Things have changed enormously from the "let's put radium in everything" era. Nowadays there's a good case to be made that we've swung too far in the opposite direction and we're letting people die because the FDA is too conservative in approving new medications (and old Russian medications with a proven track record that's impossible to patent therefore nobody has the incentive to spend millions on getting through the FDA vetting process, but that's a different issue).
A cynical take might be that they are two sides of the same coin. Regulation meant to protect big business and at the same time choke out any competition.
No. Absolutely not. Maybe in a few particulars, but not in the general case.
The reason that FDA approval is difficult is because we aren't discovering any more wonder drugs. The low hanging fruit has all been picked.
In the meantime, we are stuffing our farm animals with antibiotics, growth hormones, covering our fields with pesticides and herbicides that have not proven to be safe, stuff our furniture with all sorts of wonderful fireproof substances that, twenty years down the road, we discover to be carcinogenic, and in general, rely on victims to prove that what they have been sold is dangerous.
If we were actually prudent about this sort of thing, we'd require producers of goods to prove that what they are doing is safe - instead of waiting for people to be hurt or killed, followed by decades of studies and litigation.
We can't even effectively hold companies accountable for selling dangerous product, when they know their products are dangerous. There are barely any controls for harm that they inflict out of ignorance.
So... you don't. You don't verify it, because you can't. You can't verify all of science from first principles. You can't inspect every building you enter and verify that it meets code. You can't inspect every electronic device for NSA taps. You can't inspect all of your food, drinking water, or even all of the FOSS code you use. Society is too large, and the domains of knowledge and expertise that feed into it are too complex for any individual to fully comprehend.
You can't eliminate risk or trust from life. As far as vaccines go, you just have to trust that they work and are not likely to be poison and take the shot.
The more logical recipient of a new name is the new, fixed-capitalism you should be pushing for. Saying "oh the bad parts aren't capitalism, that's corporatism, that's different" is just playing word games to try to hide the fact that what we're doing isn't working as-is.
On the other hand, there are some much better established words for a close partnership between the state and a set of established major businesses: "crony capitalism" and "fascism".
"Fascism" isn't really a good idea either; in modern use it appears to be nothing more than a synonym for "badness".
At what cost, though? Sure: us Westerners are way better off than 50 years ago, but the effects that capitalism has had on the environment (especially global warming and natural resource exploitation) are on the best way to totally wreck the planet for our children, and I don't want to get started on the plight of those in the poorest regions of the world that have gotten even poorer in the same timeframe.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/fashion-gains-a-f...