[Ensorceled]

> Consider your argument and opioids, where nearly 1000 people a week overdosed on at the peak?

What does that have to do, at all, with the process for getting medications approved?

These drugs were clearly being oversubscribed, intentionally and for profit, and people should have been sent to jail for this.

> Also consider "a scientist is as easy to buy as a politician".

What does this have to do with anything at all? This is why the FDA has fairly strict guidelines for approvals.

> Cigarette were considered to not cause cancer backed by science.

Cigarette's were never approved in a clinical trial.

> On top of that, the replication crisis in even chemistry and physics is seeing 30% of results can't be replicated.

Clinical trials are not "chemistry and physics" papers.

> The system is far more busted than people think.

I agree, but you are talking about a bunch of unrelated "systems", not clinical trials.

[anoxor]

if 30% of chemistry and physics papers can't be replicated, and something more like 70% of sociology and phycology papers can't be replicated, do you think that clinic trials might have a less than 100% trustworthy due to the possible monetary gains from the company conducting them?

opioids went through clinical trials, no?

[Ensorceled]

Opioids didn’t cause harm because they should have failed their clinical trials.