I don't think it is naive, and it matches my experience. It is very rare for a company to try to develop an inferior product for many reasons, but most of all it is impractical.

Without superiority, it you will struggle with investors, trials, approval,and then convincing doctors to to switch to it.

Everyone can come up with an example, and point to per due, but the FDA processes 10s of thousands of device and drug submissions per year. Most are in cutthroat markets with competitors.

If we are talking about individual company actions or statements, and not products, then the numbers are even worse. There are literally millions of actions associated with a product, and I would again argue that >99.9 are made in the favor of patient interest.

Making a inferior product and scamming your way to profit is an exceedingly rare strategy because it is both extremely difficult execute successfully.

I think it is clear that new product development doesn't prioritize optimal patient benefit, but that is a different topic. It needs to be good enough to sell, then it becomes a question of how good vs how much money.