3 ms·

> You do not receive a full chemical makeup, structure, and formulation of the medicine you are ingesting I was not aware of this. Predictably, this causes pro

> You do not receive a full chemical makeup, structure, and formulation of the medicine you are ingesting I was not aware of this. Predictably, this causes problems [1], just as the closed nature of the pacemaker in the article caused problems. Something which you ignored, and continued claiming, counterfactually, that closed-source doesn't hamper patient safety. [1] https://theconversation.com/whats-in-your-medicine-may-surprise-you-a-call-for-greater-transparency-about-inactive-ingredients-143803 https://theconversation.com/whats-in-your-medicine-may-surpr...

Veserv 3y ago
Verification is significantly more important for patient safety than openness. Just look at your local homeopathic remedy section for evidence of that; plenty of openness, but not a lick of verification. As to the formulation of your medicine, your average person is unqualified to evaluate it for efficacy. They would generally rely on a competent trusted third-party (their doctor) to evaluate it for them. The evaluator needs openness, but general openness is not really required even if it may be desirable for other reasons. A common benefit to openness is not restricting it to the designated evaluator allowing more freeform evaluation. This can have benefits in medicine if you are able to navigate medical analysis and do your own research. However, this still has limits as even a highly skilled layperson is unlikely to understand the specific pharmacokinetics so general openness at that level of detail is unlikely to be particularly useful. You will almost certainly rely on a competent, trusted third party to confirm and verify conformance for you. To sum up, what matters is verification by trusted, competent parties. Verification demands openness to the evaluator, but does not need to extend further than that to see significant benefits. There may be additional benefits to openness, but efficacy and safety are more effectively achieved in other well-known, tried and true ways.

Veserv 3y ago

Verification is significantly more important for patient safety than openness. Just look at your local homeopathic remedy section for evidence of that; plenty of openness, but not a lick of verification. As to the formulation of your medicine, your average person is unqualified to evaluate it for efficacy. They would generally rely on a competent trusted third-party (their doctor) to evaluate it for them. The evaluator needs openness, but general openness is not really required even if it may be desirable for other reasons. A common benefit to openness is not restricting it to the designated evaluator allowing more freeform evaluation. This can have benefits in medicine if you are able to navigate medical analysis and do your own research. However, this still has limits as even a highly skilled layperson is unlikely to understand the specific pharmacokinetics so general openness at that level of detail is unlikely to be particularly useful. You will almost certainly rely on a competent, trusted third party to confirm and verify conformance for you. To sum up, what matters is verification by trusted, competent parties. Verification demands openness to the evaluator, but does not need to extend further than that to see significant benefits. There may be additional benefits to openness, but efficacy and safety are more effectively achieved in other well-known, tried and true ways.