Tag Archives: NPR

Consider or Contemplate?

It is a stage we all face. Should we consider that the media is corrupt, or contemplate it is? It is not out of the blue, the media did this to themselves. First hide behind ‘the people have a right to know’, then hide behind the ‘miscommunication of crimes’ (like the phone hacking scandal) and then the crocodile tears that they can manage themselves (the Leveson report) and even before the ink dries going back to their old habits (the MH370 suicide jab). The amount of examples is legion (and as I know the devil, he was never THAT outspoken). 

So what got me here?
Well there are a few items, but the Guardian pushed me to that side again almost two days ago. The Guardian is not more of anything, it was merely that article that brought it to the surface and when you search, you will see what I mean (and you can seek out the other culprits), they too are legion. 

As I said, it started yesterday with the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/30/elizabeth-holmes-enters-prison-11-year-sentence) with the ‘capturing’ headline ‘‘People wanted to believe the fairytale’: the downfall of Elizabeth Holmes’. Well actually they didn’t. This is the story the media pushed. They wanted their media darling, they wanted the nicely scrubbed youngling. She didn’t finish (drop out) Stanford University at the age of 19. She had the Steve Jobs look and, Theranos was (at some point) valued at more than $9,000,000,000 and Holmes became the world’s youngest billionaire and the media wanted that, they wanted another Disney Story and nothing Frozen about her, was there? 

So when we get “It began with a 2015 article by Carreyrou that revealed Theranos’s revolutionary technology wasn’t exactly what it seemed” we all feel sorry, we are all left in the dark, yet that too is was the cards the media wanted you to see, hiding behind ‘miscommunications’ and by leaving things unsaid. That setting is not unique. In Market research there is an expression, a running joke if you like. If you want a linear result merely plot two events and fit the story as such, these two point will for the most ALWAYS show linear result, the rest make it a liability. It is almost like the lawyer who will not ask a question that he does not know the answer to. It gets these persons where they want to go. In the case of Elizabeth Holmes (and Theranos) it is the same with the media. 

My evidence?
In January 2022 NPR (one of the few sources) gave us “He blew the whistle on Theranos when he was just 22 years old. Now 31, he was ready for closure. “This story has been unfolding for pretty much my entire adult life,” said Shultz in a long-ranging interview with NPR from an in-law suite at his parents’ home in Silicon Valley’s Los Gatos.” I mentioned it in the smallest way with “Where was the Guardian interviewing the Whistleblower Tyler Shultz? Thanks to him this was stopped,” and I did so on February 6th with ‘That courtesan called media’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/02/06/that-courtesan-called-media/) the issue is that the media to the largest degree shunned him and Erik Cheung and I personally believe that the reasoning is self-centred and therefor corrupt. And corrupt is exactly the setting, look it up in the dictionary It will give you “having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain”. If they were not then between January 2022 and now we would have seen at least one article on Tyler Shultz. So count the articles they have Elisabeth Holmes, and count the articles that give us Tyler Shultz and it does not end there. NPR also gave us “Being a Theranos whistleblower would soon morph into a much bigger nightmare. Soon, he was dealing with private investigators Holmes hired to follow him. Lawyers tried to intimidate him. Holmes tried to destroy his life.” It showed Holmes to be a backstabbing little bitch, but that didn’t fit the Disney view that the media wanted, did it? And with “Shultz was on the government’s witness list. He was never called to testify. He isn’t sure why.” We get the larger question. The whistleblower was not asked to testify? It puzzles me, but there might be a legal reason, I honestly do not know the answer. What I do know is that the media with a few exceptions steered clear of him and they are all about the people have a right to know? You get a right to see the story the media spins, all with the approval of share holders, stake holders and advertisers. So is there a contemplation or consideration that the bulk of the media is corrupt? I believe there is and with Elizabeth Holmes we see another side of that media, one that needs to stop even if it means that the media loses their 0% VAT rights. 

