impossible. From the first Google result I found (https://biorius.com/biorius-group/comparison-between-the-us-and-eu-cosmetics-regulations/ https://biorius.com/biorius-group/comparison-between-the-us-...) > In Europe before selling anything, you must indeed make sure and confirm it will not harm anyone! So I guess that’s why cosmetics and consumer goods don’t exist in the EU, eh?

AbrahamParangi 3y ago

To be honest it’s very unclear to me why we hold medicine to the standard of “demonstrably more helpful than harmful” but we hold the material your pill bottle is made out of to the standards of “innocent until proven guilty”. I can’t help but think that’s an oversight from lack of imagination and lack of intuitive understanding of how much leaching and abrading goes on.

refurb 3y ago
but we hold the material your pill bottle is made out of to the standards of “innocent until proven guilty” No they don't. Drug packaging is regulated too. It's tested for leeching, stability, etc. I'm starting to get the feeling that many people are upset in this thread because they don't actually know what the current regulations are.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  There are regulations on quite a number of things but the evidentiary standards are not equal because a treatment has to demonstrate a health benefit whereas a packaging additive just has to "demonstrate an absence of harm" which is actually a lax criteria because proving a negative is inherently "impossible". The practical implication is that your bloodstream is filled with relatively few small-molecule drugs and relatively many synthetic chemicals.
  - refurb 3y ago
    There are regulations on quite a number of things but the evidentiary standards are not equal because a treatment has to demonstrate a health benefit whereas a packaging additive just has to "demonstrate an absence of harm" which is actually a lax criteria because proving a negative is inherently "impossible". That makes no sense. Of course a "packaging additive" only has to prove a lack of harm. What else would you prove?

peteradio 3y ago

And I'm mandated to take a novel vaccine?