4 ms·

Author and his spouse both work for pharma companies.

by sys32768 1y ago

moralestapia 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
hungryhobbit 1y ago
So they actually know what they're talking about? Fear and hatred of experts is how we got into this mess. If pharmaceutical executives aren't all cartoon mustache-twirling villains (and they're not: many actually want to help sick people), then maybe not every employee is either?
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  Well, if tobacco executives aren't all cartoon mustache-twirling villains, then maybe not every employee is either? (But seriously - corruption is an equal opportunity employer, assuming any industry is exempt is dangerous. Take Pfizer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer#Legal_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer#Legal_issues)
  - jghn 1y ago
    > corruption is an equal opportunity employer Of course it is. Anecdotally however, in my career I've spent a lot of time among people like the author of the article. I've yet to meet a single one who did not present as genuine in their desire to help people. Might it be the case that they are aware of market dynamics within the process? Yes of course. But tropes like Big Pharma intentionally not providing cures or only looking at treatments that require constant application are bollocks. At least to the extent of my hands on experience in the industry.
jghn 1y ago
It doesn't make them wrong. At least they were required to have some knowledge in the domain to get to their roles, as opposed to RFK.
brendoelfrendo 1y ago
Does he? I see that he's a researcher and works as a professor at Harvard. I didn't see that he's actually employed by a pharma company. His wife is, however. Regardless, what I'm hearing is that he's a physician and researcher who knows more about human health than RFK?
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  He was formerly the Dean of Faculty at Harvard Medical School.. he and his wife are both accomplished physicians. She happens to have a clinical director role at a pharma company but is also a professor at Harvard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Flier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Flier He's not some lefty opposed to RFK out of spite for the Trump admin either.. he's written about how ineffective DEI is, against 'cancel culture', and he's writing this essay in Quillete, which is a very right-of-center publication. You'll find that the vast majority of people involved in research, medicine, or public health oppose RFK.
gruez 1y ago
Can we get actual arguments rather than making vague implications that the author must be wrong because of his affiliations?

Author and his spouse both work for pharma companies.

moralestapia 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

hungryhobbit 1y ago

So they actually know what they're talking about? Fear and hatred of experts is how we got into this mess. If pharmaceutical executives aren't all cartoon mustache-twirling villains (and they're not: many actually want to help sick people), then maybe not every employee is either?

gjsman-1000 1y ago
Well, if tobacco executives aren't all cartoon mustache-twirling villains, then maybe not every employee is either? (But seriously - corruption is an equal opportunity employer, assuming any industry is exempt is dangerous. Take Pfizer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer#Legal_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer#Legal_issues)
- jghn 1y ago
  > corruption is an equal opportunity employer Of course it is. Anecdotally however, in my career I've spent a lot of time among people like the author of the article. I've yet to meet a single one who did not present as genuine in their desire to help people. Might it be the case that they are aware of market dynamics within the process? Yes of course. But tropes like Big Pharma intentionally not providing cures or only looking at treatments that require constant application are bollocks. At least to the extent of my hands on experience in the industry.

jghn 1y ago

It doesn't make them wrong. At least they were required to have some knowledge in the domain to get to their roles, as opposed to RFK.

brendoelfrendo 1y ago

Does he? I see that he's a researcher and works as a professor at Harvard. I didn't see that he's actually employed by a pharma company. His wife is, however. Regardless, what I'm hearing is that he's a physician and researcher who knows more about human health than RFK?

mikeyouse 1y ago
He was formerly the Dean of Faculty at Harvard Medical School.. he and his wife are both accomplished physicians. She happens to have a clinical director role at a pharma company but is also a professor at Harvard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Flier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Flier He's not some lefty opposed to RFK out of spite for the Trump admin either.. he's written about how ineffective DEI is, against 'cancel culture', and he's writing this essay in Quillete, which is a very right-of-center publication. You'll find that the vast majority of people involved in research, medicine, or public health oppose RFK.

gruez 1y ago

Can we get actual arguments rather than making vague implications that the author must be wrong because of his affiliations?