TheTrueLordHumungous t1_iresvcg wrote
This entire article is based on the premise that the clinical trial process is flawed and rigged based on a few anecdotes of dangerous drugs that made it through this process. First, only 14% of drug candidates successfully passes clinical trial testing and regulatory approval. If the clinical trial process was truly rigged, wouldn't we see a much higher approval rate for them? When six out of seven of you experiments end in failure and the median cost for each failure is $20 million you'd think the process is very rigorous. The authors also mention the replication crisis in medial research, which is a real issue across all fields, but how does this compare to psychology (the authors specialty). The entire clinical process is a way to filter out bad and non reproducible research with actual experimentation and it seems to work fairly well. As bad as the replication crisis is in medicine its far worse in psychology ... perhaps they should clean their own rooms before pointing fingers at others.
Glugly_ t1_irgoz6x wrote
Dangerous drugs getting by is not the only issue, and as you point out, rarely happens. What does happen often is mediocre or simply ineffective treatments that are lauded due to financial incentive. This can happen even in highly controlled trials by over exaggerating moderate to mild findings to a public that either doesn’t have access to or doesn’t understand the literature. Also, all methods of data analysis have their flaws, and there are plenty of ways to both incidentally and purposefully end up with significant findings where there are none in reality.
And I’m glad you mention how the replication crisis is worse in psychology. I’m currently in graduate training to be a research psychologist, and the first month of our clinical research methods class has had a continual discussion of scientific integrity, how to identify flawed or overblown findings, and the danger (and reality) of financial incentive’s effects on research.
AnesthesiaFetish t1_irh7c3g wrote
I haven't heard that phrase before, "clinical corruption".
PrimePhilosophy t1_irfwadg wrote
"If the clinical trial process was truly rigged, wouldn't we see a much higher approval rate for them?" - Not necessarily. If a major factor for approvals is money then the most wealthy clients/applications may have a tendency for approval. Note that the FDA is massively funded by the same pharma industry they're supposed to be regulating.
8Splendiferous8 t1_irh9544 wrote
Just because 14% isn't 50% doesn't mean that bad science isn't passing through the filter. And whataboutism, especially pointing at a social science for replication, certainly doesn't invalidate the points this article is making. Doctors are fire hosed with pharmaceutical propaganda under the guise of impartial science.
HeroicKatora t1_irgy337 wrote
> When six out of seven of you experiments end in failure and the median cost for each failure is $20 million you'd think the process is very rigorous.
That's far from sufficient to consider the approval process rigorous, it's not even necessary. Particle Physics is very rigorous but still they don't fail more than six of seven experiments.
The solution to this paradox is that the reject rate doesn't tell you that much about the quality of the selection process. If at all it may reveal something about our collective ability to formulate correct hypotheses (based on understanding of the subject) for this experimental process.
massivepanda t1_irhe8ge wrote
“Through web searches and online services such as LinkedIn, however, Science has discovered that 11 of 16 FDA medical examiners who worked on 28 drug approvals and then left the agency for new jobs are now employed by or consult for the companies they recently regulated. This can create at least the appearance of conflicts of inter
iiioiia t1_irf0cxr wrote
Question:
a) if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged, is this statement as a binary True or False: "The system is rigged."
b) if two people answer differently, is one of them correct and the other incorrect, objectively and necessarily?
Eedat t1_irf3ufr wrote
I would say presenting it as binary is ridiculous and intentionally misleading.
iiioiia t1_irf8z2j wrote
It might be, if the person was making an assertion rather than asking questions (which is what I'm doing), and then only if they asserted that the representation is an accurate representation rather than a hypothetical thought experiment, and also if they genuinely intended to mislead people.
But then, this assumes a flawlessly rational observer, which is perhaps not a safe assumption....so maybe you are (kind of) right after all!
Interestingly, it is very easy to mislead people while being genuinely sincere and acting "in good faith" - for example, might it be possible that your comment could be misleading?
Eedat t1_irfsgzg wrote
I would say if you saw a system was 0.01% rigged and you presented it as "the system is rigged" with no further clarification you are being very intentionally misleading. This would be a case where "technically correct" is actually dead wrong
iiioiia t1_irft2zz wrote
> I would say if you saw a system was 0.01% rigged and you presented it as "the system is rigged" with no further clarification you are being very intentionally misleading.
In my case you would be correct on the "intentionally" part, but this may not be a safe bet with most people. Remember: everyone is doing their best.
