Pharmaceutical companies have not been fined billions over the years because they put your health first. They have been fined billions because they were caught. This is not opinion. This is documented.[redacted for readability]
Pfizer was hit with a $2.3 billion settlement for illegal drug promotion and misbranding.
GlaxoSmithKline paid $3 billion after pleading guilty to unlawful promotion, failing to report safety data, and misleading practices.
Purdue Pharma has faced multi billion dollar penalties tied to the opioid crisis, one of the biggest public health disasters in modern history.
Across the industry, tens of billions in fines have been paid for fraud, off label marketing, and safety violations.
So ask yourself this. If the system is built to protect patients, why do the same violations keep happening?
The same with banks. Because like with banks and the system they thrive on: it was designed that way.
Now they try to shit in crypto land knowing full well, we do not need them. The reforms over time have not helped. Why? Because it is their nature.[first principles].
Fostering a system where your "health" is secondary, but your dependence on their system is primary is not a design flaw, needing Congress to make again another law if they could. It is a SYSTEMIC consequence.
Systemic does not mean: continuous or everywhere. It means: pack and parcel of the the system. It is the unavoidable outcome a sort of what seems a side-effect, but in actuality a prime-effect.
There is a word for it, but I forgot it. It is system fragility and path dependence at the same time, a tiny mistake built in growing out to be the cancer of the system, and changing it would call into question the survivability of that system, as that system has morphed from its original intent into something else entirely.
One poster in that thread wrote:
The same with banks. Because like with banks and the system they thrive on: it was designed that way.
Now they try to shit in crypto land knowing full well, we do not need them. The reforms over time have not helped. Why? Because it is their nature.[first principles].
Fostering a system where your "health" is secondary, but your dependence on their system is primary is not a design flaw, needing Congress to make again another law if they could. It is a SYSTEMIC consequence.
Systemic does not mean: continuous or everywhere. It means: pack and parcel of the the system. It is the unavoidable outcome a sort of what seems a side-effect, but in actuality a prime-effect.
There is a word for it, but I forgot it. It is system fragility and path dependence at the same time, a tiny mistake built in growing out to be the cancer of the system, and changing it would call into question the survivability of that system, as that system has morphed from its original intent into something else entirely.
Let me make it very clear. You are not the patients. Your insurance company is the patient, so that's why they don't care. You understand, right?
is it not peculiar.
A sick person who goes to the doctor, divulging complaints, is called: PATIENT i.e. one capable of enduring suffering without complaint .....
It seems like many of the words connected to these systems invert reality. On purpose.
Now. That's interesting. Words carry meaning and power.