There are movies where the plotline is to reveal this, then the bad guys get stopped.
Irl though, nowadays nobody bats an eye - of course they are on the take, sigh, apparently it’s impossible to demand ethics of those in charge of ensuring our safety:-(.
In old movies there’s always this concentrated effort from powerful people to stop reporters from learning the truth. Nowadays IRL they’re just like “LOL, run your stupid little story. Nobody who matters cares”.
Case in point: Boeing:-(.
I have no idea if democracy is good or not, bc I do not live inside of one… apparently:-(.
News inflation. If everything is “breaking news” all the time, nothing is. There’s no space for discussion or action - we’re just looking for the next “hit”.
The Boeing situation is a great story of “if it bleeds, it leads”: planes are literally falling out of the sky (none so far in the USA but elsewhere around the world this has already happened), although at the same time it is also as you say “the boy who cried wolf” b/c nobody seems to really care, b/c of all that hyper-inflation effect.
The super odd part is that I’ve been hearing rumblings along these lines - of pilots and engineers quitting and refusing to fly or even be passengers on those planes - for several years now, but much like the elections these facts do not truly matter, and we will just keep trying the same thing over & over again.
Worse, that statement is true regardless of country - e.g. Brexit too. The enshittification process is not restricted to just corporations, but instead seems a worldwide and if not all-encompassing then at least widely-ranging phenomena:-(.
Removed by mod
This is the best summary I could come up with:
When the Food and Drug Administration recently convened a committee of advisers to assess a cardiac device made by Abbott, the agency didn’t disclose that most of them had received payments from the company or conducted research it had funded — information readily available in a federal database.
KFF Health News found records of Abbott payments associated with 10 of the 14 voting members of the FDA advisory panel, which was weighing clinical evidence for a heart device called TriClip G4 System.
They also shed light on how the agency weighs relationships between people who serve on its advisory panels and the makers of drugs and medical devices that those committees review as part of the regulatory approval process.
At the public meeting to consider the TriClip device, an FDA official announced that committee members had been screened for potential financial conflicts of interest and found in compliance with government requirements.
FDA advisory committee candidates, selected to provide expert advice on often complicated drug and device applications, must complete a confidential disclosure report that asks about current and past financial interests as well as “anything that would give an ‘appearance’ of a conflict.”
Relationships more than a year in the past generally don’t give rise to appearance problems, according to the document, unless they suggest close ties to a company or involvement with the product under review.
The original article contains 1,790 words, the summary contains 227 words. Saved 87%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
