The alternative is for some other organization to be on the hook for the HUGE costs a large scale trial. And then the incentives to not run useless expensive trials goes away.
Also consider "a scientist is as easy to buy as a politician".
Cigarette were considered to not cause cancer backed by science.
On top of that, the replication crisis in even chemistry and physics is seeing 30% of results can't be replicated.
The system is far more busted than people think.
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.
opioids went through clinical trials, no?
For example, my perception is that the push for pro-sugar doctrine "back in the day" has caused significant health problems and a distrust in the process.
Do you view this as not the case?
Putting 100% faith and trust in a "corporate funded vaccine trials" is something I would suggest against given the potential monetary gains from those conducting it.
I can assure it was a somewhat different process than what ever process your "hard science Ph.D" requires for publishing papers.