7 ms·

I read this as: "The answer to the opioid epidemic is just some meditation and reducing your dosage. Everything is OK, guys. Really." Effectively, a native ad

I read this as: "The answer to the opioid epidemic is just some meditation and reducing your dosage. Everything is OK, guys. Really." Effectively, a native ad to prop up big pharma.

MFogleman 7y ago
An ad to prop up big pharma by suggesting that people cut their opioid use by 75%? Lets assume that this is an ad to prop up big pharma. Something between 1 of the 2 following extremes happens. 1. Every opioid user takes up meditation, and is able to reduce their opioid use by 75%. This would generally be considered a very good thing, even though it would cost big pharma 75% of their opioid profits. 2. The woman in the article is the only person in the world with this reported success, nothing changes. Are you suggesting that forces at play are hoping that the second happens, yet all the lawsuits and criminal investigations against opioid manufacturers and distributors will go away, in part due to articles like this, despite the lack of change in numbers?
- yabadabadoes 7y ago
  I'm afraid you aren't jaded enough. For medications under patent, it really doesn't matter if the standard dose is 10mg or 100mg, the standard dose will have the chosen price. Since they sometimes have to sell both dosages at two different prices per mg, they also need bribes to try to make pill splitting illegal either in general or at least in medicare. With opioids "additives to prevent abuse" are also a great way to prevent pill splitting. I should probably add that no matter how jaded one is, the field of applying meditation to pain in Western medicine predates any newer interests by big pharma. Jon Kabat-Zinn has some good research stretching back to 1980.
- alwaysanagenda 7y ago
  If you live in the world of marketing and PR, you'll find that articles like this are exactly the kind of propellant needed to shift public consciousness -- the narrative -- the conversation -- whatever you'd like to call it, in a direction that is less adversarial to the current climate around big pharma. It's designed to produce a range of responses, certainly not just the 1 or 2 that you can imagine. This article is highly effective at blending the feel-good mindful-zen new-age attitude about meditation with the confidence and necessity of western medicine. But what makes this truly a native ad is that the article features a picture of the woman holding all the drugs she is taking. That is effectively -- intended or not -- an advert for those drugs exactly. Like a pebble in a pond, articles like this ripple out and have an overarching effect in many different ways, transforming public consciousness, but ultimately, it comes down in favor of opioids, and it's likely readers of this article will come away feeling that way, too.
- hinkley 7y ago
  It's easier to coax people into a trap when they believe there's an escape. It's a big part of pressure sales dark patterns, I believe.
dang 7y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- yabadabadoes 7y ago
  If by quoting this you are saying good faith applies to article sources as much as to other HN members then I think that guideline could be clearer.
  - dang 7y ago
    I thought that for a while too, but then realized that article writers are someone, so it's covered.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      Requiring commenters to assume good faith and attack the strongest possible version of the argument is a wonderful tool to keep discussion civil and productive. I don't see how this can possibly by applied to the internet at large which is absolutely full of loud evil people operating in bad faith.
      - dang 7y ago
        HN is a large enough sample that I don't think it's so different from humans in general, including internet humans in general. If that's right, then the differences you're talking about are mostly contextual. In this context, we do much better by practicing the guidelines in relation to everyone, even article authors. The point is not that we owe them that, but that we owe ourselves that, because it's how we can maintain our community together.
        michaelmrose 7y ago
        I respectfully disagree that internet humans are a representative sample of humans or that HN humans represent a sample of internet humans. In both cases the sample isn't random. Perhaps overly optimistically I believe both samples are on average better than the overall population. People that have access to an internet connection have on average a better chance of also having access to an education. People that read hacker news are on average more likely to be the type who have the desire to read and comprehend a topic more so than the average person who often desires no more than a shallow understanding of what they believe will directly effect themselves and their fortunes. I do think we often speak more frankly OF people than TO them even when being civil. I can think of a fair number of people where honest dialogue regarding them or their ideas would be at best insulting no matter how neutrally one proposed to conduct one self. Wherein these people literally promote evil not speaking plainly is a greater ill than being unkind. Article's written by such folks are literally all over the net but rarely if ever appear on the main page for Hacker News. You have I'm sure more insight than I about whether they are submitted in the first place. I guess you can say its practicable to be decent to one another in an environment composed by a great than average concentration of decent people wherein all the really indecent people are either discouraged from entering in the first place or excluded thereafter.

I read this as: "The answer to the opioid epidemic is just some meditation and reducing your dosage. Everything is OK, guys. Really." Effectively, a native ad to prop up big pharma.

MFogleman 7y ago

An ad to prop up big pharma by suggesting that people cut their opioid use by 75%? Lets assume that this is an ad to prop up big pharma. Something between 1 of the 2 following extremes happens. 1. Every opioid user takes up meditation, and is able to reduce their opioid use by 75%. This would generally be considered a very good thing, even though it would cost big pharma 75% of their opioid profits. 2. The woman in the article is the only person in the world with this reported success, nothing changes. Are you suggesting that forces at play are hoping that the second happens, yet all the lawsuits and criminal investigations against opioid manufacturers and distributors will go away, in part due to articles like this, despite the lack of change in numbers?

yabadabadoes 7y ago
I'm afraid you aren't jaded enough. For medications under patent, it really doesn't matter if the standard dose is 10mg or 100mg, the standard dose will have the chosen price. Since they sometimes have to sell both dosages at two different prices per mg, they also need bribes to try to make pill splitting illegal either in general or at least in medicare. With opioids "additives to prevent abuse" are also a great way to prevent pill splitting. I should probably add that no matter how jaded one is, the field of applying meditation to pain in Western medicine predates any newer interests by big pharma. Jon Kabat-Zinn has some good research stretching back to 1980.
alwaysanagenda 7y ago
If you live in the world of marketing and PR, you'll find that articles like this are exactly the kind of propellant needed to shift public consciousness -- the narrative -- the conversation -- whatever you'd like to call it, in a direction that is less adversarial to the current climate around big pharma. It's designed to produce a range of responses, certainly not just the 1 or 2 that you can imagine. This article is highly effective at blending the feel-good mindful-zen new-age attitude about meditation with the confidence and necessity of western medicine. But what makes this truly a native ad is that the article features a picture of the woman holding all the drugs she is taking. That is effectively -- intended or not -- an advert for those drugs exactly. Like a pebble in a pond, articles like this ripple out and have an overarching effect in many different ways, transforming public consciousness, but ultimately, it comes down in favor of opioids, and it's likely readers of this article will come away feeling that way, too.
hinkley 7y ago
It's easier to coax people into a trap when they believe there's an escape. It's a big part of pressure sales dark patterns, I believe.

dang 7y ago

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

yabadabadoes 7y ago
If by quoting this you are saying good faith applies to article sources as much as to other HN members then I think that guideline could be clearer.
- dang 7y ago
  I thought that for a while too, but then realized that article writers are someone, so it's covered.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    Requiring commenters to assume good faith and attack the strongest possible version of the argument is a wonderful tool to keep discussion civil and productive. I don't see how this can possibly by applied to the internet at large which is absolutely full of loud evil people operating in bad faith.
    - dang 7y ago
      HN is a large enough sample that I don't think it's so different from humans in general, including internet humans in general. If that's right, then the differences you're talking about are mostly contextual. In this context, we do much better by practicing the guidelines in relation to everyone, even article authors. The point is not that we owe them that, but that we owe ourselves that, because it's how we can maintain our community together.
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        I respectfully disagree that internet humans are a representative sample of humans or that HN humans represent a sample of internet humans. In both cases the sample isn't random. Perhaps overly optimistically I believe both samples are on average better than the overall population. People that have access to an internet connection have on average a better chance of also having access to an education. People that read hacker news are on average more likely to be the type who have the desire to read and comprehend a topic more so than the average person who often desires no more than a shallow understanding of what they believe will directly effect themselves and their fortunes. I do think we often speak more frankly OF people than TO them even when being civil. I can think of a fair number of people where honest dialogue regarding them or their ideas would be at best insulting no matter how neutrally one proposed to conduct one self. Wherein these people literally promote evil not speaking plainly is a greater ill than being unkind. Article's written by such folks are literally all over the net but rarely if ever appear on the main page for Hacker News. You have I'm sure more insight than I about whether they are submitted in the first place. I guess you can say its practicable to be decent to one another in an environment composed by a great than average concentration of decent people wherein all the really indecent people are either discouraged from entering in the first place or excluded thereafter.