7 ms·

This is apologism. I expect an expensive organization, that I pay for, to make their the case to the public without dirty tricks and intimidation. And I expect

by wooter 10y ago

This is apologism. I expect an expensive organization, that I pay for, to make their the case to the public without dirty tricks and intimidation. And I expect the news sources that I am intelligent enough to pick to investigate and report with integrity. I see plenty of fair, loud, and clear venues the FDA could have used.

Avshalom 10y ago
>>And I expect the news sources that I am intelligent enough to pick to investigate and report with integrity. Right, but see you shouldn't because that's hilariously naive.
- omginternets 10y ago
  You're not using the word "expect" in the same sense he is. He's demanding transparency and good faith from the FDA.
  - Avshalom 10y ago
    No no, it doesn't matter demanding news sources investigate and report with integrity is just as naive as assuming they do.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      Again, I don't think he's assuming anything. I read his comment as using "expect" to mean "they really really realy should, and it's a problem if they're not".
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Indeed. One can expect all one wants, but the business incentives for the media are strongly opposing integrity and truth. Which one can see daily, most obviously when some outlet is reporting on a topic one has direct experience with.
moefogs 10y ago
You're engaging in catastrophism. This isn't a big deal, and the most of the folks claiming otherwise are folks who hate the FDA and government in general, and are dishonestly pretending that this is their reason. Borrow some balls and admit that you think the world would be better if you were legally allowed to sell anything as anything, and THAT is the reason you hate the FDA.
Fordrus 10y ago
Hmm... I intended this to be understanding of the situation, but scathing in tone - as in, "FDA, at least to us, this makes it look like you are engaging in 'Diabolical Action Z,' and we don't really have a good way to discern differently without investing dozens of hours of effort, and even then it's uncertain, given our collective expertise level." Maybe it's better if I put it this way, "I don't actually think the FDA is up to rotten fuckery here, but it sure as hell looks like they're being FUCKING EVIL, and without a method to for to tell that they aren't, they should FUCKING STOP IT."
- mcguire 10y ago
  Here's the question: are they betting that most people will never see the second article, with the caveats and criticism? Is seems to be the same move as using rebate coupons rather than outright sales.
vkou 10y ago
Do you expect an expensive organization, that you pay for (Pharma company that makes your medicine) to also make their case to the public without dirty tricks and intimidation? If so, I'm afraid you'll be sorely dissapointed.
- briandear 10y ago
  Private enterprise vs taxpayer funded government agency. Vastly different. A pharma company answers to shareholders, a government agency answers to taxpayers -- except they don't. Pharma companies don't owe you anything because you're a customer. You chose that relationship. However, we don't get to chose the FDA .. it's foisted upon us. Preferential reporters by government agencies ought to be illegal.
  - vkou 10y ago
    You still pay for it, and thanks to patent protection, you need to pay that particular company for it if you don't want to be dead. Why must the pharma company answer solely to shareholders? They are doing medicine - they also have an obligation to do right by the public. Generally, when a medical professional fails to do right by the public, they get replaced with one that will. For many medicines, I have absolutely zero choice in that relationship. It's <Company> selling <Drug that I need to not die>, or the highway (Not to mention that I'm not choosing the medicine - my doctor is prescribing it.). If that is choice, then so is not paying taxes. To be consistent with your position, preferential reporting by anyone with an involuntary relationship with their 'customer' base should be illegal. This would disqualify most pharma companies right off the bat.
popmystack 10y ago
>I expect an expensive organization, that I pay for, to make their the case to the public without dirty tricks and intimidation. They're not using "tricks." The whole sentiment is uncalled for. They're keeping order. EDIT: Oh boy here comes the typical alt-right down vote brigade that showed up on HN over the last year and a half.
- mcguire 10y ago
  Keeping order? Because publishing a comprehensive news article with both sides is more disruptive than publishing a press release directly?
  - popmystack 10y ago
    That could be seen as false equivocation of positions. The FDA is an organization that needs to broadcast signals to nearly every level of society about certain products. All the way from corporate RnD divisions to consumers. Not being concise, diligent, and stringent on what messages get sent out could have extremely negative effects. Letting news organizations pander to people's fears or general ignorance is a recipe for disaster. I am not even sure why this needs to be explained. I mean, actually at this point on HN I do know why, it's people being disingenuous. Seriously how is this non-sense being upvoted? From the article: >including ones from major outlets such as Fox News Seriously, are we going to just sit here and pretend why this was done? An organization hell bent on bashing largely agreed upon scientific information is being denied the ability to spin information from an organization dedicated to the scientific understanding and safety of products. The FDA is basically refusing to play the game of yellow journalism and rightly so. Spare me the patronizing pathetic attempts at an apology, and excuse me for calling out bullshit from scientific american. Shame on them. And shame on HN for upvoting this.
    - mcguire 10y ago
      So you are saying that the FDA is never wrong and that its activities need no public oversight? I can see no other reason for allowing them uncontested access to spin their "signals". If they were interested in "refusing to play the game of yellow journalism" they would not pre-announce their activities at all. And are you really saying that Scientific American is "an organization hell bent on bashing largely agreed upon scientific information"?