And the news goes on (and on and on). Vanity Fair gave us “business editor Ellen Pollock was put on the spot to defend a soft-focus profile of the disgraced Theranos founder, telling staff she didn’t “give a fuck” about the criticism.” The news and ‘soft focus’? WTF? So do we see the New York Times going soft on crimes and criminals? Perhaps there is more and when you consider that Holmes set the stage for “Many of the marquee names that made up the Theranos board — former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Sen. Sam Nun and George Shultz” Tylers Grandfather and former United States Secretary of State no less. Holmes had them all under her spell which would apply to a false prophet, not a media darling and that is perhaps the biggest failing of all. If NPR (at https://www.npr.org/2022/01/05/1070474663/theranos-whistleblower-tyler-shultz-elizabeth-holmes-verdict-champagne) hadn’t given us the goods, we would all be in the dark. Perhaps there are more but I was unable to find them. Seek Google for “Elizabeth Holmes Tyler Shultz”, or just seek “Tyler Shultz” these two seeks should give you at least a little more on the media and their spin. 

So whatever you do, consider at least that the media once again were trying to sell you a bag of goods, just like those researchers having two observations and making a linear claim. What did they all leave on the floor?

Enjoy the day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Science

When is a fence not one?

That is the thought I had a few days ago when I was confronted with ‘Finland’s main parties back plans to build Russia border fence’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/19/finland-main-parties-back-plans-build-russia-border-fence), it was a newer story with added parts, and they do not matter at present. You see, the Finnish border with Russia is 1,340km, like the Texas Mexico fence, it is folly. On the stage of getting a 1,340,000 metre fence costs more than the combined reserves of ALL EU nations, as such Finland cannot afford it. Then we get the simple setting that large parts of such a fence can be tunnelled under in simple ways. And to withstand the power of any tank that wall needs to be strong and it might merely delay any invasion by an hour, so what gives anyone the idea that this wall is a solution, other than the delusional thoughts of some politician? 

I honestly do not get it. Then, if you look at the map, the northern part of Finland borders Norway, who then borders Russia, so how to solve that? Build a wall that includes Norway? There are a dozen settings where the wall falls short, as such the use of a wall there is just folly. 

So what gives someone the idea that a wall was any kind of a solution to anything at all? And when you consider the Russian smugglers who use Finland to get to the shores to Sweden (the Lulea – Tornio – Russia route), I feel sure that some people will see the wall fail there as well. But the Guardian seemed to bite on that red herring with “Finland’s border guard last month suggested building a fence several metres high, topped with razor wire and equipped with surveillance cameras and sensors along 160 miles of the border – roughly 20% of its total”, so we have a wall that is covering 20% of the border, as such where? And when you consider that 80% is still available what does it do but take resources away, resources Finland does not really have that much to begin with. Then we get “The fence would protect areas identified as posing a potential risk of large-scale migration from Russia, mainly in south-east Finland, where most traffic crosses the border, but also around border stations in the north of the country”, which now implies that the Lulea – Tornio – Russia route could also make money for refugee smuggling, so yes, that was a really good idea from day one (sarcasm implied). And then we get the juiciest steak in political Finland. It is given to us with “The project would take up to four years to complete and could cost several hundred million euros, according to border guard estimates. Final approval for the main phase could be delayed until April, when Finland is due to hold parliamentary elections”, did you catch the stage? At a minimum of 200M, the fence will cost $1.3M per mile, which is ridiculously cheap, as such the cost would be well above 400 million and that is still decently cheap. Because border guards, electronic surveillance and a few other items will put the wall, the limited wall at no less than a billion, which is a lot more than several hundred million euros and that is before budgets are overrun and the entire mess will be useless at the price of close to €2,000,000,000 and that is still pinching pennies whilst the wall has no depth, implying that digging under it would be decently easy. So in this time of need, which nation has 2 billion ready to waste on solutions that go nowhere? At present NPR gives us that the Mexican wall is set to around $20,000,000 per mile, implying that Finland is looking at $3.2 billion, implying that my simple calculus exercise was right on the nose with €2,000,000,000 and as Finland has time issues (like Winter is coming) the 4 years is also over optimistic. Increasing the Finnish army by 300% might be cheaper and as we saw that the Ukrainian turned the Russian bear into sishkebab, that idea might be a lot more effective. A wall that cannot defend itself is merely a place you can get around and in this day and age, walls are avoided most of the time. To b e honest, I would like the politicians behind this give us the numbers on how they got to the few hundred million euro. I reckon we can all use the entertainment.

