We have often discussed the embrace of censorship by the left and many Democratic politicians, including President Joe Biden. However, the most distressing aspect of this trend has been the support of many in the media. That erosion of support for free speech was on display this week in a tweet from a New York Times’ reporter. Sheryl Gay Stolberg said that this week’s effort by Democrats to censor Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “raised thorny questions” about whether misinformation is protected speech. The statement shows a breathtaking lack of understanding of the First Amendment as well as a lack of fealty for free speech values. There are no “thorny questions” over the censorship of this speech, because misinformation is unquestionably protected under the First Amendment.
The media’s embrace of censorship was on display on various channels after the recent opinion finding that the Biden Administration had violated the First Amendment in “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” However, the New York Times immediately warned that the outbreak of free speech could “curtail efforts to combat disinformation.” Yet, no one expressed it more simply and chillingly than CNN Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly who stated that it “makes sense” for tech companies to go along with government censorship demands.
The most recent controversy arose after Democratic members responded to a hearing on censorship by trying to censor Kennedy. Not only did members object to his being able to discuss his censorship on social media, but Rep. Deborah Wasserman Schultz (who has led previous attacks on witnesses on censorship) sought to move the hearing into executive session so that the public could not hear what he had to say.
What followed were unrelenting attacks on Kennedy who was repeatedly asked questions by Wasserman Schultz and others but then denied the ability to respond. As in the past, Democratic members asked insulting questions and then reclaimed their time to prevent the witness from defending himself.
Democratic members made clear that they supported barring people from social media and even congressional hearings for opposing views on Covid. One member told Fox News “I am not afraid of anything that he would say, I just do not want to hear him.”
After watching this abusive treatment, the only “thorny question” for Stolberg was whether Kennedy’s speech and misinformation in general has any protection under the First Amendment.
Misinformation is generally defined as information that is false, but the person who is disseminating it believes that it is true. In other words, others believe that a speaker is mistaken. Yet, Stolberg believes that such mistaken beliefs may fall outside of the First Amendment. Of course, this leads to the Zen-like question of whether the mistaken belief that the First Amendment does not protect mistaken beliefs is itself protected. But down that road lies either enlightenment or madness.
Note that Stolberg was not discussing whether social media companies can legally censor speech. While that is a denial of free speech, these companies often note that they are not covered by the First Amendment as private entities. (In reality, that is not accurate since they can be agents of the government, which I previously discussed in my testimony in the first of these censorship hearings).
Stolberg was discussing whether misinformation in general is protected under the First Amendment.
What makes the statement chilling is that it is part of a growing chorus from the left suggesting that hate speech and now disinformation may be exceptions under the First Amendment. Indeed, when I testified before this same committee,
I was taken aback by the opening statement of the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.). Besides opposing an investigation into the role of the FBI and other agencies in such censorship, Plaskett declared that “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example.
Hate speech is indeed a scourge in our nation, but it is also protected under our Constitution. Yet many politicians and pundits are using this false constitutional claim to defend potentially unconstitutional actions by the government.
Recently, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer, said that “if you espouse hate … you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”
Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”
Now the New York Times is posing the question of whether misinformation is protected. It is. When false information is used to steal money, it is called fraud. Speech can also be the basis of other crimes like conspiracy. However, simply stating something that others view as misleading or wrong is protected under the First Amendment.
The First Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech, clearly stating: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
It does not say “good speech” or “factually correct speech.” It says speech. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has declared that even lying about military honors is protected. The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act. In United States v. Alvarez, the Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies — in that case involving “stolen valor” claims.
Likewise, spewing hate-filled lies is protected. In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the Court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.
Yet, at the New York Times, the most “thorny issue” was not the effort of Democrats to censor a witness at a censorship hearing, but whether his speech has any protection under the First Amendment.
Ironically, the government could have raised this “thorny issue” when the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, claiming that it was just “misinformation” that was harmful to the public. While that was a prior restraint case, would the government have had a stronger case if it argued that the Times was publishing information that it thought was true but was misleading or false?