> This would be a case where "technically correct" is actually dead wrong
Disagree - technically, it "is" correct (well, depending one the particular implementation of isRigged() one is using, and whether the implementation changes per topic). It is not comprehensively correct though!
[deleted] t1_irfw5l2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_irfxeu8 wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_iricmra wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
CatJamarchist t1_irf4usd wrote
>if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged,
What does this even mean? How can a system be 0.01% rigged?
Are you staying that 1 in every 10 thousand drugs is going to erroneously pass a clinical trial - because what? The system chose to rig it in that particular drugs favour? That doesn't make much sense. It's much more likely that in this proposed scenario the drug would be erroneously approved due to the actions of a single, or a few corrupt individuals - which does not represent the system.
VitriolicViolet t1_irgm9nz wrote
>How can a system be 0.01% rigged?
well look at US 'democracy' i would argue its 1% rigged (arbitrary number but still).
if the people who fund both political parties want certain outcomes and pay both parties to provide it (say lower corporate taxes and larger subsidies) and the people then vote attempting to increase corporate taxes only to have either victor lower them would that not be an example of how you can rig a system with only 1% rigging?
personally i think voting is rigged in this very way, parties do what their doors want first and foremost while the people are desperate and stupid enough to believe they have any actual say. no actual 'rigging' just mutual self-interest by those with the most say over society.
iiioiia t1_irf8p2s wrote
> What does this even mean? How can a system be 0.01% rigged?
Imagine a system composed of X departments or modules - simply divide the number of rigged ones by the total and you have your ratio - of course, to do this correctly one would need a flawless algorithm for objectively identifying rigged-ness, but most people would balk at that so they use heuristics or subjective algorithms that are claimed/implied to be objective.
> Are you staying that 1 in every 10 thousand drugs is going to erroneously pass a clinical trial - because what? The system chose to rig it in that particular drugs favour?
No, I am simply saying that if it is in fact rigged, then it is rigged.
EDIT: actually, this is technically incorrect - in my previous comment, I made no assertions, but rather asked two questions about your "facts" (which you didn't answer, for some reason I imagine). EDIT 2: I was wrong again! You are not the original poster...it is /u/TheTrueLordHumungous who has yet to answer. (Man, this is a lot more complicated than it seems.)
> That doesn't make much sense.
Well, one way it could "make sense" is that if people with decision making power have financial or ~personal interests in decisions.
> It's much more likely that in this proposed scenario the drug would be erroneously approved due to the actions of a single, or a few corrupt individuals....
"likely" is a heuristic prediction with an unknown truth value - I prefer to think tautologically: the level of rigged-ness of a system is equal to the level to which the system is rigged - this is better because it cannot possibly be incorrect.
> ...which does not represent the system.
Is this to say that there are zero corrupt individuals in the system?
TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irfce1o wrote
> who > has yet to > answer.
Calm down champ, I have a life.
iiioiia t1_irfd9cr wrote
> Calm down
?
CatJamarchist t1_irfkksq wrote
>Imagine a system...
Yeah I get what you're doing here - but you're reducing the 'rigging' down to smaller active chunks that are not necessarily representative of the system. These chunks are far more dependent on personal corruption than systemic 'rigging'. A 'rigged' system implies that the system is specifically set up in a way to produce erroneous results. A small team or department producing erroneous results for personal profit motives, is quite a bit different then systemic rigging - primarily because the system would want it try remove the offending people, because the system itself does not approve of 'rigging'. And we don't have to imagine a system either - there are lots of drug regulatory agencies, from the FDA to Heath Canada, to the EMA that we can examine to assess this rigging claim.
>I am simply saying that if it is in fact rigged, then it is rigged.
I literally don't know what you mean by 'rigged' in this context. Do you know how complicated the data production and regulatory requirements are to pass something like FDA clearance? Because I do, it just so happens to be a large part of my area of expertise. Just saying that 'the approval of drug X was rigged' is an incredibly vauge statement. There's a thousand different things that a company must produce and provide to a regulatory agency like the FDA to be verified prior to drug approval - there's many ways that companies can 'fudge' or 'massage' data to get it to say what the company wants prior to FDA submission.
>the level of rigged-ness of a system is equal to the level to which the system is rigged - this is better because it cannot possibly be incorrect.
Sure it can. You have to be very clear of what is 'rigging' and what is not 'rigging' - you have to define your terms of they're to be 'correct' or applicable.