I reckon looking closely at the construction firms and their connections might reveal a few additional items, but that is me, ever the skeptic. Oh that is all before we look at the cost and maintenance of guards on that stretch of wall, you would need well over 80 guard groups, with 24 hour coverage, travel settings and food/drink options. I reckon I low balled the cost by a lot.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

Little shits

That happens, we meet kids and some are nice, some are actual and factual shits. So what do we do about them, just feed them to the wolves? So what about one of them who at the age of 6 shoots their teacher? That is what we are left with when I saw the Dutch NOS and a few others give us (at https://www.npr.org/2023/01/06/1147629793/shooting-virginia-elementary-school-6-year-old) ‘A teacher shot by 6-year-old in Virginia is showing signs of improvement’ with “He also would not comment on how the boy got access to the gun or who owns the weapon”. In my view this case stinks. The parents have not been arrested for questioning. The gun is not currently identified to an owner. A six year old shit got a gun and gunned down its teacher! Even if he is not responsible under the law through doli incapax, there are a few who are and I point at the parents in the first instance. So far NO report shows that the parents were arrested, or interrogated over the case. If that is the stage, the US has earned the right to see many more shootings in schools until they fix this mess. They have the gun, so they can trace (to some degree) the owner, where it was sold and so on. In addition, we see the press avoid all kinds of places here. The lack of press is almost impressive. If Kim Kardassian breaks her bra clip on TV, we would have the retailer as well as the fashion designer on TV within the hour being interrogated by the media. Now we have close to nothing. Someone is orchestrating here, there is pretty much no other explanation left. 

I saw some of the news, they do not know how it got past the detectors. Well, if you have seen one 6 year old you have seen dozens of them, all with their favourite metal lunch box. It is speculative, but there was intent here, so put the sandwiches on top and the security guard will think nothing of it, and lets be fair, a six year old with a gun? After that it is simple. But it is not entirely that is it? A six year old shot a teacher. That took mindset, stupid mindset, but mindset none the less. The press is not looking into this, optionally merely trivialising it. So what part do the parents play? Well, as I see it the mindset tends to come from parents, not peer pressure, not at that age. But no one is looking at the parents, why not? 

The lack of information leaves me with a lot more questions and I wonder what we will hear in a few days, but I intent to take another look at all this down the road, I have to.

2 Comments

Filed under Media, Politics

Theranos the Vampire

Yes, it was a stage in the making. The media painted every railing in immaculate white. The media made sure that she always looked her best but last week the hammer fell down and 4015 days in Hotel Penal became her new lodgings. Yet the stage was for a lot not that clear was it?

So let do some recap (my way). First there is the Wall Street Journal (at https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901) with ‘Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology’, the headline avoids a few terms and gives us “company founder Elizabeth Holmes holds up a tiny vial to show how the startup’s “breakthrough advancements have made it possible to quickly process the full range of laboratory tests from a few drops of blood.”” It also gives us the fact that the firm was at some point valued at 9 billion dollars. USA Today (at https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/03/15/behind-theranos-rise-and-dramatic-fall-powerful-backers-money-tech-and-politics/426364002/) gives us ‘Behind Theranos’ rise and dramatic fall: The powerful backers in money, tech and politics’ and there we get “Theranos raised money on the strength of Holmes’ ability to pitch her vision, whose reality often didn’t match up. But there were plenty of takers. Theranos’ fundraising resulted in a valuation of $9 billion — half of which belonged to Holmes, making her one of the youngest billionaires on the planet, at least on paper.” This article leads to “Shultz quit, and despite warnings from Holmes — she allegedly called the elder Shultz to warn him about his grandson’s threats to expose the company — decided to contact New York state’s public-health lab and alleged Theranos had manipulated its test results. This was the first known regulatory complaint about Theranos, whose issues would soon grow exponentially.” As such Tyler Shulz was the first brick that decided that the wall did not make sene, the wording “she allegedly called the elder Shultz to warn him about his grandson’s threats to expose the company” making the words ‘intent’ finally float to the top and an issue was finally raised. As stated the first. So how long was she out and about with this at present? Then we get the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63672103) where we are given ‘Theranos: Silicon Valley holds breath for Elizabeth Holmes sentencing’, the article also gives us “In January a jury concluded she had deliberately misled investors. She was convicted of four counts of wire fraud – with a maximum sentence of 20 years. However, it has taken an eternity to get this point – sentencing. Her legal team is arguing for 18 months of house arrest. The prosecution wants her to serve 15 years in prison and to pay back the best part of a billion dollars to investors.” So one side wants her to bake in sing sing for 15 years and the other side want to give her house arrest for 18 month a sway of no less. A mere 10% for the fraudster with nice tits. You think this is crude? How about the investors? So we get things like the dozens of letters have been submitted vouching for Holmes’ character. Character of a Fraudster? “one from Cory Booker, a US Senator for New Jersey, who wrote to the judge.