What about the disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation spread by the New York Times in the last few years on issues like Covid-19. For years, scientists faced censorship for even raising the lab theory as a possible explanation for the virus. Their reputations and careers were shredded by a media flash mob. The Washington Post declared this a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times’ Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was calling any mention of the lab theory “racist.” Are Mandavilli’s writings unprotected?
Yet, it is not a thorny issue when a Democratic member admits that she sought to prevent Kennedy from speaking publicly because “I just do not want to hear him.”
What is so troubling is how the “legacy media” has jettisoned the most noble aspects of its legacy and has become that enabler of censors.
Democratic members made clear that they supported barring people from social media and even congressional hearings for opposing views on Covid.
Follow the money . . . as in, from Big Pharma, which sponsors so many of the “news” shows on regime media.
I would agree with you, then we both will be wrong. I spent too many years in the Army, to believe that a liar, can be trusted, or that a mid/disinformation czar, can be trusted. It seems that public servants, want the public be the servants. The nyt has lost their credibility. They fell below the national enquirer, IMO.
There is NO ONE more hate filled, greedy, lying, cheating, hypocrite than a Democrats
Today’s Democrats are Fascists like Germany 1930’s! They want all powerful business and government…to END all FREEDOM! Total Centralized POWER….children of leaders….get millions!
you mean the LIES they publish every day? I read the NYT for 30 years…then it became clear….they are a Pravda for Democrats! Democrats are Fascists!
How did Joe Biden get 81 million votes in 2020 while Trump increased his 2020 vote count by 10+ million votes over 2016? If Trump, or the duly nominated GOP candidate for POTUS loses to Biden or other, our country’s future will be in doubt.
Professor Turley is correct that neither “misinformation” nor “hate speech” is among the limited number of judicially-crafted exceptions to the protection of speech under the First Amendment.
The real question raised by Missouri v Biden is when actions by private parties to censor protected speech should be attributed to the Government and thus found to be impermissible.
The Government argued that “coercion” alone is the standard. It cited cases where the absence of coercion was sufficient to permit censorship at Government urging. It argued that no actual coercion was present in this case.
Doughty concluded that, while there was actual coercion involved in this case, “strong encouragement” and “joint participation” were also prohibited to the Government under the First Amendment, citing cases in other areas, including racial discrimination, that attributed actions by private actors to the Government. Doughty found ample evidence of strong encouragement and joint participation here. His preliminary injunction prohibited the Government not only from coercing private actors into censoring protected speech but also from urging them to do so.
In my opinion, Doughty is right, and it is unconstitutional for the Government to urge or encourage or participate in censorship, such as by asking social media to remove protected speech the Government opposes. The Government should not be in the censorship business in any way, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, though coercion or suggestion. At the same time, the Government is free to express its own views and to argue that opposing views are false or harmful. While this may be a hard line for courts to draw, it is a clear one and incumbent upon them to do so.
The reason I agree with Doughty on this is that the function of the First Amendment is to prevent the Government from imposing its views on the public, by “abridging” the expression of other views. Any attempt by the Government to “abridge” protected speech should be prohibited. The Government today is so powerful, both in terms of the penalties it can impose on private actors and the benefits it can confer, that permitting the Government to encourage censorship will in short order result in the establishment of an official orthodoxy, which the Constitution precludes.
CNN Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly who stated that it “makes sense” for tech companies to go along with government censorship demands.
Mr Mattinglly is eager to start taking orders from President Trump, and his AG Marjorie Taylor Green.
This is impossible problem to solve, especially since many Americans today support an “Unconstitutional Authoritarian” (foreign model of government).
For example: leading up to the “Loving v. Virginia” U.S. Supreme Court ruling (previously interracial marriage was a felony crime in some states). Even some judges were violating the First Amendment by cherry-picking Bible verses on constitutional court rulings. Misinformation due to the ignorance of some judges. These small handful of judges actually believed it.