by wooter 10y ago

Avshalom 10y ago

>>And I expect the news sources that I am intelligent enough to pick to investigate and report with integrity. Right, but see you shouldn't because that's hilariously naive.

omginternets 10y ago
You're not using the word "expect" in the same sense he is. He's demanding transparency and good faith from the FDA.
- Avshalom 10y ago
  No no, it doesn't matter demanding news sources investigate and report with integrity is just as naive as assuming they do.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    Again, I don't think he's assuming anything. I read his comment as using "expect" to mean "they really really realy should, and it's a problem if they're not".
TeMPOraL 10y ago
Indeed. One can expect all one wants, but the business incentives for the media are strongly opposing integrity and truth. Which one can see daily, most obviously when some outlet is reporting on a topic one has direct experience with.

moefogs 10y ago

You're engaging in catastrophism. This isn't a big deal, and the most of the folks claiming otherwise are folks who hate the FDA and government in general, and are dishonestly pretending that this is their reason. Borrow some balls and admit that you think the world would be better if you were legally allowed to sell anything as anything, and THAT is the reason you hate the FDA.

Fordrus 10y ago

Hmm... I intended this to be understanding of the situation, but scathing in tone - as in, "FDA, at least to us, this makes it look like you are engaging in 'Diabolical Action Z,' and we don't really have a good way to discern differently without investing dozens of hours of effort, and even then it's uncertain, given our collective expertise level." Maybe it's better if I put it this way, "I don't actually think the FDA is up to rotten fuckery here, but it sure as hell looks like they're being FUCKING EVIL, and without a method to for to tell that they aren't, they should FUCKING STOP IT."

mcguire 10y ago
Here's the question: are they betting that most people will never see the second article, with the caveats and criticism? Is seems to be the same move as using rebate coupons rather than outright sales.

vkou 10y ago

Do you expect an expensive organization, that you pay for (Pharma company that makes your medicine) to also make their case to the public without dirty tricks and intimidation? If so, I'm afraid you'll be sorely dissapointed.

briandear 10y ago
Private enterprise vs taxpayer funded government agency. Vastly different. A pharma company answers to shareholders, a government agency answers to taxpayers -- except they don't. Pharma companies don't owe you anything because you're a customer. You chose that relationship. However, we don't get to chose the FDA .. it's foisted upon us. Preferential reporters by government agencies ought to be illegal.
- vkou 10y ago
  You still pay for it, and thanks to patent protection, you need to pay that particular company for it if you don't want to be dead. Why must the pharma company answer solely to shareholders? They are doing medicine - they also have an obligation to do right by the public. Generally, when a medical professional fails to do right by the public, they get replaced with one that will. For many medicines, I have absolutely zero choice in that relationship. It's <Company> selling <Drug that I need to not die>, or the highway (Not to mention that I'm not choosing the medicine - my doctor is prescribing it.). If that is choice, then so is not paying taxes. To be consistent with your position, preferential reporting by anyone with an involuntary relationship with their 'customer' base should be illegal. This would disqualify most pharma companies right off the bat.

popmystack 10y ago

>I expect an expensive organization, that I pay for, to make their the case to the public without dirty tricks and intimidation. They're not using "tricks." The whole sentiment is uncalled for. They're keeping order. EDIT: Oh boy here comes the typical alt-right down vote brigade that showed up on HN over the last year and a half.

mcguire 10y ago
Keeping order? Because publishing a comprehensive news article with both sides is more disruptive than publishing a press release directly?
- popmystack 10y ago
  That could be seen as false equivocation of positions. The FDA is an organization that needs to broadcast signals to nearly every level of society about certain products. All the way from corporate RnD divisions to consumers. Not being concise, diligent, and stringent on what messages get sent out could have extremely negative effects. Letting news organizations pander to people's fears or general ignorance is a recipe for disaster. I am not even sure why this needs to be explained. I mean, actually at this point on HN I do know why, it's people being disingenuous. Seriously how is this non-sense being upvoted? From the article: >including ones from major outlets such as Fox News Seriously, are we going to just sit here and pretend why this was done? An organization hell bent on bashing largely agreed upon scientific information is being denied the ability to spin information from an organization dedicated to the scientific understanding and safety of products. The FDA is basically refusing to play the game of yellow journalism and rightly so. Spare me the patronizing pathetic attempts at an apology, and excuse me for calling out bullshit from scientific american. Shame on them. And shame on HN for upvoting this.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    So you are saying that the FDA is never wrong and that its activities need no public oversight? I can see no other reason for allowing them uncontested access to spin their "signals". If they were interested in "refusing to play the game of yellow journalism" they would not pre-announce their activities at all. And are you really saying that Scientific American is "an organization hell bent on bashing largely agreed upon scientific information"?