3 ms·

>"Imagine you went to a seafood restaurant and asked about their food safety, and the owner told you they follow all applicable food safety rules. Yes, I’m sure

>"Imagine you went to a seafood restaurant and asked about their food safety, and the owner told you they follow all applicable food safety rules. Yes, I’m sure they do, but I would hope the owner puts thoughts into his process to ensure safety beyond the reach of regulators. That should be the starting point, yes, but to not even consider your company’s role in the process is surprising." Not really sure I see the problem here. Of course they have internal mechanisms to make sure that things work as intended but if you already don't believe them what's the point of using that as an argument? I think it's a straight forward answer to say you comply with regulators in a highly regulated industry. If a restaurant tells me they follow standards I'm good, at least in a country with reasonable ones. The entire article is basically a hatchet job because a pharma CEO gave bland answers to questions, including complaining about the fact that he didn't have a take on the social impact of pharma advertising. Of course he doesn't, he's a pharma CEO, if you want that fixed elect people who will get it done, I think the CEO was just mostly honest in the sense that his answers are obviously biased so he wasn't going to give one on a question were you wouldn't believe it anyway.

adolph 5y ago
> the fact that he didn't have a take on the social impact of pharma advertising. Of course he doesn't, he's a pharma CEO "Of course he doesn't" or "Of course he can't say it outloud?"
bko 5y ago
He didn't say anything meaningful. He showed no humility or thoughtfulness in the policies of his company. The fact is his company is helping shape the policy of nation-states across the world. And it's obvious from his responses he has no interest besides checking the boxes the regulators give him and turning a profit within the bounds of the law. He doesn't even take the threat of corruption seriously or undue influence seriously. > if you want that fixed elect people who will get it done Unless his company donates to politicians that oppose any kind of regulations that could hurt their business. But don't worry, their super PAC ads are heavily regulated and will state the party paying for it ;-) There is a symbiotic relationship between large corporations and their regulators that should be examined. And it's especially pervasive when it comes to public health. I didn't expect him to do an interview, and I would have been fine if he didn't but please don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.

adolph 5y ago

> the fact that he didn't have a take on the social impact of pharma advertising. Of course he doesn't, he's a pharma CEO "Of course he doesn't" or "Of course he can't say it outloud?"

bko 5y ago

He didn't say anything meaningful. He showed no humility or thoughtfulness in the policies of his company. The fact is his company is helping shape the policy of nation-states across the world. And it's obvious from his responses he has no interest besides checking the boxes the regulators give him and turning a profit within the bounds of the law. He doesn't even take the threat of corruption seriously or undue influence seriously. > if you want that fixed elect people who will get it done Unless his company donates to politicians that oppose any kind of regulations that could hurt their business. But don't worry, their super PAC ads are heavily regulated and will state the party paying for it ;-) There is a symbiotic relationship between large corporations and their regulators that should be examined. And it's especially pervasive when it comes to public health. I didn't expect him to do an interview, and I would have been fine if he didn't but please don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.