Some judges cherry-picked Bible verses out of context, then used religion to govern in violation of the First Amendment. These judges ruled that GOD placed the different races on different continents, then the judge used religion to justify the local policeman showing up in your bedroom at 3:00am to find married couples sleeping in the same bed – while being of different races. Some states made it a felony crime for unmarried couples of any race to live together before being married, violating the religious establishment clause of the First Amendment and “Fletcher v. Peck” – states are required to follow high court rulings.
According to that judge’s “races on continents” logic [misinformation] – North America workday be populated with 100% Native American Indians – the judge himself couldn’t legally live in the USA. There would be no European-Americans or European-Canadians. Most of us wouldn’t be here in the USA. If the judge had simply read the text of the First Amendment and his own Oath of Office, he would have known this was misinformation.
Ignorance and lack of American Civics knowledge make it impossible to make misinformation illegal, since the speaker believes it to be true. Who do you prosecute, your local school board for education malpractice?
There is no such thing as misinformation. Thats why the word was invented. It means what ever you want it to mean.
Seems Humpty Dumpty is now writing for the NYT
How big a leap would it be, from the Left’s cynical doctrine of mis- and malinformation, to denying defendants the right to defend themselves in a Federal Court? If the federal government is final arbiter of right or wrong, true or false, “safe” or dangerous, then anything a defendant would say on their own behalf would by definition be misinformation, and therefore must be silenced. And how long will the Left promote this, once Republicans are back in charge, and grasp the tools that the improvident Left has created for them?
Logical. Good point.
The NYT has no credibility on anything except deception driven chaos as a means of civilizationicide.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/08/how-the-new-york-times-publishes-lies-to-serve-a-biased-narrative/
An interesting article with one about a NYT reporter in Germany WW2. One cannot believe anything the NYT says. It is called, “a truth-producing machine”.
—
The “fabrications and distortions” he found in the Times’ coverage of major stories from Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia to Vietnam and the Iraq War “were never the product of simple error,” Rindsberg contends. …
Under Enderis, bureau reporters won Pulitzer Prizes as they drew on Hitler’s propaganda…
“Sulzberger replied that they couldn’t replace Enderis because he just had too much access. He got too many good scoops,” Rindsberg said. …
Once the United States declared war in December 1941, American journalists in Berlin were rounded up, placed under SS guard, and interned for five months in an unheated, under-provisioned hotel outside Frankfurt — except for one. …
“Enderis was allowed to remain at the Hotel Adlon in Berlin, a very posh hotel,”
https://nypost.com/2021/05/08/how-the-new-york-times-publishes-lies-to-serve-a-biased-narrative/
I’m trying to figure out whether ignorance or arrogance is the dominant Democratic value. Do they not realize that, should “misinformation” be subject to legal penalties, their entire agenda on race, gender and climate would be banned from the media. They would all have been locked up for their Russiagate hoax, and Biden would be wandering aimlessly around Rikers right now.
Would George W. Bush comments “Mission Accomplished” or defaming detainees with no links to terrorism as “Worst of the Worst” be illegal under this misinformation speech?
Last I checked IRAQ is BETTER off than under Saddam. Being a Democrat…you obviously support criminals, illegals, and Terrorists!
“[T]he ‘legacy media’ has jettisoned the most noble aspects of its legacy and has become that enabler of censors.” (JT)
According to the Left: There is no such thing as “the truth.” But if there is, only they know it. And since only they know it, they have to compel the benighted ones to accept it.
Such is the formula of all tyrants.
How can you square this view with the misinformation contained in the case of someone yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, causin a stampede resulting in injuries to two people, when there was no fire? Is that protected speech, in your view? If it is not protected speech, then you must admit that protected speech is intrinsically limited in a many situations.
Neil: Your analogy fails when you actually look at the Brandenburg decision: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) limited the scope of banned speech to speech that would likely incite imminent lawless action. Emphasis om “imminent.” Then there is the issue of subjectivity and opinion — both of which can be “misinformation,” but should never be penalized.
Thank you GioCon, for parsing that superficial comment.
I also point out that the fatuous analogy fails yet further when the theater IS on fire, in which case we all have a duty to shout about it.