Edit: furthermore, 'rigging' implies intentionality behind the decision - which is an accustaion that requires evidence. Just becuase the FDA approves a drug that otherwise wouldn't/shouldn't have been approved is not evidence of rigging, it could be, for exmaple, a mistake, or there may be other confounding variables.
>Is this to say that there are zero corrupt individuals in the system?
Of course not - I'm saying that there's a dramatic difference between Bob the quality control officer at the FDA allowing a drug to pass some quality parameter when company X fudged a data set error rate from 12% to 9%, passing the 10% error threshold set by the FDA, because Bob is friends with Tim, a designer at company X
And systemic rigging that specifically allows for certain companies or individuals to skate by regulatory constrains without question becuase the regulatory agency has some special interest in that company.
Just becuase there are individual corrupt actors acting within a system does not mean that the system is systemically rigged - it's not designed to be rigged. Especially when, if the system was aware of the individual corruption, it would very likely act to expunge that corruption.
iiioiia t1_irfp55i wrote
> Yeah I get what you're doing here....
To some degree ("get" is not a binary).
> ...but you're reducing the 'rigging' down to smaller active chunks that are not necessarily representative of the system.
Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?
> These chunks are far more dependent on personal corruption than systemic 'rigging'.
A reasonable speculation by common standards, although it is framed as (and perhaps even perceived as) a false dichotomy, so perhaps not likely to be necessarily correct.
> A 'rigged' system implies that the system is specifically set up in a way to produce erroneous results.
Very true! We could choose a different word if you'd like, but I will apply the same strict epistemology to that.
> A small team or department producing erroneous results for personal profit motives, is quite a bit different then systemic rigging - primarily because the system would want it try remove the offending people, because the system itself does not approve of 'rigging'.
Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating? "does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently slippery/subjective way to consider it.
> And we don't have to imagine a system either...
It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary.
> ...there are lots of drug regulatory agencies, from the FDA to Heath Canada, to the EMA that we can examine to assess this rigging claim.
And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me (which is where imagination makes its appearance).
> I literally don't know what you mean by 'rigged' in this context.
That's the beauty about humans - we do not use precise definitions for words - not only do we not, people are generally severely opposed to them. I prefer them, so if you'd like to decide upon a definition together, I would be game.
> Do you know how complicated the data production and regulatory requirements are to pass something like FDA clearance? Because I do....
What definition are you using for "know" here?
> Just saying that 'the approval of drug X was rigged' is an incredibly vauge statement.
Correct - one among many vague/ambiguous/subjective statements involved in this conversation.
> There's a thousand different things that a company must produce and provide to a regulatory agency like the FDA to be verified prior to drug approval - there's many ways that companies can 'fudge' or 'massage' data to get it to say what the company wants prior to FDA submission.
Agree! This, and many other things.
>> the level of rigged-ness of a system is equal to the level to which the system is rigged - this is better because it cannot possibly be incorrect.
> Sure it can. You have to be very clear of what is 'rigging' and what is not 'rigging' - you have to define your terms of they're to be 'correct' or applicable.
"Rigging" is largely subjective. In addition to this, you also have a measurement problem, and and an epistemology problem (like: unknown unknowns), and a consciousness problem.
> Edit: furthermore, 'rigging' implies intentionality behind the decision - which is an accustaion that requires evidence.
Should require evidence...and this applies to all the claims you made here today. Lucky for you, presenting (epistemically sound and logically conclusive) evidence for claims on the internet is not only not required, it is almost never done!
> Just becuase the FDA approves a drug that otherwise wouldn't/shouldn't have been approved is not evidence of rigging, it could be, for exmaple, a mistake, or there may be other confounding variables.
Correct - it is kind of like the difference between lying and speaking untruthfully.
>>> It's much more likely that in this proposed scenario the drug would be erroneously approved due to the actions of a single, or a few corrupt individuals - which does not represent the system.
>> Is this to say that there are zero corrupt individuals in the system?
> Of course not - I'm saying that there's a dramatic difference between Bob the quality control officer at the FDA allowing a drug to pass some quality parameter when company X fudged a data set error rate from 12% to 9%, passing the 10% error threshold set by the FDA, because Bob is friends with Tim, a designer at company X
But, if there are in fact corrupt individuals within the system, would saying that the system is partially corrupt not actually be a more accurate representation than saying it is not corrupted? (Replace "corrupt" with "imperfect" if you prefer comprehensiveness as I do).
