if a medical treatment satisfies mandatory government licensing requirements its more likely to be safe than it would be if there were no such requirements, right?
not necessarily. if a government agency claims the treatment is safe (even implicitly, by allowing it to be used), most people are satisfied that it's safe, and the manufacturers aren't under much pressure to do additional safety research.
if the government took no position about the treatment's safety, and it was well understood that the buyer should beware, people would be more cautious.
pressure on the manufacturer to provide credible assurances of safety would be much greater. they'd be more likely to commission (for instance) long-term experimental safety studies.
caveat emptor = a more robust system
see also the fence paradox
see also the fence paradox
https://twitter.com/mormo_music/status/1346070191969628162
a common objection: but it's unrealistic to expect regular people to research the claims made by manufacturers and make sensible decisions!
1. they're not alone. voluntary certification and customer watchdogs could do much of the work.
1. they're not alone. voluntary certification and customer watchdogs could do much of the work.
2. the burden for understanding research or deciding who to trust is always on the users of the medication whether they realise it or not, and whether it's a gov agency vouching for the safety of the product or a private firm.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