You wrote: “How can you square this view with the misinformation contained in the case of someone yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, causin (sic) a stampede resulting in injuries to two people, when there was no fire?”
First, the statement regarding yelling “fire in a crowed theater” is from Justice Holmes in U.S. v Schenck, a case that had nothing to do with fires in a crowed theater. It was dictum, and never binding law.
The Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU’s Gabe Rottman explains, “It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience.”
Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
In June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam 582 U.S. ___ (2017) that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Actviolates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are “racially disparaging”.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote:
Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate”. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
Justice Anthony Kennedy also wrote:
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment.
Free speech means exactly that, “Free Speech.” Only cowards are afraid of ideas and speech. If you don’t agree with what a person has said or written, then say or write something that proves their words are wrong. But the government, nor its surrogates in the press/media, at their request, are permitted to censor speech under the 1st Amendment.
Otherwise, we’re no different than any other tinpot dictatorship. What we saw the Dems do to Kennedy, shutting down his answers to their questions, is what you see in every totalitarian regime in history. Control the speech, control the words, control their meaning, and you control society. Anyone who steps outside the “accepted standards” is shut down and shuffled off to the gulag for re-education.
The New York Times would be blank pages without misinformation.
I remember Sen Chuck Schumer threatening SC Justices. I think that is hate speech. Should he be guilty of a crime?
Chuck Schumer should have been censured for that outburst!
While Kennedy is free to espouse misinformation, publishers (social media, newspapers, etc.) are also free to ban it.
I have yet to hear anyone who states RFK is free to espouse misinformation but does not list what misinformation he is spewing. Did you not listen to RFK’s rebuttal to the accusations? Once our gargantuan federal government controls speech we no longer have a functioning constitutional republic.
Andrew Brietbart once stated “if you can’t defend freedom you suck”
publishers (social media, newspapers, etc.) are also free to ban it.
Would it be easier to just print a rebuttal stating the facts?
<But the govt is barred from asking it be banned)
Please cite the misinformation Kennedy spoke of.
From a medical science perspective, most of everything I heard him say on the Joe Rogan show was false. I listened to an hour of that interview that I shook my head and stopped listening. OTOH, the CDC did worse in 2020 and following years, as did the FDA and NIH re: COVID, masking, schools, societal lockdowns, etc.
RFK Jr is indeed exaggerating, distorting or manipulating info to present an alleged vaccine victim’s perspective. He is wrong.
Examples:
Thimerosal mercury vaccines
Autism
the year 1989 as being a turning point in vaccine “injuries”
Big Pharma
medical science journals
Dr Paul Offit
Dr Anthony Fauci and HIV/AIDS
HIV as a cause of AIDS
AZT as an HIV drug
and others
IMO, patients have the right to reject medical advise. Ditto for vaccines. The Left is not concerned about Life anymore than many on Right are concerned about science. Ive had many exchanges with folks on here about medical science, since 2020, where I was trying to explain SARS-CoV-2 virus mechanism of action, immunology, vaccines, COVID deaths, myocarditis, etc. Many of the more verbose commenters told me I needed to forget everything I know about medicine and learn from Alex Berenson, Alex Jones, Robert Malone, et al. Back in 2020/2021 one individual on here was so convinced that the alleged poor nutrition of Americans was responsible for the alleged low concentrations of Vitamin D, Magnesium, and Vitamin B12 in their dieta, which resulted in their acquiring COVID. It became such a no-win situation that I gave up. I deal with really ignorant, uneducated, distrustful patients in clinic most of who are minorities. Im one of the few in clinic that can break down their suspicions or fears because they see me as one of their kind. However, when it comes to internet discussions, the public forum as it is today, none of the in-person clinic dynamics apply. Thus it becomes a MMA challenge, with copious amounts of insults thrown my way. The two most recent were by Okyl and Young, not that I GAF because I will never meet them. Still, it just illustrates the deterioration of discussion and lack of interpersonal skills in our public square
There is a lot of manipulating of Americans by the Right when it comes to RNA vaccines and the rate of lethality, as well as vaccines in general. But again, the CDC FDA NIH have done worse
What’s your opinion on Dr Peter McCullough ? If you don’t know who he is and don’t have a solid opinion you are worthless.