The Democrat said they’d bonded over vegan food at a dinner six years before she was charged with fraud, and they had remained friends. He appealed for clemency.” This can be seen in two ways. One is what we read, the other one is the one where the Fraudster is setting up a hedge fund of good calls, at the expense of other people. You decide. 

Last there is the BBC again (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63685131) where we see ‘Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes jailed for fraud’ it is here that we get “Once hailed as the “next Steve Jobs”, she was at one time said to be the world’s youngest self-made billionaire. She launched Theranos after dropping out of Stanford University at age 19, and its value rose sharply after the company claimed it could bring about a revolution in disease diagnosis.” And how did faking test results help there? How do we get “Holmes, 38, who is pregnant, tearfully told the court she felt “deep pain” for those misled by the scam”? I am of the mind that she got pregnant to soften the blow of punishment, but that might merely be me. And how can she feel deep pain? The actions against Tyler Shulz seem to indicate that, I feel for Tyler Shulz who is the one setting this in motion. I cannot state that others were aware, well one other seemingly was. But he is the one who stopped it, but the Wall Street Journal wrote that away in an epitaph easily enough. It seems that only NPR took a better look in appreciation of what he did, what he found and how the ball got rolling. The Wall Street Journal went straight for daddy.

NPR gives us “he was the first to report troubling findings at the company to regulators. At the time, it was a risky and bold move, but it helped accelerate scrutiny that would ultimately end in the company’s implosion.” I have two issues here. The first I why only NPR is taking that stand, the second one is seen with “it was a risky and bold move” it was risky to warn the SEC for fraud events? In addition we get “Shultz had worked countless hours in labs. Armed with this scientific know-how, he quickly realised something was amiss when he looked inside of the Edison device.

“There is nothing that the Edison could do that I couldn’t do with a pipette in my own hand,” he said. Then he discovered another alarming thing: When Theranos completed quality-control safety audits, it was running tests not on the Edison, but on commercially available lab equipment. That did not seem right. “It was clear that there was an open secret within Theranos that this technology simply didn’t exist,” Shultz said.” The article (at https://www.npr.org/2022/01/05/1070474663/theranos-whistleblower-tyler-shultz-elizabeth-holmes-verdict-champagne) gives a rundown that none of the papers hd and NPR had it in January 2022. It seems that the media is all very forgiving towards fraud, it implies that fraud is applauded as long as you get away with it. So how come NPR has what the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and the BBC do not? In addition the fact that the hard and ‘risky’ choices that Tyler Shulz made, not his father are seemingly ignored all over the place. And you wonder why I do not trust people with my IP? You have got to be joking. In the end we have a much larger problem, the media! They have gone out of their way to give space to a fraudster and only now, only after the verdict of 11 years is passed do we see the rundown, but till to the smallest degree and that is proven with the NPR article that was given to us 9 months earlier. Hell, a woman can get pregnant in that time. The fact that most media steps largely over Tyler Shulz might be seen as additional evidence.

