3 ms·
> strong Dunning-Kruger vibe Remember, personal attacks are not allowed here. One doesn't have to work for the FDA to realize that the prioritize profit over
by malfist 3y ago
> strong Dunning-Kruger vibe
Remember, personal attacks are not allowed here.
One doesn't have to work for the FDA to realize that the prioritize profit over health in a lot of cases. Case in point is sunscreen. How many years did the FDA allow sunscreens that didn't protect against UV-A exposure, knowing that UV-A was the primary cause for sun damage related skin cancer.
Even when they did decide to require protection against UV-A, the enforcement was delayed for several years, explicitly to not cause financial harm to sunscreen makers. I remember back in college, enforcement was delayed over a year to permit sellers to move through existing stock of sunscreen.
This is far from the only example. FDA very much prioritizes protecting companies bottom lines.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoIt's true though. The FDA almost certainly has at least a dozen folks much smarter than the user calling them 'clueless'. And all regulated organizations, in total, certainly have many hundreds much smarter responding to the FDA. It's very likely that at least a few thousand actual bonafide geniuses interact substantially, in some way, in any given year.
- chiefalchemist 3y agoSmart? What does that have to do with doing their job? Are you saying that smart people aren't lazy? Aren't corruptible? Don't suffer from group-think? Geez, the list could go on and on and on. If smart was all that is necessary, we wouldn't need the likes of the FDA. If smart was all that is necessary, the world wouldn't be the clusterfuck that it is. History is clear...relying on smart is a stupid idea. Ignoring history? Even worse.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoThese points would also apply to HN users, so the relative gap remains the same.