Do you check the censored top end Physicians ? The dozens of high end doctors on youtube ?
Did you watch the several Congressional testimony ? R Ron Johnson
Have you seen the batch site, or the new information and peer reviewed studies on that ?
https://www.howbadismybatch.com/pfizer.html
Have you considered your own bias and own mind, and the possibility you can’t face the truth because your employment counts on it ?
“AZT as an HIV drug”
Zidovudine – Wikipedia
Zidovudine ( ZDV ), also known as azidothymidine ( AZT ), is an antiretroviral medication used to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS. [5] It is generally recommended for use in combination with other antiretrovirals. [5] It may be used to prevent mother-to-child spread during birth or after a needlestick injury or other potential exposure. [5]
AZT was an important drug for HIV at the time when it was brought to market and remains on the market as a viable treatment. Young spread on the forum several months ago the same lies RFK Jr has spreads about AZT and HIV. I corrected Young, he apologized, then came back months later to hammer me about mRNA vaccines. I replied, he has not appeared on this forum since, a typical leftist tactic of hit and run. Cowards come in all striped
Im happy to debate anyone about science but under one condition: know what you are defending. Otherwise, reckless comments like the above by our resident anti-Semitic Shakdi merit scorn
HIV/AIDS denialism
In his book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the War on Democracy and Public Health, Kennedy says he takes “no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS”,[255]: 347 but he spends over a hundred pages quoting HIV denialists such as Peter Duesberg who question the isolation of HIV and the etiology of AIDS.[274] Kennedy himself refers to the “orthodoxy that HIV alone causes AIDS”,[255]: 348 and the “theology that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS”,[255]: 351 as well as repeating the HIV/AIDS denialist false claim that no one has isolated the HIV particle and “No one has been able to point to a study that demonstrates their hypothesis using accepted scientific proofs”.: 348 Additionally, he repeats the false claim that the early AIDS drug AZT is “absolutely fatal”[255]: 332 due to its “horrendous toxicity”.[255]: 298 Molecular biologist Dan Wilson points out that Kennedy falsely claims that Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, was a “convert” to Duesberg’s fringe hypothesis. Wilson concludes that Kennedy is a “full blown” HIV/AIDS denialist.[274][255]
– Wiki
Estovir, I am sorry. My post went out before completed and without my name. I figured I would explain after dinner, but you got to it first.
My reason for the post was that though I neither like nor think Kennedy a genius, he enlightened many that there was more than one side to the Covid issue. Having a Kennedy name and position in the JFK family made his ideas more respectable. He is not a doctor, trained researcher, or anything else, but he still has a right to speak his mind.
You wrote something I take no issue with, “RFK Jr is indeed exaggerating, distorting, or manipulating info to present an alleged vaccine victim’s perspective. He is wrong.”
I am here to listen, so I looked at your list. What did it say? I chose “AZT as an HIV drug.” It seemed correct, so I asked why that phrase was wrong and belonged on that list.
I believe, as you can see from some of what I wrote, that I have much disagreement with how the government managed the Covid situation and might even disagree with some of what you say. However, I hoped that if you criticized RFK with data, I would understand the data and see how your criticism matched your comment.
You now clear up part of the issue by commenting, “AZT was an important drug for HIV at the time when it was brought to market and remains on the market as a viable treatment.”
Whether RFK knows what he is talking about when he speaks of HIV is something I have no idea about. I generally refrain from reading him, as I was disappointed with some of the things he said long ago.