Was it a simple story, or have they all been compelled by a vampire? I reckon someone has to ask the expert witness Sarah Michelle Gellar for insights.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Wall and writing

Yup that is the setting and it will be clear soon enough. It was a day in July when I wrote (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/07/18/for-those-not-seeing-the-oil-field/) titled ‘For those not seeing the oil field’, there I wrote “What happens when they sell 2.5 million barrels a day less and let that go to the US shortage?” So this was three months ago and now we see at NPR (at https://www.npr.org/2022/10/05/1126754169/opec-oil-production-cut) “The OPEC+ alliance announced a 2 million barrels a day cut in oil production Wednesday”, so I was off by only 500,000 barrels a day. I mentioned on a few occasions ‘I told you so’ and this time around it ill cost you, it will cost you a lot, because 2 million barrels less implies a fuel price rise of 10%-20% from the start and still in that time no one asked Brent oil any heavy questions. It is a commercial enterprise and as such it does not care about Americans and their cheap fuel needs. So whilst we all stare at “President Biden has been trying to rein in prices at the gas pump ahead of the midterm elections” all whilst he did close to nothing to rein in Brent and their selling of well over 75% of their stock abroad. You just cannot have it both ways. If you wanted cheap oil, they needed to treat Saudi Arabia as a real ally to a much better degree than they did. Consider going to the pastry shop asking: “Yo fat fuck, gimme a pastry for 10 cents” what are the chances that will work? Even if you make it “Sir can you please sell me a pastry for 10 cents” there will not be too many shops who will do that. A friend might, but America did whatever they could to make the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a pariah whilst embracing the delay tactics of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s proxy enemy. This was all going to happen one way or another and the fake claims on Russia and Saudi Arabia are a joke. This all plays straight into the hands of China who optionally might end up with that extra oil. All settings that were out in the open from the beginning. On the other hand if oil prices go up, Saudi Arabia might be more interested in my IT solution that gives them at least $500 million a month extra. Time will tell (the commercial manager in the Saudi Consulate in Sydney is seemingly too busy to see me). Well time will tell what comes next but for now Americans will see fuel prices jump, they will see their wages go towards arming thanksgiving and Christmas households and all whilst they are all ‘enjoying’ dinner wearing thicker pants and an extra jumper. As such fashion houses take notice of those needs. 

The writing was on the walls and I saw that danger happen 3 months ago. So whilst the US and UK went to Riyadh to ‘kindly please send more cheap oil our ways’ they forgot the first rule of diplomacy (politics too), you cannot make that effort empty handed and then let other organisations slap Saudi Arabia around, it never ever works that way. So when we consider “Yasser Elguindi, the head of macro research at Energy Aspects, says there’s a perception that the Saudis are trying to push prices back to or above $100 per barrel by cutting production and tightening the market. He says the magnitude of the proposed cut has caught people by surprise”, take time to notice that I saw that danger three months ago, so the ‘by surprise’ part is either hollow or a clear first show of reduced levels of competency. Yes the latter part is pure speculation, but feel free to check my earlier article, and consider what is up.

No matter how you slice it, the timing of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is pretty good, winter is coming. Where did I hear that before? No matter what, it will be a cold Christmas this year for a lot of Americans. I wonder what the impact will be in the states like New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, not to mention Washington DC. But the media might continue to avoid the Brent Crude Oil settings and for President Biden and the current PM of the United Kingdom I suggest that they take time and get the Master of Arts in International Relations and Diplomacy or brush up on what you learned there. It might help matters a little. Just some food for thought.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

For those still in denial

Yes it happens, it even happens to me, but not in this case, not today. There was a discussion going on and a person (not this one) had a view, I do not agree with that view, but it is a view that the person was entitled to have. It did not match mine but that is not the case.

The image was a third person, a so called marketing person gave their view, which you see in the image. There is in denial, there is stupid and there is being stupid as well as being in denial. And the views matter. So here goes and this is information that is out in the open. 

