Mass murder for profit is normal operating procedure. Otherwise we wouldn’t have cigarette companies, mining companies fighting safety regulations or companies fighting tooth and nail to keep leaded gas.
That's just not true. Of course a profit-maximizing entity (which is an idealized abstraction that doesn't perfectly match anything in the real world) would 'love' an addictive product, or to minimize their costs, including an externalities for which they're liable, but, again, ideally, those same entities would absolutely prefer that their product does NOT in fact kill their customers or potential customers as that would just reduce their maximum potential profit.
Per your hyperbole, mass media is also engaging in 'mass murder for profit' as they cause people stress and stress likely shortens their lives. A tradeoff involving the potential loss of life or some period of life is not literally murder.
If you sold all of your possessions and lived a life of poverty you could donate the proceeds, and any income you earn that you don't strictly use to prolong your own life, to a charity that could save lives or lengthen others. That you do not, nor almost anyone else, is NOT literally the same as murder.
There’s a difference between making money and short term exploitation. If I own woodland, I can earn a living harvesting trees for decades, or cut the whole thing down. Clear cutting gets you a big check now, but less over time. Responsible harvest gets you more money in the long run, but spread over time.
None of this is sustainable, and many of these companies even outsource their manufacturing. By maximizing short term results above all else, they will kill the golden goose, and ultimately will either be nationalized, or replaced by foreign competitors.
But since their products or their production methods kill people they prefer more profits over less profits. I can't find any possible excuse for lobbying against safety regulations in coal mines other than them being greedy bastards.
Guess who's really winning there? Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics and their shareholders. Certainly not the Iranian or American people at large.
His perspective against for-profit wars, yet lean towards defensive military spending (not to be conflated with modern offensive military spending) was nuanced and very insightful.