I read Peter Duesberg book in the 1990s. It is a monstrosity of a book chock full of science.
https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/dp/0895264706
Duesberg is no idiot. I believed Duesberg’s premise at the time I read it. I was also beginning medical school and had no access to HIV patients in Gainesville. However time has proven him wrong in spades. When I returned to Miami, I was super judgmental of HIV patients until I started interacting with them. Then Mother Teresa of Calcutta started opening HIV houses across the USA, and I knew I needed to man up. I did. So it is ironic I am debating AIDS Denialists like RFK Jr supporters online considering I was one. HIV has been identified. It is comprised of 15 proteins, not “particles” as RFK Jr states. Globally there are over 33 million cases of HIV. The USA has a mere 1.3 million. It is not the “gay man’s” disease that Duesberg claims, since most global HIV cases are heterosexuals
The Thimerosal mercury vaccines controversy is a cheap shot by RFK Jr. So is the magical “1989” year that RFK Jr cites. Autism is a neurological disorder that is not well understood. Nor is Alzheimers. Nor is dementia. Nor is Lou Gherig disease. RFK Jr argues things about Big Pharma that are no where grounded in reality. He believes they own the FDA. if that were true Big Pharma would be the last to believe it given they spend more money on clinical trials in the US than any other country to get approval to bring products to market. I am no lapdog for Big Pharma. But one has to be grounded to reality when criticizing them. RFK Jr argues
from an emotional stance, the typical liberal of the 1970/80s ala toxic rivers from industry lawsuits where he made his money as an attorney, nuclear power fear mongering, the coming ice age now its the coming climate catastrophe, overpopulation now its declining population. In many ways RFK Jr is similar to Joseph Biden fear mongering
The following article explains the mercury vaccine hysteria
Thimerosal and Vaccines — A Cautionary Tale
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMp078187
RFK Jr would do well to surround himself with people to show him different perspectives on these issues. If he did that, he would crush Joseph Biden. Like Trump, the more RFK Jr opens his mouth, the more he loses
Estovir, since I never followed RFK Jr., I lack recollection of what he said about certain things. There was a relationship between autism and mercury that I think he jumped on and caused me to look no further. His analysis was poor and lacked perspective.
Studies strongly favor this as correlation, not causation, but his mind cannot likely understand that correlation is not causation. I do not think he is that smart.
However, about 50 years ago, a physician, researcher, and friend discussed various relationships between autoimmune diseases (like lupus), mercury, and a couple of other things recently added to our environment. We noted a correlation and wondered if there could be causation. That can occur with many things, but because death and debility are so emotionally horrible, people focus on the negative and forget the positive benefits. The same thing happened at about that time with an excellent antibiotic and probably caused a lot of lost lives when physicians were forced not to use it.
However, our science is faulty, so when dealing with risk, even if it appears not a problem, I try to distance myself from it. 1/100 is small, but there are so many things in life that 1/100 adds up quickly to a problem. Very few things in medicine are reliably proven, and bias runs rampant.
Big Pharma is not running the FDA, but the connections are too close and need clipping. You wrote, “He believes they own the FDA. if that were true Big Pharma would be the last to believe it given they spend more money on clinical trials in the US than any other country to get approval to bring products to market.” I deal in some of these things, and one thing to recognize is that costs are covered by the purchaser, not the company if there is a level playing field. The cost of studies and bringing drugs to market is astronomical, BUT it keeps other companies from competing and forces them to sell to the big companies. I know not what you believe about the FDA, but there may be more connections than you realize. Also, always recognize that the entities with the knowledge to create federal regulations are the companies regulated.
[The classical case is long and short hall train regulations where the one to suffer was the consumer. Think about the break-up of the Rockefeller monopoly. The company was worth more in its parts than as a whole. In the long term, most regulations, if not all, hurt the consumer. Time always favors no regulation, but a finite lifespan is shorter than infinite time. ]
costs are covered by the purchaser, not the company if there is a level playing field.