97% Of People Entering Hospitals For COVID-19 Are Unvaccinated’ (source: NPR), then we get “Of the total admitted to hospital, 153 (3.3%) were confirmed as fully vaccinated, while 844 (18.1%) were partially vaccinated and the rest (3657) were unvaccinated, or their vaccination status was unable to be established.” This implies that 78.6% of all hospital admissions for Covid are unvaccinated, in NSW Australia. We see similar stages all over the world. The Dutch RIVM reports that 70% of ALL intensive care admissions are unvaccinated. And this amounts to 241 people in the month of October 2021. We see that these settings in Australia, the US, the Netherlands, and the UK are not alone. We see similar settings in Germany, Italy and Belgium. Belgium is a matter of debate. We see sources (Xinhua) giving us that 98% of covid cases in hospitals in Belgium is unvaccinated. Yet that too is debatable, I find that number to be weirdly high compared to other European nations. I can understand that there will be reporting issues, connected health issues, as such a 75%-89% makes sense, yet to see a 98% number is just too weirdly high. 

I try to see all the numbers and that revealed an interesting flaw in the media as well. As they are all about flaming and emotional wear and tear. There is a flaw in the metrics. Even per nation there is not any clear numbering and percentage standard in use. I found the RIVM (Netherlands) to be the clearest and even then it was not always easy to find (but it was there). The setting in the EU is one of massive failure and in light of the fact that this has been going on for well over a year makes the failure even worse. Yet in all this the setting of someone claiming to be in marketing and giving us “The unvaxed in hospitals are few and far between”, all whilst I see dozens of media outlets, several data outlets giving us a very different story. There are times when it is ok to be in denial, yet when there are over 261 million sick people and we have 5,215,057 cadavers, to be in denial is silly, stupid and it has far reaching issues. Although there is a case for that too. The Texas Tribune gives the people ‘Unvaccinated Texans make up vast majority of COVID-19 cases and deaths this year, new state data shows’, so we can postulate that they have a solution for the unemployment numbers of Texas. It is a drastic solution, but it will work, it always does. So feel free to listen to marketeers who give you “The unvaxed in hospitals are few and far between”, because Texas allegedly has 50,000 cemeteries, there will be one who has a place for you too and at that moment someone else can take over your job. Nearly all problems solved. 

Happy days!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Greed and Law helping each other

I have written about it before, it is my point of view and my conviction. It is my setting that gives rise to what you could see, and gives rise to what you could know, you already did, but you seemingly decided to ignore it, you decided to enable the greed driven and all parties are smitten by greed, they call it different, yet as I see it, it is mere greed.

How it ends
The end is shown by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57770557) with “It marks the first step towards the OxyContin painkillers maker paying out $4.3bn (£3.1bn) to settle cases related to the opioid crisis”, it was always about the money. There is an old saying “μυστήριον, Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη, ἡ μήτηρ τῶν πορνῶν καὶ τῶν βδελυγμάτων τῆς γῆς;” The book of revelations 17:5. Did anyone consider it could optionally reflect on Attorney General Letitia James from the state of New York? We might see and take notice of “While no amount of money will ever compensate for the thousands who lost their lives or became addicted to opioids across our state or provide solace to the countless families torn apart by this crisis, these funds will be used to prevent any future devastation”, will it though?

The method
We see ‘OxyContin is one of the most commonly abused prescription drugs’, and we see that it belongs to the Sackler family, the members who own Purdue Pharma, privately held. They are not guilty, yet they are also not innocent, greed drove them towards their billions, yet they are not the demons we all paint them to be, to not be innocent and to be a demon is to be a different cattle of fish and any Attorney General could tell you that, but they have the money and they all wanted the money, the real demon.

Culprits
Yes, there are culprits in this story. You see some sources give us that in 1996 316,000 prescriptions were dispensed, it grew to an impressive amount topping over 14 million prescriptions with an estimated value of $3,000,000,000. The issue we see everyone painting over is ‘prescriptions dispensed’, this is not something that a person can get, it needs a doctor and it needs a pharmacist. The top 5 are Walgreens Company, CVS Health, Walmart, Rite Aid Corp and Krogers company. They own a little over 25,000 stores and around 113,000 pharmacists. There are ere players in the game. Yet how many Oxycontin did they hand out? How many doctors did these prescriptions?
You see, the interesting side is not what we see, but what we saw on TV in 1978, it was an episode of Lou Grant and that episode (season 2 episode 1 “Pills”) shows us the larger station that plays here and THEY gave the people (government also) the goods 20 years earlier. We all want one demon, but there was not one, there were a truckload of them, but the US government cannot fill their pockets there.

