Not everything. I think you'll find most Raspberry Pis won't play ads . /s

I didn't write one word about secular wars.

I don't know, roquefort is one of my favorite cheeses.

And truly, how many have been hurt by porn vs all the casualties from religious wars ? Doesn't seem like they belong in the same sentence.

As an option, though, not by default. I always kept it enabled, even though I had to dismiss the pop-ups frequently. Quite a few forms I didn't submit because of the warming, though.

A lawyer will generally charge you for advice, unlike your neighbor.

Thanks. I did not hear about therapeutic vaccines. I might consider one if it is a replacement for daily meds. The injection meds are also another option.

That said, my genetics keep my viral load very low, though not undetectable. I wasn't on any treatment the first 5 years, and was part of genetic controller studies. The reasons I eventually went on HIV meds have more to do with protecting other partners than my own health, once it became known that an undetectable viral load would offer that protection. Had I known about the damage the particular med I took would cause, I would not have taken that one. There were a lot of different treatment options for HIV to choose from. All have very long list of known side effects. And nothing effective is older than 30 years. The newer meds have much less short term side effects. But the long term - over decades - is not known for the newer meds. So anyone taking them is gambling. But for most people, the risk of these long term side effects is far outweighed by the short term risk of death from not being on treatment. Wasn't the choice I was faced with, though.

Thank you !
Not sure if there will be much research going on for the bladder condition - AI or not - as it has very rare incidence.

The vision issue is degenerative, and currently there is nothing that can help fix the retina. Stuff like laser would cause further damage. The best hope is some kind of eye injection, currently experimental, and for a different condition. I don't really want to be part of the phase 1 study. I had a different type of eye injection before, and fainted. I don't think expect there will be something in my lifetime.

The other drug that did damage was an HIV drug. Still waiting for the cure for that, too.

Agree. But if we want to talk about the criminal aspect, and put people responsible in jail, rather than fine the corporation, at that point, a different kind of investigation is needed, to figure out why the car did what it did - whether it's something that could have been reasonably avoided if not for cutting corners or negligence. That would be a very expensive kind of investigation, and not one that any government could afford to do for each individual accident.

The drug that caused the most damage improved my quality of life significantly while I took it. I tried many others for the same medical condition. None worked. Not taking this drug anymore impacts my mobility significantly. It is for a bladder condition.

The drug is still on the market for this reason - it is the only one that works, for many people. And 75% of patients won't suffer injuries. It is not clear why. Partly dose dependent, duriation of intake, and partly genetics, most likely. There is no way to predict who will develop the injuries. However, the warning label now includes the requirement for annual vision testing, to detect the damage early enough and decide to stop - in particular, before the onset of any vision symptoms.

Unfortunately, the vision damage I suffered continued for years after I stopped the drug, and is still be ongoing. And it affects my mobility significantly also - my ability to drive at night, and many other activities, such as reading anything that is not backlit.

It is difficult to answer your question about whether I would take the drug today. Firstable, because I started the drug at 30. Starting it at age 49 is a different propostbackbiting. Vision damage is awful no matter what, but having it start at age 60+ has a different impact than starting at 40, especially career wise. Also, the annual testing might have caught it early enough to stop the damage in its tracks altogether. There might have been more trials with lower dosing, to minimize the risk of damage. Having all the information presented by my doctors upfront certainly would have led to a different outcome. I'm way worse off now than if I had never taken the drug - suffering both from the bladder and vision issues.

Millions would be nothing for trillion dollar market caps companies like Waymo.

The stuff I took did major damage to me only did so after a cumulative intake of about 15kg. Equivalent to a decade for most patients. 25% who took that dose eventually developed the problem. Nobody could have found the link unless the safety studies lasted more than a decade. It actually took 2 decades for epidemiologists to figure out the link. But the link was incontrovertible, with a very unique signature.

To be clear, I don't think we should hold drugs for several decades for safety studies. Many would die long before that if the drugs were delayed that long. But when shit hits the fan, the drug makers should be held accountable, even if they didn't know the damage their drug was going to do. Which they most definitely didn't in case of the shit I took.

Sure, if you want to send the car to jail. But that won't cut it if you want to send humans responsible for the defects to jail.

Probably not. Unless they can define the 1% specifically, it wouldn't be actionable. And probably carry no legal weight.

I agree with you. But even with the best intent, regulations, and full compliance, problems will still arise. Nothing as complex as a vehicle can ever be perfect, hardware and software wise. Unforeseen and unpredictable behavior will still occur, same way it does with medical devices and drugs.

Medical technology is far from perfect. You only need to read the warning labels on drugs to know that. Some are many pages long. Some of those side effects include death, a surprising number of times. So yes, medical tech can certalnly be lethal. And the manufacturers are often held responsible in civil cases. Sometimes criminal cases also, if they covered something up.