> And systemic rigging that specifically allows for certain companies or individuals to skate by regulatory constrains without question becuase the regulatory agency has some special interest in that company.
I wonder if this has ever happened, even once. 🤔
> Just becuase there are individual corrupt actors acting within a system does not mean that the system is systemically rigged...
Would you mind pasting in a pseudocode representation of your actual cognitive implementation of isRigged()? I am interested to see the variables and logic (the general form, and if you are using binary or ternary) you are using.
> ...it's not designed to be rigged.
This has no bearing on whether it is actually rigged (but it may have bearing on perceptions of it).
> Especially when, if the system was aware of the individual corruption, it would very likely act to expunge that corruption.
Actually, it would likely not (note: I literally just made that up - when in Rome, act like a Roman and all that).
CatJamarchist t1_irfy8dy wrote
Yeah so your response just makes me think you don't really know or understand how regulatory agencies are set up
>Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?
Yes, and I think your conclusion is wrong.
>reasonable speculation
It's not just speculation - these agencies are specially set up in such a way to produce multiple independent verification steps. The approval process is not linear.
>Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating?
I have specific knowledge - I directly produce, assess and report data that is to be submitted to the FDA, and I read and respond to the replies the FDA provides to the data I submit
>"does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently...
I mean that it's quite literally illegal. People end up in jail for corrupting these processes. And there are many hurdles set up in these institutions to catch erroneous results.
>> And we don't have to imagine a system either...
>It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary.
Not really.. your imagined scenario isn't all that applicable, because it doesn't represent the actual set up of these agencies well.
>>that we can examine to assess this rigging claim.
>And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me
This is not unknown to me. I'm quite familiar with the regulatory set up, and quality control of all three of the agencies noted.
>That's the beauty about humans - we do not use precise definitions for words
In science, precise definitions are what it's all about - so you should be careful accusing a highly precise, well defined and regulated system with imprecise language.
>so if you'd like to decide upon a definition together, I would be game.
You're mostly just talking about corruption from what I can tell.
For exmaple, a system is rigged when the results are pre-determined - a rigged voting machine is when the machine is programmed to record a vote for candidate X, even when a ballot is submitted with candidate W, Y or Z selected.
A system is corrupt when the results are changed after the fact to reflect a more desired outcome. A corrupt voting system is when the machine accurately records the ballot results, and then someone goes in after the fact to change the results to suit their purposes.
A rigged system can not produce good data - it's designed to produce data of a specific nature.
A corrupt system can produce good data, that data may then be corrupted after the fact for some specific purpose.
>What definition are you using for "know" here?
Not sure what you mean - you quoted a section where I'm asking you if you 'know' about the structure of regulatory agencies - in asking if you're aware of how they're set up, organized and how they assess information.
If you're asking about the agency 'knowing' about a corrupt individual - I'm talking about 'instututional awareness' which is essentially enough people in positions of influce who are aware of the situation and can act on it.
>you also have a measurement problem, and and an epistemology problem
... Why? The agencies and people who staff them are well-aware if these hurdles, and things are set up in such away to avoid these issues as much as possible.
>Correct - it is kind of like the difference between lying and speaking untruthfully.
No... Actually there can be very sound and well founded reasons why an agency may approve the use of a specific drug - even if that drug has not cleared all of the traditionally required hurdles. It happens all the time, there's an entire 'emergncy use' regulatory system to address this.
>would saying that the system is partially corrupt not actually be a more accurate representation than saying it is not corrupted?
Sure - it's much more accurate to describe this stuff in terms of %corruption rather than %rigged, IMO at least.
>I wonder if this has ever happened, even once. 🤔
Again, corruption =/= rigging
>Would you mind pasting in a pseudocode representation of your actual cognitive implementation of isRigged()?
No. I'm not a programmer or a philosopher, I don't work with absolutes.
>This has no bearing on whether it is actually rigged
It absolutely does - see the example with voting machines above.
>Actually, it would likely not (note: I literally just made that up
Yeah you're just wrong here. These agencies have incentive structures to correct themselves, they're not corporations.
iiioiia t1_irg0bv8 wrote
> Yeah so your response just makes me think you don't really know or understand how regulatory agencies are set up
Do you realize I covered this already, in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up (something that you may have "Expert" knowledge of, but not comprehensive Knowledge (JTB) of)?
>> Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this? > > > > Yes, and I think your conclusion is wrong.
Can you tell me why I am doing this?
CatJamarchist t1_irg4v7j wrote
>Do you realize I covered this already,
You did? Where?
>in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up
Why do you think this? If your assumptions about how the regulation is enforced is wrong, why do you think you'll be able to accurately assess how they perform, and whether that performance is 'rigged' or not?
>but not comprehensive Knowledge
Obviously I'd argue that I do have a comprehensive knowledge, becauae it's my job to have comprehensive knowledge.
>Can you tell me why I am doing this?
As far as I can tell - to explain how if, for example, in an agency with 10 departments, 1 of those departments is 'rigged' the agency is therefore 10% rigged. And so when asked the question "is the agency rigged" and looking for a binary yes/no answer. The answer is 'Yes - the agency is 'rigged'' - becuase 10% is greater than 0%.
As I explained before, I think 'rigged' is used poorly here becuase it implies a structure that pre-determines results, instead of results being corrupted after the fact. The entire set up of a regulatory agency is to specifically avoid pre-determining results.
iiioiia t1_irj4iv8 wrote
>> Do you realize I covered this already, > > > > You did? Where?
Here: > > > These chunks are far more dependent on personal corruption than systemic 'rigging'. > > A reasonable speculation by common standards, although it is framed as (and perhaps even perceived as) a false dichotomy, so perhaps not likely to be necessarily correct. > > > A 'rigged' system implies that the system is specifically set up in a way to produce erroneous results. > > Very true! We could choose a different word if you'd like, but I will apply the same strict epistemology to that. > > > A small team or department producing erroneous results for personal profit motives, is quite a bit different then systemic rigging - primarily because the system would want it try remove the offending people, because the system itself does not approve of 'rigging'. > > Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating? "does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently slippery/subjective way to consider it. > > > And we don't have to imagine a system either... > > It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary. > > > ...there are lots of drug regulatory agencies, from the FDA to Heath Canada, to the EMA that we can examine to assess this rigging claim. > > And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me (which is where imagination makes its appearance).
You are asserting that you posses comprehensive, fine-grained knowledge of what happens across the entire spectrum of scientific activities. I am talking about the entirety of the practice of science, you are talking about abstract definitions and intentions.
Actual science deals with accuracy and precision, and I am regularly told that scientists are the experts at this sort of thinking. I would like to see a demonstration of that expertise.
>> in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up
> Why do you think this?
Logic, epistemology, abstraction, decomposition, knowledge of psychology & consciousness, etc.
> If your assumptions about how the regulation is enforced is wrong....
What assumption are you referring to here? Are you sure you aren't referring to your assumption about my (supposed) assumption?
Let's test the quality of your observational abilities: quote the text containing the assumption you are referring to.
> ...why do you think you'll be able to accurately assess how they perform, and whether that performance is 'rigged' or not?
I have made no claim that I am able to accurately assess how they perform - you on the other hand, have, but you seem oddly treluctant to explain how it is you know (as opposed to believe) that your assessments are accurate, in fact.
>>>>...but you're reducing the 'rigging' down to smaller active chunks that are not necessarily representative of the system.
>>> Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?
>> Can you tell me why I am doing this?
> As far as I can tell...
Uh oh! Do you see your error?
> ...to explain how if, for example, in an agency with 10 departments, 1 of those departments is 'rigged' the agency is therefore 10% rigged.
Note that I also said: "Imagine a system composed of X departments or modules - simply divide the number of rigged ones by the total and you have your ratio - of course, to do this correctly one would need a flawless algorithm for objectively identifying rigged-ness, but most people would balk at that so they use heuristics or subjective algorithms that are claimed/implied to be objective."
> And so when asked the question "is the agency rigged" and looking for a binary yes/no answer.
If you are thinking in binary, that is part of your problem. I am certainly not looking for a binary answer - in fact, a non-binary answer is what I am curious whether you can generate!
> The answer is 'Yes - the agency is 'rigged'' - becuase 10% is greater than 0%.
See " Note that I also said..." above.
> As I explained before, I think 'rigged' is used poorly here....
I noted some issues with the classificaion....in fact, that is a fundamental component of my point!
>>>... becuase it implies a structure that pre-determines results, instead of results being corrupted after the fact.
That is only one possibility, there are many others. Malice is not even necessary.
> The entire set up of a regulatory agency is to specifically avoid pre-determining results.