Innocence
It is the first fatality in any war, there is no exception and this is not different. The Sackler family is not innocent, but they are not the guilty demons that the media and the flaming screamers claim them to be. It was simple and it was out there. 14,000,000 prescriptions and only doctors can make them. Yes, we see “lawsuits regarding overprescription of addictive pharmaceutical drugs” yet it is given out by doctors and it is handed out by pharmacies. Yet the New Yorker in 2020 gives us “Purdue Pharma played a “special role” in the opioid crisis because the company “was the first to set out, in the nineteen-nineties, to persuade the American medical establishment that strong opioids should be much more widely prescribed—and that physicians’ longstanding fears about the addictive nature of such drugs were overblown”, I get that and we should understand that, yet in this (at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/opioid-manufacturer-purdue-pharma-pleads-guilty-fraud-and-kickback-conspiracies) we also get “Purdue also paid kickbacks to providers to encourage them to prescribe even more of its products”, so who were those providers? Who received these kickbacks? We are not likely to see those are we, we will merely see words like ‘settlement’ and ‘undisclosed parties’, innocence was the first victim to fall, none of the players were innocent. And the government is equally guilty. The NPR (at https://www.npr.org/2020/12/22/949309266/doj-sues-walmart-over-unlawful-distribution-of-controlled-substances) gave us in December 2020 “The Justice Department is suing Walmart. In a civil suit filed today, the Justice Department alleges that the company’s pharmacies and warehouses helped fuel the opioid crisis. Walmart’s pharmacy chain dispensed billions of opioid pills, including OxyContin and other highly addictive medications. And this lawsuit claims that the company broke the law hundreds of thousands of times”, so that took a decade? And when we consider ‘broke the law hundreds of thousands of times’, how come that store is still open? And it is Brian Mann who gives us “according to the DOJ, Walmart did exactly the opposite, filling huge numbers of unsafe and illegal prescriptions, allegedly doing so for years without alerting the government”, and there we have it, the crux of the Lou Grant episode, the evidence that set the caper in motion in 1978, but that is not all, the article also gives us “NPR has been looking into this. And we found that some of the company’s own former pharmacists tried for years to raise the alarm about allegedly illegal activity. Ashwani Sheerin (ph) is a pharmacist who worked for Walmart in rural Michigan. He told NPR he saw real red flags”, not all pharmacists are evil, but we see the stage of revenue pushing, it is greed in action and when we see ‘tried for years to raise the alarm’ we see that the Justice department is not innocent either and the media is not innocent either. A stage where they all love revenue, circulation and ringing the bell loudly was apparently not an option. So whilst we see “had reached an agreement with Purdue that would see its owners, the wealthy Sackler family, pay an additional $50m”, I wonder where Walmart is in this and with them a whole range of pharmacies. Because it was never Walmart alone, not with an annual 14,000,000 prescriptions.

Solution
There might not be one, but us all recognising that Justice reacted well over a decade too late, that is as I personally see it, the FDA dropped the ball, likely more than once, especially as this has been going on for years, optionally well over a decade. And it is Attorney General Letitia James with “prevent any future devastation” who has the ball now, I wonder if she drops it, or hands it over to someone else, as NPR gives us pointing the finger at Walmart, but they are not alone and the records of the FDA are also in question. When I look into ‘Federal Regulations for Clinical Investigators’, I wonder if it helps investigations, or slows them down.
You see Oxycontin is a schedule 8 drug and we get “Doctors must follow state and territory laws when prescribing oxycodone and must notify, or receive approval from, the appropriate health authority”, you see this matters as pharmacies need a doctors prescription, so which doctors were behind the 14,000,000 annual prescriptions? 

