5 ms·

Their secrecy is a turn off - as well as the people who are orbiting around the company. Do we really want the ideologies of the likes of Henry Kissinger and D

by ibisum 12y ago

Their secrecy is a turn off - as well as the people who are orbiting around the company. Do we really want the ideologies of the likes of Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld - people who have extraordinary track records of not doing good in the world - to be involved in the next generation of health care technology innovation - particularly its control and application? Kissinger-doctrine style politics and healthcare do not mix.

adventured 12y ago
Rumsfeld was also the Chairman of Gilead. I doubt it's a question of "do we want these people involved?" - the reality is there's nothing that can stop it. They're the ultimate insiders. Rumsfeld can easily clear the deck for whatever approvals you need, and solve any problems you have, just as he did for Gilead. In exchange, you make them richer. That's how the FDA system works. You can't play in the medical / healthcare field without having a devil on your shoulder protecting you from the other monsters that will use the regulatory environment to destroy you. That's also how the business world at large works in general now, ala Al Gore on Apple's board, helping to protect Jobs from the options scandal. It's why Dropbox picked up Condoleezza Rice. It's ugly, but it's what you get when you have extreme government regulation, and when lobbyists can crush you by bribing the right people in DC, all major businesses must have their own power brokers.
- ryandvm 12y ago
  You are dead on. This is also the scariest part of net neutrality legislation. Corporations always end up in control of the regulatory bodies that were meant to keep them in check...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- refurb 12y ago
  Oh please. The FDA loves antagonize Congress about it's independence. Are there shady dealing? Sure, but don't make it out to be some secret cabal who always gets their way through shady backroom dealings. To me it sounds like you'd love to have some sort of "political leanings filter" on people who do business. If their politics agrees with yours, great, if not, we need to make sure those people don't get into positions of power.
  - seehafer 12y ago
    FDA loves to talk a good game about independence, but they are far more driven by political trends then they'd like to admit. Case in point: in 2008, the Democratic house jumped up and down about the under regulation of medical devices and diagnostics. FDA Warning Letters (a big deal that largely prevents a company from releasing new products) to device/diagnostic companies doubled the next year.
  - adventured 12y ago
    Positions of power are of little concern in a free market economy. The influence that comes with wealth is not the same as having political power, which is power at the barrel of a gun. The problem is, America is not a free market economy. Hilariously I'm the exact opposite of what your false conclusion proclaims. I'm neither liberal nor conservative - in fact I'm anti partisan - and I'm a laissez-faire Capitalist. I'd prefer the government be completely outlawed from creating economic regulations, and I believe in the separation of state and economy for the exact same reason state and church is separate: they infect each other. That instantly wipes out all lobbying for special treatment, special laws, and competition-by-government. The government returns to doing what it's only job should be: protection of individual rights. The US is becoming a fascist oligarchy, dominated by a massive consolidation of select few winners that are then protected by the government from competition; this has occurred in nearly every segment of the economy. The FDA rarely does anything that isn't shady. It is fully dominated by the mega-corps that can afford to buy political influence, from Pfizer to Merck to Gilead.
    - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
      I'm baffled by why you don't understand that what you're describing isn't an inevitable outcome of low-regulation, laissez-faire capitalism. You only get stability with negative feedback. Capitalism is all about positive feedback, and leads inevitably to systems that conglomerate, stagnate, distort, and eventually either implode or blow up. Where do you think the negative feedback to prevent that is supposed to come from? And please don't say 'markets' because there is no evidence that I know of that markets have ever done any such thing, or even that a market economy is capable of it.
madaxe_again 12y ago
Kissinger's interest would be eugenics. I mean, it was Kissinger who said "Depopulation should be the highest priority of the US towards the Third World". Bet he's gleeful at Ebola Edit: I assume we're all big fans of Henry Kissinger over here then? I fail to see what his interest in this could be outside of the potential eugenic applications.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Depopulation is everyone's highest priority towards the third world. My dad works in public health in the third world, and one of his specialties is family planning (i.e. how to get villagers to stop having so many kids). When George W. Bush temporarily withdrew the U.S. support for family planning projects in Africa, he got hammered for it by the left.
  - gadders 12y ago
    Well, if The Left say it is a bad idea, then of course it must be. However, George Bush was one of the best presidents ever for Africa: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm
  - filoeleven 12y ago
    > Depopulation is everyone's highest priority towards the third world. Which is utterly misguided if the motivation behind the goal is to conserve energy and resources. The population growth rate of first world countries is lower, however we consume far more resources per child than third world countries do. Calling for those countries to make drastic changes without examining and curtailing our own overuse of resources is problematic and irresponsible. Al Bartlett[1] addresses this in his engaging lecture[2] on population and energy. If the primary motivation is instead humanitarian, e.g. to raise the quality of life, then I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on it. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk (The video's title is hyperbole and is not the title of the lecture, though the lesson is certainly important.)
  - 12y ago