Agreed, and the degree to which they are successful at it is equal to the degree that they are successful - you are expressing your opinion on the matter, I am interested in whether you can realize and acknowledge that this is what is happening here.
FNLN_taken t1_irget9c wrote
It's a play on a rotten apple spoils the bunch. If 1 trial out of 10000 gets an automatic pass, then the system is rigged, that sort of thing.
The problem here is what "being rigged" means. It's not enough to have a flaw in the system, the system must be intentionally designed to give unequal outcomes.
So unless I am given further proof that the trial system was designed such that big pharma can bypass it at a cost, I am saying that it isnt rigged.
CatJamarchist t1_irgg3co wrote
>So unless I am given further proof that the trial system was designed such that big pharma can bypass it at a cost, I am saying that it isnt rigged. [emph. mine]
Yup - exactly my point.
We get into that a little bit in that longer reply thread. It's an especially prevalent concern in drug regulation, becuase in the courts, one bad decision can produce a 'defective product' - but with pharmaceuticals, there's so many layers of review, and different types of review to clear before the product is able to be commercialized.
TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irfc951 wrote
> > a) if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged, is this statement as a binary True or False: "The system is rigged."
Its false, the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority.
> b) if two people answer differently, is one of them correct and the other incorrect, objectively and necessarily?
Yes, one of them is correct and one is incorrect.
ApprehensiveTry5660 t1_irfn8fv wrote
By your standards, are pride bars not pride bars if hetero individuals (who represent a much larger portion of the population already) frequent them at a high enough rate to be the majority?
A system can be defined just as much by a featured minority. A system that allows even 1/100 drugs to make it through erroneously because you bribed the right combination of senators and researchers seems rather fair to label rigged. Sure, there’s a functioning system along side of it, but there exists a mechanism for avoiding its rigors and it has been exploited rather openly and documented in court cases with opioids most famously.
TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irgg8ed wrote
> there exists a mechanism for avoiding its rigors and it has been exploited rather openly and documented in court cases with opioids most famously
How were the clinical trials for opioid pain killers exploited? Are opioid pain killers not effective for reducing pain?
ApprehensiveTry5660 t1_irhsg56 wrote
They obfuscated the risk of addiction throughout the 90’s. Medical literature describes the tolerance to addiction cycle in these drugs as early as the 50’s, it isn’t like it was unknown. When faced with the sharp rise in Opioid deaths post 2000 they convened a panel of experts in 2002, early enough to reign in the off label prescriptions, the panel of 10 experts they brought in had 8 members with significant financial ties to Purdue Pharmaceutical. It wouldn’t be until 2013 before any serious steps were taken, at which point there were enough pills on the market to give every adult in the United States a full bottle.
They were able to prescribe off-label, over produce, and flood both forward facing and black markets for over a decade before any meaningful action was taken. Yes, they absolutely work. They were just way more addictive than the FDA was willing to regulate, and often even recognize.
iiioiia t1_irfdlqx wrote
>> a) if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged, is this statement as a binary True or False: "The system is rigged." > > > > Its false, the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority.
If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True):
a) considering the "fact" that the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority?
b) considering that "the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority" may not actually be factual?
TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irgfvqz wrote
> would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True):
Yes I would consider the label objectively true assuming it fell within the bounds of some purity standard.
iiioiia t1_irizc8w wrote
>Yes I would consider the label objectively true assuming it fell within the bounds of some purity standard.
The purity standard is what was stated on the label: 100%.
VitriolicViolet t1_irgmgcl wrote
so in other words you might.
the fact you had to qualify it means you were wrong.
TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irgmrxz wrote
I don’t understand the point of this pedantic argument.
iiioiia t1_irizgjb wrote
They are useful for identifying the limits of instances of human consciousness, at least. With an adequate sample size, it can also be used to develop an algorithm for how the human mind will behave when it is put into certain situations, what forms of rhetoric and memes it will grasp for when it finds the ground it was standing on no longer (or doesn't actually) exists, etc.
TMax01 t1_irfy378 wrote
a) False
b) yes
iiioiia t1_irg0t8g wrote
> a) False
Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?
> b) yes
If someone disagrees with you, would you be able to demonstrate that you are necessarily correct, and successfully defend that demonstration from valid logical and epistemic critique?
--
And I will re-use this:
If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True)?
TMax01 t1_irg51a0 wrote
>Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?
You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code. This is a false premise.
