Hacker News Reader

Comment by wooter | Hacker News Reader

This is apologism. I expect an expensive organization, that I pay for, to make their the case to the public without dirty tricks and intimidation. And I expect the news sources that I am intelligent enough to pick to investigate and report with integrity. I see plenty of fair, loud, and clear venues the FDA could have used.

View on HN

>>And I expect the news sources that I am intelligent enough to pick to investigate and report with integrity.

Right, but see you shouldn't because that's hilariously naive.

You're not using the word "expect" in the same sense he is.

He's demanding transparency and good faith from the FDA.

No no, it doesn't matter demanding news sources investigate and report with integrity is just as naive as assuming they do.

Again, I don't think he's assuming anything. I read his comment as using "expect" to mean "they really really realy should, and it's a problem if they're not".

Indeed. One can expect all one wants, but the business incentives for the media are strongly opposing integrity and truth. Which one can see daily, most obviously when some outlet is reporting on a topic one has direct experience with.

Hmm... I intended this to be understanding of the situation, but scathing in tone - as in, "FDA, at least to us, this makes it look like you are engaging in 'Diabolical Action Z,' and we don't really have a good way to discern differently without investing dozens of hours of effort, and even then it's uncertain, given our collective expertise level."

Maybe it's better if I put it this way, "I don't actually think the FDA is up to rotten fuckery here, but it sure as hell looks like they're being FUCKING EVIL, and without a method to for to tell that they aren't, they should FUCKING STOP IT."

Here's the question: are they betting that most people will never see the second article, with the caveats and criticism?

Is seems to be the same move as using rebate coupons rather than outright sales.

Do you expect an expensive organization, that you pay for (Pharma company that makes your medicine) to also make their case to the public without dirty tricks and intimidation?

If so, I'm afraid you'll be sorely dissapointed.

Private enterprise vs taxpayer funded government agency. Vastly different. A pharma company answers to shareholders, a government agency answers to taxpayers -- except they don't. Pharma companies don't owe you anything because you're a customer. You chose that relationship. However, we don't get to chose the FDA .. it's foisted upon us.

Preferential reporters by government agencies ought to be illegal.

You still pay for it, and thanks to patent protection, you need to pay that particular company for it if you don't want to be dead.

Why must the pharma company answer solely to shareholders? They are doing medicine - they also have an obligation to do right by the public. Generally, when a medical professional fails to do right by the public, they get replaced with one that will.

For many medicines, I have absolutely zero choice in that relationship. It's <Company> selling <Drug that I need to not die>, or the highway (Not to mention that I'm not choosing the medicine - my doctor is prescribing it.). If that is choice, then so is not paying taxes.

To be consistent with your position, preferential reporting by anyone with an involuntary relationship with their 'customer' base should be illegal. This would disqualify most pharma companies right off the bat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com