slimboyfat: Have you read about the Vioxx case?
I think Vioxx is covered by my previous statement: "I'm aware that companies do sometimes take shortcuts that cost lives, and that might even be part of the calculus in some cases." Merck may have come out ahead overall with Vioxx financially, though they did pay out $5 billion in settlements, which doesn't count any fines and lawyer costs. Their example doesn't seem like the sort that would incentivize other companies to take similar shortcuts.
The system is explicitly constituted to prioritise profit over human life and well being.
Kind of, yeah. But I don't agree that it's explicit. You do have to develop a market and find people to sell to and get them to keep coming back, and they can't spend money when they're dead.
I don't see this as an either-or scenario. If I don't trust conspiracy theorists, I'm not obligated to trust politicians and corporations. Hence why I said I'm a pragmatist. The logical and practical explanations may not always be the right ones, because people are capable of being almost comically blind to the consequences of their plans. But they work more often than not, in my experience.