The only way your ".01% rigged" system would be "a rigged system" isn't that .01% of the system were a necessary and uncollectable operation component of 100% of the output of the system. Systems are not black boxes. A system doesn't have to be 100% reliable or uncorrupted to be reliable and uncorrupted. This isn't a matter simple enough for the literally braindead logic of pseudo-code or even more braindead real code. It requires reasoning, intelligence, and the ability to grasp the meaning (not merely a single definition) of words.
>f someone disagrees with you, would you be able to demonstrate that you are necessarily correct
Yes, but I would be unable to force them to admit this, or understand it, or even recognize it.
>If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True)?
You have begun a long and difficult journey toward understanding the difference between a system and a product. Best of luck; let me know if there is anything I can do to help.
iiioiia t1_irj5efc wrote
> You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code.
Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.
> This is a false premise.
Then you should abandon it. > > > > The only way your ".01% rigged" system would be "a rigged system" isn't that .01% of the system were a necessary and uncollectable operation component of 100% of the output of the system.
You do not actually possess knowledge of all ways in which a system could be rigged. You are speculating, necessarily.
> Systems are not black boxes.
They are to some degree, in that you do not possess omniscient knowledge of what is going on everywhere, you only possess belief that you possess this knowledge.
> A system doesn't have to be 100% reliable or uncorrupted to be reliable and uncorrupted.
Agree, but a system does have to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted (which is what is being discussed here). Please do not move the goalposts.
> This isn't a matter simple enough for the literally braindead logic of pseudo-code....
The "braindeadedness" of the logic of pseudo-code is a function of the pseudo-code itself, and for us to get some insight into that under these circumstances, it would require that you post a representation of it. I can imagine that this is something you would rather not reveal, so if you do not want to reveal it, I understand.
> It requires reasoning, intelligence, and the ability to grasp the meaning (not merely a single definition) of words.
Agree!! So then, please: provide us insight into the inner workings of your mind, if you have the nerve.
TMax01 t1_irjtw31 wrote
>Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.
You are mistaken in believing (I cannot even abide by describing it as percieving/interpreting, it is more akin to wishing or hoping) that I have ever done anything other than interpret your text in any other way.
>Then you should abandon it.
I am not the one professing the false premise. I find it almost too hard to believe you aren't aware you failed to interpret which premise I was referencing. To clarify, it was your premise (unstated, but unavoidable, and by no means rebutted by your accusatory dismissal and semantic gamesmanship) that whether something is true is identical to whether it can be presented as pseudo-code (and, further, that whether you are convinced to believe it, by that effort or any other, is identical to whether it has been objectively (logically) proven).
>You do not actually possess knowledge of all ways in which a system could be rigged.
I do not need that for my position to be sound. You are the one that quantified the "rigging". I merely took your premise to be valid, and explained why it does not support the conclusion you expected it to.
>You are speculating, necessarily.
Indeed, necessarily so: as I seem to constantly have to remind you, all reasoning is speculation. Even the kind that relies on pseudo-code. But, in that way, you are merely speculating (but unnecessarily) that I am speculating, and have not provided any reason to believe my speculation is inaccurate even if your speculation is accurate. When will you abandon these semantic games, iiioiia? You just keep frustrating yourself more and more with every effort, by failing to even supply a coherent disputation of my conjectures.
>They are to some degree,
LOL.
>in that you do not possess omniscient knowledge of what is going on everywhere,
Examining a system doesn't require knowledge of what is going on "everywhere", only within the system. By suggesting that some putative systems are black boxes (but providing no reasoning or analysis to allow us to identify which ones are) you must necessarily be insinuating that the particular (though hypothetic) system being considered is a black box, or you are just babbling. Absolute knowledge of what is going on within the system could be assumed to be essential, yes, but by quantifying the proportion of 'rigging' so precisely (and, I might suggest, minutely) you have forced the idea that such knowledge is available as part of your premise. I simply took you at your word, which is to say, I interpreted your text literally and with a calm mind.
>Agree, but a system does have to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted (which is what is being discussed here). Please do not move the goalposts.
I dispute your idealistic notion, with no movement of any imaginary goalposts necessary. Your assumption that any system can ever or must be 100% reliable is... braindead. A characteristic which is acceptable in pseudo-code, but not actual reasoning.
>Agree!! So then, please: provide us insight into the inner workings of your mind, if you have the nerve.
