4 ms·
I don't think it is possible to fix corporate capture in a capitalist nation. Let's take a look at IRS, IRS could bring in a lot more money, however, they simp
by avgDev 4y ago
I don't think it is possible to fix corporate capture in a capitalist nation.
Let's take a look at IRS, IRS could bring in a lot more money, however, they simply do not have the funds to go after the big fish. Seems like its been getting gutted for a reason. While, politicians can continue screaming TAXES BAD, rich give you jobs.
Article about the problem:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/sunday-review/tax-rich-irs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/sunday-review/tax-rich-ir...
FDA has its own problems. There have been a lot of issues with drugs making it the market with poor research and/or results.
Article from PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fda-increasingly-approves-drugs-without-conclusive-proof-they-work https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fda-increasingly-approve...
Drug companies even have their hands in education. Here is an article about a lecture which discusses some of the issues: https://ethics.harvard.edu/event/drug-companies-and-medicine-what-money-can-buy https://ethics.harvard.edu/event/drug-companies-and-medicine...
Money gives an individual/corporation power. If you are extremely wealthy individual you are a lot more likely to avoid punishment for doing things, which are illegal. Some large companies have more cash than whole countries. It is mind boggling.
We as individuals are generally NOT FREE at all. Doctors? Surgeons? Engineers? Youtubers? Researchers? We are just slaves of the system and we generally cannot express ourselves completely because making $200k doesn't mean we have financial freedom. It means we have a decent existence and nice things, then maybe one day we reach financial freedom. Therefore, people who write the checks have influence and that may affect our judgment.
I recently read about a physician that was reporting a drug was causing heart attacks. First he contacted the drug manufacturer, then the FDA, then the news because nobody cared. The drug maker funded a discrediting campaign. His bosses were having talks with him. He was concerned he would lose everything he has worked for.
I believe until we are truly free we will never be able to be completely honest. At that point money can just fund discredit campaigns and our voice wont matter to the general public.
- nescioquid 4y agoDavid Runciman's book, "How Democracy Ends", starts with an analysis of various coups in democratic countries (post WWII) and notes how it was important to quickly take control of mass media to establish the new regime. Turns out that today, taking control of media isn't so important, and it is not just because the internet is a thing now. Rather, it is exactly because it was discovered how effective "discrediting campaigns" are. Your example was a microcosm. Consider environmental pollution, smoking, vehicle safety, or climate change. For every Silent Spring or Unsafe at Any Speed, opposed interests just produce enough counter-claims to make many people turn away from the whole issue. And of course, modern media loves a good conflict and so boosts unreliable signals.
- loceng 4y agoWatch this 10 minutes testimony of Maddie De Garay's mother testifying about her and her daughter's experience in Pfizer's 12-15 year old COVID mRNA treatment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2GKPYzL_JQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2GKPYzL_JQ 1) The app provided to clinical trial participants was designed to highly limit what side effects/adverse events could be reported - with no area for free-form writing of symptoms. 2) Maddie's mother tried contacting the lead researcher of the clinical trial, the FDA, CDC, etc. during the trial - but they still haven't had a response from any of them. The clinical trial results were manufactured for this trial. And now we're seeing in part why as Pfizer was forced to release their data that they wanted to only release 75 years from now.