>>> 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

>>> 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.