I do so with every word, despite your increasingly desperate contentions to the contrary. And you, also, like it or not, do the same: with every word you post, you reveal how braindead your reasoning is. It's nothing to be ashamed of; wishing that your thoughts had the precision and consistency of logic, pseudo-code, and computation is endemic in these postmodern times. But it is still an error, and both your reasoning and your attitude would be improved by abandoning it, as it is a vain hope and a dead end, philosophically speaking.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
iiioiia t1_irjvrei wrote
>>>> Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?
>>> You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code. This is a false premise.
>> Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.
> You are mistaken in believing (I cannot even abide by describing it as percieving/interpreting, it is more akin to wishing or hoping) that I have ever done anything other than interpret your text in any other way [than literally].
Ok then: please point out the portion of my text where I explicitly make the claim you say I have.
TMax01 t1_irjy7hm wrote
That your claim is implicit (but clearly indicated by your question and your position, as well as your lack of any other reasoning related to the issue, and confirmed by your subsequent argumentation) does not provide the effortless deniability that this was your premise which you apparently wish it did. It continues to vex you that I am capable of ascertaining your thinking based on your statements (including your queries and requests), but what else could be the purpose of your statements (etc) other than to present your thinking? You seem to be highly focused on either claiming or suggesting that I could not be accurately interpreting your words, but the fact that you don't ever bother to provide any more accurate interpretation (instead merely insisting that my interpretation is inaccurate without justifying your insistence beyond unsubstantiated denials bordering on indignation) actually ratifies my perceptions about your meaning and your beliefs, rather than contradicting them.
iiioiia t1_irk057i wrote
>That your claim is implicit..
You claimed to be interpreting it literally.
Gotcha!! 😁
I must say: for some reason I particularly enjoying arguing with you, although I'm not sure why.
>but what else could be the purpose of your statements (etc) other than to present your thinking?
This is actually an excellent question. For the answer, you can simply read my mind.
TMax01 t1_irk3fry wrote
>You claimed to be interpreting it literally.
I am. Your implicit contention is made obvious by a literal interpretation of your language. It seems that you expect my interpretation to be naive, rather than merely literal; in presuming you were not speaking figuratively, I read your text literally.
>Gotcha!! 😁
You have revealed the fact, as I had already surmised, that you are interested in semantic games (and efforts at one-upsmanship amounting to desperate childishness) rather than intelligent discussion. Oops.
>This is actually an excellent question. For the answer, you can simply read my mind.
As always, I don't need to do so. All I need do is read your words, and the reason you are unable to answer the question is made obvious. I will refer you to my prior point, as regards your involuntary confession about the premise of your argumentation.
iiioiia t1_irk6ftf wrote
This is disappointing.
avengerintraining t1_iridue6 wrote
a) Rigged isn’t measured in percentages.
b) They can both be ignored because they missed the first point and started arguing.
iiioiia t1_iriyzyw wrote
>a) Rigged isn’t measured in percentages.
Is it measured in any units? And if it is not being measured, does that not leave only the imagination (in this particular scenario)?
>b) They can both be ignored because they missed the first point and started arguing.
Ignoring something is always an option, but it doesn't cause it to go away. It can certainly make it seem like it has gone away though, and you know what they say: Perception is Reality.
DLBaker t1_irhtyuq wrote
20 Million is a drop in the bucket in an industry that moves billions.
ribnag t1_irie0e3 wrote
Respectfully, this isn't about pharma research or corporate-academic misconduct, that's just the backdrop for the real discussion. The real issue being described can best be summed up as (IMO):
Why is plagiarism bad?
If your answer is epistemological, great work, you "get" it (and, sadly, most likely didn't attend public school in the US). It matters how we know X so we can challenge the underlying assumptions when appropriate.
If your answer involves getting or stealing "credit", though - That's the heart of what this essay is condemning. Why should anyone feel a sense of ownership over "the truth"? And why should their reputation be harmed if they perform an honest experiment whose findings are later refuted? Yet, you don't need to look hard to find countless rants about positive result bias in scientific research; everyone knows it's a serious problem, but everyone also needs to eat, while operating under a system that only rewards successes.
PepperMill_NA t1_irfq59e wrote
Where did you read that the problem is a "few anecdotes of dangerous drugs?" I could not find that and find it misleading about the intent of the article.
microli t1_irhmaf3 wrote
After the prescription opioid crisis, I’m surprised that a comment like this would get upvotes. Are you philosophy guys not following the news or something?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments