3 ms·
I'm confused that people have at the same time deep suspicion and also unwavering trust of drugs companies, depending on the story. In most cases people are su
by tonymet 2y ago
I'm confused that people have at the same time deep suspicion and also unwavering trust of drugs companies, depending on the story.
In most cases people are suspicious of pharma corruption & recklessness. Yet in a few contexts, for example with vaccines and psych meds , any criticism is deeply stigmatized. Critics are even slandered as backwards.
Why the paradox? I think a healthy dose of suspicion all around is warranted given their track record, plummeting healthfulness and the stakes at hand.
- vedtopkar 2y agoI think it's the difference between suspicion of the pharmaceutical vs the pharmaceutical company. You can criticize the company without criticizing the treatment.
- tonymet 2y agocan you explain that reasoning more? that makes no sense
- xboxnolifes 2y agoIn this case of doctors being paid to endorse drugs, the problem is that there is payment being exchanged at all. The issue persists whether or not the drug is effective.
- tonymet 2y agosure but if we all agree that corruption is widespread , how can we discern what is effective? We're making our assignments based on corrupt testimony -- that of the corrupt vendors & doctors. How much we trust the drugs rests entirely on how much we trust the industry