3 ms·

My friend, you need to entertain the possibility that pharma companies would do be bad things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_set

My friend, you need to entertain the possibility that pharma companies would do be bad things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical...

tablespoon 5y ago
> My friend, you need to entertain the possibility that pharma companies would do be bad things... Do you mean "be bad" or "do bad"? I'm quite aware pharma companies can do bad things, but that doesn't mean everything they do is bad, and in any case it's of limited relevance to the kind of conspiracy-theory implications about media coverage that are the topic here.
- game_the0ry 5y ago
  > Do you mean "be bad" or "do bad"? Both. > and in any case it's of limited relevance to the kind of conspiracy-theory implications about media coverage that are the topic here. There is no "conspiracy" in the "tin foil hat" sense. When a corporation brings in a former media exec on their board, its bc they want insight on how to run an effective PR campaign, and pharma cares about that, given how much more money they spend on marketing over r&d. The same should be said for defense contractors - ~80% high ranking military officers went to work for defense companies in 2004-2008, versus 50% in the previous decade [1]. There's no smoky back room in a pizzeria basement where the illumanati get together to sacrifice babies. They join boards and network at conferences. [1] http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/26/defense_firms_lure_retired_generals/ http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/26/de...
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >>> My friend, you need to entertain the possibility that pharma companies would do be bad things... >> Do you mean "be bad" or "do bad"? > Both. On the "be bad things" front, I think you need to entertain the possibility that things aren't so black and white. > When a corporation brings in a former media exec on their board, its bc they want insight on how to run an effective PR campaign, and pharma cares about that, given how much more money they spend on marketing over r&d. That kinda sounds plausible, but it's too much of a stretch. IIRC, Thompson Reuters' bread and butter is actually accounting software, and that's the part Jim Smith had been focused on for the last 20+ years, per his Wikipedia bio. If "insight on how to run an effective PR campaign" is what they wanted, they'd probably do a lot better by bringing on an actual PR person. Also, is it even plausible for a member of the board to be involved in planning a PR campaign? You should watch some old episodes of Columbo. It's fiction, but also a fun exploration about how plausible narratives can fall apart if you actually pay attention to the details.
    - game_the0ry 5y ago
      > That kinda sounds plausible, but it's a stretch. This^^

tablespoon 5y ago

> My friend, you need to entertain the possibility that pharma companies would do be bad things... Do you mean "be bad" or "do bad"? I'm quite aware pharma companies can do bad things, but that doesn't mean everything they do is bad, and in any case it's of limited relevance to the kind of conspiracy-theory implications about media coverage that are the topic here.

game_the0ry 5y ago
> Do you mean "be bad" or "do bad"? Both. > and in any case it's of limited relevance to the kind of conspiracy-theory implications about media coverage that are the topic here. There is no "conspiracy" in the "tin foil hat" sense. When a corporation brings in a former media exec on their board, its bc they want insight on how to run an effective PR campaign, and pharma cares about that, given how much more money they spend on marketing over r&d. The same should be said for defense contractors - ~80% high ranking military officers went to work for defense companies in 2004-2008, versus 50% in the previous decade [1]. There's no smoky back room in a pizzeria basement where the illumanati get together to sacrifice babies. They join boards and network at conferences. [1] http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/26/defense_firms_lure_retired_generals/ http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/26/de...
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >>> My friend, you need to entertain the possibility that pharma companies would do be bad things... >> Do you mean "be bad" or "do bad"? > Both. On the "be bad things" front, I think you need to entertain the possibility that things aren't so black and white. > When a corporation brings in a former media exec on their board, its bc they want insight on how to run an effective PR campaign, and pharma cares about that, given how much more money they spend on marketing over r&d. That kinda sounds plausible, but it's too much of a stretch. IIRC, Thompson Reuters' bread and butter is actually accounting software, and that's the part Jim Smith had been focused on for the last 20+ years, per his Wikipedia bio. If "insight on how to run an effective PR campaign" is what they wanted, they'd probably do a lot better by bringing on an actual PR person. Also, is it even plausible for a member of the board to be involved in planning a PR campaign? You should watch some old episodes of Columbo. It's fiction, but also a fun exploration about how plausible narratives can fall apart if you actually pay attention to the details.
  - game_the0ry 5y ago
    > That kinda sounds plausible, but it's a stretch. This^^