3 ms·

That seems like prosecuting the police for a crime committed by someone else. How does that change incentives in a productive way?

• darth_avocado 2y ago
  But it is not like that. The research was a fraud. It didn’t kill anyone. Once it was recommended by European Medical Guidelines, it started killing people. I would argue negligence on their part. It’s like this: If a factory somewhere knowingly provides subpar nuts and bolts. And then Boeing puts them in all their planes without proper testing. If a plane crashes, who is liable? There’s definitely wrongdoing on the factory’s part, but who would you as a victim sue first?
  • DSMan195276 2y ago
    > without proper testing What would 'proper testing' look like and how long would it take? That's the real rub here. Ultimately you have to apply such a policy to everything because you won't know what's fraudulent, so how many lives are saved vs. lost by introducing a delay (which could be years in the worst case)?
    • darth_avocado 2y ago
      Which is why things are the way they are
      • DSMan195276 2y ago
        What way is that? Do you think medical research has overall cost more lives than it saved in the last ~20ish years? Obviously nobody is happy this happened, but you haven't proposed an alternative that would clearly be better.