by ibisum 12y ago

adventured 12y ago

Rumsfeld was also the Chairman of Gilead. I doubt it's a question of "do we want these people involved?" - the reality is there's nothing that can stop it. They're the ultimate insiders. Rumsfeld can easily clear the deck for whatever approvals you need, and solve any problems you have, just as he did for Gilead. In exchange, you make them richer. That's how the FDA system works. You can't play in the medical / healthcare field without having a devil on your shoulder protecting you from the other monsters that will use the regulatory environment to destroy you. That's also how the business world at large works in general now, ala Al Gore on Apple's board, helping to protect Jobs from the options scandal. It's why Dropbox picked up Condoleezza Rice. It's ugly, but it's what you get when you have extreme government regulation, and when lobbyists can crush you by bribing the right people in DC, all major businesses must have their own power brokers.

ryandvm 12y ago
You are dead on. This is also the scariest part of net neutrality legislation. Corporations always end up in control of the regulatory bodies that were meant to keep them in check...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
refurb 12y ago
Oh please. The FDA loves antagonize Congress about it's independence. Are there shady dealing? Sure, but don't make it out to be some secret cabal who always gets their way through shady backroom dealings. To me it sounds like you'd love to have some sort of "political leanings filter" on people who do business. If their politics agrees with yours, great, if not, we need to make sure those people don't get into positions of power.
- seehafer 12y ago
  FDA loves to talk a good game about independence, but they are far more driven by political trends then they'd like to admit. Case in point: in 2008, the Democratic house jumped up and down about the under regulation of medical devices and diagnostics. FDA Warning Letters (a big deal that largely prevents a company from releasing new products) to device/diagnostic companies doubled the next year.
- adventured 12y ago
  Positions of power are of little concern in a free market economy. The influence that comes with wealth is not the same as having political power, which is power at the barrel of a gun. The problem is, America is not a free market economy. Hilariously I'm the exact opposite of what your false conclusion proclaims. I'm neither liberal nor conservative - in fact I'm anti partisan - and I'm a laissez-faire Capitalist. I'd prefer the government be completely outlawed from creating economic regulations, and I believe in the separation of state and economy for the exact same reason state and church is separate: they infect each other. That instantly wipes out all lobbying for special treatment, special laws, and competition-by-government. The government returns to doing what it's only job should be: protection of individual rights. The US is becoming a fascist oligarchy, dominated by a massive consolidation of select few winners that are then protected by the government from competition; this has occurred in nearly every segment of the economy. The FDA rarely does anything that isn't shady. It is fully dominated by the mega-corps that can afford to buy political influence, from Pfizer to Merck to Gilead.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    I'm baffled by why you don't understand that what you're describing isn't an inevitable outcome of low-regulation, laissez-faire capitalism. You only get stability with negative feedback. Capitalism is all about positive feedback, and leads inevitably to systems that conglomerate, stagnate, distort, and eventually either implode or blow up. Where do you think the negative feedback to prevent that is supposed to come from? And please don't say 'markets' because there is no evidence that I know of that markets have ever done any such thing, or even that a market economy is capable of it.

madaxe_again 12y ago

Kissinger's interest would be eugenics. I mean, it was Kissinger who said "Depopulation should be the highest priority of the US towards the Third World". Bet he's gleeful at Ebola Edit: I assume we're all big fans of Henry Kissinger over here then? I fail to see what his interest in this could be outside of the potential eugenic applications.

rayiner 12y ago
Depopulation is everyone's highest priority towards the third world. My dad works in public health in the third world, and one of his specialties is family planning (i.e. how to get villagers to stop having so many kids). When George W. Bush temporarily withdrew the U.S. support for family planning projects in Africa, he got hammered for it by the left.
- gadders 12y ago
  Well, if The Left say it is a bad idea, then of course it must be. However, George Bush was one of the best presidents ever for Africa: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm
- filoeleven 12y ago
  > Depopulation is everyone's highest priority towards the third world. Which is utterly misguided if the motivation behind the goal is to conserve energy and resources. The population growth rate of first world countries is lower, however we consume far more resources per child than third world countries do. Calling for those countries to make drastic changes without examining and curtailing our own overuse of resources is problematic and irresponsible. Al Bartlett[1] addresses this in his engaging lecture[2] on population and energy. If the primary motivation is instead humanitarian, e.g. to raise the quality of life, then I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on it. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk (The video's title is hyperbole and is not the title of the lecture, though the lesson is certainly important.)
- 12y ago