You are ignoring the fact that many approved drugs never return their investment. Many drugs fail in spite of being FDA approved. Those costs become a negative for the company. When I was part of industry it took about $1 billion to bring a new drug to market in the USA. No other country provides that burden to a pharma company. Few drugs become blockbuster drugs. Very few. So the companies continually have to bring to market newer drugs to offset the lost ROI for previous drugs. If they fail, the companies either collapse or have to merge with another company. Most pharma companies today have had to merge with another to stay in the business. Many had to be acquired or else lose everything
I am very critical of Big Pharma having seen what actually occurs within the industry. You could say Im a whistleblower of sorts. However believing what RFK Jr says about industry is out of touch with reality. Yes, the FDA is too close to Pfizer but that is a recent development and Biden is to blame for reasons we all know. However, less than 95% of pharma companies have that type of sway with the FDA. There are many pharma and biotech companies. Pfizer just happens to be reaping the benefits of their CEO buying Joseph Biden
“You are ignoring the fact that many approved drugs never return their investment”
I touched on other issues, but not that one. I want to ensure you understand I have no problem with pharmaceutical companies making money. My comment dealt with their relationship with the FDA.
” it took about $1 billion to bring a new drug to market in the USA”
I discussed the cost which the pharmaceutical companies pass on to the consumer. But, that high cost protects the large companies because it prevents competitors from entering the marketplace. Those small competitors end up selling to the major companies. I will withhold the part distribution plays in this relationship.
” No other country provides that burden to a pharma company. “
That is something that one needs to look into.
“Most pharma companies today have had to merge with another to stay in the business. Many had to be acquired or else lose everything”
You are proving my point.
” RFK Jr says about industry is out of touch with reality. Yes, the FDA is too close to Pfizer but that is a recent development and Biden is to blame”
RFK is out of touch, the FDA is too close with big pharma, and Biden bears much blame, but the underlying problems precede Biden.
S. Meyer says
I want to ensure you understand I have no problem with pharmaceutical companies making money.
I do. I earned a lot of money while working with them but I also provided a service that even corporate executives said none of my peers did. I actually attended local patient groups to understand their stories with no one internally prompting me, I provided access to costly branded drugs to indigent patients (which earned me scorn from corporate), I shunned corporate directives pertaining to market segmentation so as to create a franchise by having a scent for where the food/business existed and as a consequence led the nation in revenue, and at one national meeting I implored the CEO publicly during open mic to not remove a drug that was desperately needed as salvage therapy for patients, whereby colleagues audibly gasped. After the meeting my managers rebuked me but the CEO came to Miami months later just to talk to me about the drug in question, and I won. The problem was not the drug but how the sales division positioned it. Nationally the patients benefited greatly because of my efforts, as did the company when they adopted a different strategy.
In a word, I got to know the patients and served as a consultant for physicians to help them be better doctors. I never once used a marketing piece that corporate insisted I use. Management later told me they were thankful I ignored them and used my business sense to create a franchise. With all that said, they made bank yet destroyed inventory drug products as their expiration dates approached instead of providing them gratis, they spent lavishly on meetings at 5 star resorts where monies could have been better spent like physician education, providing literature in spanish (a battle I eventually won at great cost to me professionally due to racism), and buying biotech companies then laying off those workers without notice, etc, etc, etc
Big Pharma is a greedy, devouring monster. Yes, they bring products to market that are needed. So do Ford, General Motors and Dodge. But their unbridled capitalism is inexcusable.
Estovir, everything you did was good. Others also helped those in need, but we are discussing companies that require a profit to produce goods for people in need. You said, “I do.” in answer to my comment. I assume that answer means you are upset over profits that are ill-deserved. I am also upset about some of those profits and offered a lot of criticism of these companies in earlier comments.
You are a bit of a Maverick. as am I. We all need to think out of the box.
“But their unbridled capitalism is inexcusable.”
Do you want a Joe Biden bridling capitalism?
Wow, Attempting to debate Estovir using wiki.
Stupid on stilts
That anonymous post was mine as I explained to Estovir.
I am trying to figure out why the quote was “Stupid on stilts.” Can you tell me? The wiki quote was accurate.
Again, what misinformation are you referring to?
Of course you’ll avoid the question, because you’ve been lied to and believe that what is characterized as misinformation instead of the real misinformation, which is that characterization.
Do some research and don’t believe a thing nyt/cnn/etc tells you, sheesh.
That’s a serious question – for progressive clowns. No one should take them seriously, they are entertainers.
The NYT’s lap top misinformation was the NY Post’s truth. Game, set, match.