It wasn’t about saving time so how can that be called a “shortcut”?
They took the easy path instead of doing more research or scrapping the rollout and finding another medication. The latter would have cost them time and money. So it was about saving time.
In order to determine whether it is in their financial interests to promote dangerous drugs you can’t just deduct the fines in this one instance.
If the overall cost was higher than the revenue, it would not be in their interests to make a decision that would also lead to damage to their reputation and more regulation for their industry. This seems sensible to me.
By definition, we cannot know how many times they got away with it. We must judge them on the times when they were caught and assess the risks and ultimate costs. We know that companies make bad decisions because we do occasionally catch them, and that is why there is more regulation and more scrutiny. This is to be expected.
As for recognizing that health officials have gotten it wrong, we know that in the same way-- discoveries and research show us where they got it wrong and we can determine how trustworthy they are or aren't. And we can shine that same light on any claim about the efficacy -or lack thereof- of vaccines. Again, I don't see this as an either-or situation. Recognizing that one person is promoting biased or incomplete information to make things look one way doesn't mean I have to accept that the alternative must be that the opposite is true.