The type of medicine described in the meme usually is this way because it is helpful at preventing heart attacks (or stroke) while taking it, but if you suddenly stop taking it then you are worse off than before. Tapering off a medication like this can be done with professional medical supervision. The warning is necessary so people know not to suddenly stop without talking to their doctor.

…or we could maybe not allow showing ads to people for drugs with significant side effects like other countries

Focus on progress that has been made, solutions to the climate crisis have been growing exponentially over the past decade. And it’s not a binary issue of everything is sunshine and rainbows vs we’re all fucked. There’s more of a spectrum. Also remember the past environmental successes we’ve had with like acid rain, the ozone layer, leaded gas, mercury pollution. We’ve come a long way.

Making any progress, no matter how small makes the future just that much better than it otherwise would be. Yes, systemic changes out of the control of anyone on Lemmy are needed, but if say every person on Lemmy worked towards reducing their own environmental impacts that could have huge ripple effects in the economy of the green transition. Just plan out pragmatically/realistically how much time, mental energy, and resources are worth it to you.

A lot things that individuals can do to help with the climate crisis often also have personal benefits like long term financial savings, less pollution exposure, healthier plant-based diets, etc.

Easy, buy up a bunch of land for conservation

I say outdoors. Indoors has a vibe of being human made to me, and a low likelihood of encountering wildlife. So I guess walking around a mine is indoor cave exploration

The tobacco companies? Telling lies? Why I never!

What’s next, Kellogg shouldn’t be advertising sugar for breakfast for kids?

We do trials to determine if a new treatment is safe and effective. Let’s say you got a “miracle drug” that cures whatever disease you’re studying, but it is too toxic and kills patients over time. That drug may get hyped up in early development as a miracle cure, but you need to compare it to something else to be sure the toxicity seen is not driven by something unrelated. This is why it’s not ethical to run late stage trials without a standard of care or placebo control arm, because in this case the standard of care would be the better treatment option.

This concept is called equipoise, as in the two treatments are equally poised to provide benefit to patients at the beginning of the trial. Otherwise if you had enough data to know for certain your new therapy is better, then the trial is unnecessary and it should just be a regular medicine/submitted to a health authority for approval instead of wasting >$100 million dollars on another trial.

If you know your investigational therapy is better than a placebo or standard of care, then why do the trial? Just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s good

Too bad justice can’t be this swift in the US