“Leads, yeah, sure. I’ll just check with the boys down at the crime lab, they’ve got four more detectives working on the case. They got us working in shifts! …Leads!”
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !achievers
Some states limit the initial lawsuit to actual damages (usually provable medical costs). Once the case goes to trial, a jury can find in favor of the victim and assign punitive damages. This is how the infamous hot coffee case worked. The lady suffered third degree burns, the jury found out that McDonald's had injured a bunch of people with boiling coffee and been warned about it a few more times, and the jury said that $28K wasn't enough and awarded $3M.
I'd imagine something similar here if this went to trial.
Even if the victim would not deserve millions, the responsible institution needs to be fined as much, just so it hurts them. It must be more expensive to fuck up than it is to prevent fuck-ups. So they should take whatever cost they project to properly train officers for de-escalation, double it and use that as a fine.
DeSantis can suck a whole semi-trailer worth of cocks. The whole damn republican party at this point is actively staging a slow-burn coup. They already got the numbers in the supreme court and are actively tearing down our democratic nation at every turn.
really, even Aspirin? But then, how do they design testing to ensure that it’s safe long-term? Without a model, all you have is “just test every possibility you can think of and pray”.
No, not aspirin. We know aspirin very well in the medical community.
TBF there are drugs out there that we do not know the MOA of, like methocarbamol (from the national institute of health: “The exact mechanism of action of methocarbamol remains unknown; similarly unknown is the relationship between musculoskeletal pain and muscle spasm” lol)
So for long term safety, it is based on animal and human studies. These studies happen for multiple years prior to being put on the market (for the most part, though that is a story for a different day). Then after the drug is on the market, the drug company is required to do “Postmarket Clinical Studies” to show that their drug is still doing what it was initial shown to do; furthermore, to look for safety events of said drug.
A really famous case of a bungled postmark study was Vioxx. Vioxx is/was a Cox-2 specific pain medication. In the initial and postmarket studies they found that it had an increased risk of heart attack (in some cases up to 88% increased risk). The company Merck held the information from the public and FDA. They were forced to take the drug off the market in 2004. Technically in short bursts Vioxx was probably safe, but long term it was not.
Yes, that’s how modern medicine works. Much of how the body functions, especially when it comes to the brain, is largely unknown. There are just an almost insurmountable amount of variables to control for.
For every drug that makes it to market, there are hundreds if not thousands of similar drugs that failed at some point in testing. No one knows the longterm effects of any drug in humans until humans have been taking it for a long time.
It isn’t just drugs. A whole ton of scientific things that we just accept are kind of unknowns. We can use them. We can even manipulate them to our will, we even have equations that can define their magnitudes and predict results, but we don’t fully understand them. In fact the more you know about some of these subjects, the more uncertainty there is. A layperson might think the subject is fully understood.
Here’s a scary example: Lift (like the kind a wing creates on an airplane).
If you’re arguing that the underlying behavior and existence of matter isn’t understood, and by extension lift isn’t, then that applies to anything and everything.
What are you even trying to say? That CFD doesn’t even exist? Just because a bad abstraction taught in schools isn’t really tethered to reality, doesn’t mean large laminar uncompressible fluid dynamics is unfathomable.
Those are both bad schoolbook abstractions. And that article is about how the full mathematical treatment (which is known) doesn’t fit a neat pat thought-terminating-cliche explanation. Plenty of people develop an intuitive understanding so it’s not rote symbolic formalism.
Air goes down. Plane goes up. The exact details of air goes down are complex and nuanced, but not at all unknown.
Well how specific is enough to say we do or don’t know how a drug works?
In particular we do know that ASA and other NSAIDS work by inhibiting the activity of the enzyme called cyclooxygenase which leads to the formation of prostaglandins that cause inflammation, swelling, pain and fever. It blocks both COX 1 and 2, though only COX 2 is responsible inflammation. Furthermore, The antithrombotic action of aspirin is due to inhibition of platelet function by acetylation of the platelet cyclooxygenase at the functionally important amino acid serine529.
Now contrast ASA with Acetaminophen …
We know that Acetaminophen also inhibits COX, but only in the CNS and not peripherally. Also, it is only thought that it potentially blocks pain signals via the serotonergic pain pathway.
I would say we know a hell of a lot about aspirin … Acetaminophen not so much on the MOA side of things, however it has been studied so much that we know the safety/toxicity profile like the back of our hands. Either way probably not the best 2 examples to use for your argument.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.