So there you have it, I made no claim that the Sackler family was innocent, they are not, but they are not the demons we see them to be, this is a much larger problem and it was left unchecked for well over a decade, or there was at the very least a decade of inaction and too many filled their pockets and yes the Sackler benefitted, but they were not alone, Walmart was part, but there too they were not alone and the doctors who prescribed these pills, what is their price for a prescription? As I personally see it, the law enabled greed to continue for too long, the law and greed enabled each other, and the end is still not in sight, no matter what Attorney General Letitia James and in this she is not alone either, doesn’t San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia not have any Attorney Generals? Where were they in the 2000-2021?

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law

Data is all

There have been a few oppositions to two of the articles on India and covid I wrote in the last week. I stand by my view, but the opposition is there. For the most they are merely echoing other sources and that is fine. So let’s take another look with new sources, very credible sources.

About that island
In the far lower right, to the left of New Zealand is the island of Australia. It is a large island and had 25 million people. There SBS gave us ‘One new community COVID-19 case recorded in NSW as authorities hunt mystery source of infection’, it is the quote “Health authorities have been unable to find a link between a returned overseas traveller who harboured the same genomic sequencing as a Sydney couple who tested positive”. I do not know and there is no evidence that there is foul play afoot. So there is AT LEAST one link between the two, but there is no way to find it at present. This is a place with a mere 25,000,000 people. Now consider India with its 1,300,000,000 people. This implies (emphasis on imply) that India has at least 52 undiscovered cases, now consider the image I posted of a market in India taken last October (and below).

Now consider that at least one such a person is in such a market, this implies that tomorrow at least 50-75 will get it, after that the numbers go the wrong way really fast. It still takes time to get there, as such the dip in numbers as well as the statement “India may have Covid-19 under control by February, says top scientist” (source: Straits Times January 2, 2021). It was the obvious very debatable statement  “While there is no definitive single reason, epidemiologists and scientists believe a key factor is that dense urban centres, which were the worst affected, now have some level of community protection”, really? Community protection? Where is that now with 21,000,000 sick and 230,000 no longer living and it will get worse, but on the plus side, they will beat the USA in one event, the number of dead people, which was pretty much a given with 1.3 billion people and no lockdown. 

But it is not all bad news, as the Guardian reported “medical experts and international human rights groups, including the United Nations, have called for an immediate reversal of the Biosecurity Act determination, I am on the fence in this case, yet in the end thousands more will needlessly die, so rent prices in Mumbai might go down a twitch.

The problem is that too many cases go undetected, there was news earlier this year that Dutch scientists had found the the quick tests gives a false negative in 40% of the cases, at what point will you realise that a much larger danger exists? There is a larger problem, the Indian government did not act when they could and they want us now to take up the slack. It is hard to chastise them as a nation with 1.3 billion will have unique issues with a situation like this, I do not oppose that, but there is months of data showing that the entire situation was mis managed, and some excuse like “now have some level of community protection” does not hold water in any way or shape. And when we are given a truck load of emotional responses like “Vamshi is furious that the information he provided about his mother’s condition was enough for his exit exemption but not enough for her to be allowed to travel to Australia to stay with them”, I wonder if they needed a bloody slide ruler to work out the numbers. This disease KILLS! It is that simple and containment is a first need for EVERY government. Data is all and it shows a picture that is not so nice, and it will not be resolved in India quickly. Any message that a short time and a short course towards any solution is found is non existent. We need to avoid the media with BS emotional sides, we need to rely on the cold numbers and the ones India are giving us do not add up, yet the media and several others are not questioning that part. In this the NPR (at https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/04/30/992451165/india-is-counting-thousands-of-daily-covid-deaths-how-many-is-it-missing) is giving us ““There’s a shortage of coronavirus tests. Nobody’s getting tested! So the government’s numbers for our district are totally wrong,” he told NPR on a crackly phone line from his village. “If you’re able to get tested, results come after five days.””, so how come NPR is nearly the only one who gives us some of the goods? It does not mean that NPR is the more reliable source, but it does explain a much larger part of the problem, when numbers are delayed and ‘mis-categorised’ we will unlikely ever know what is the true down low of India and the covid numbers. 

Data is all, but when that data is (I expect) intentionally ‘adjusted’, we will not know what the actual situation in India is and in that respect, shutting down ALL transport to and from India might be close to the only option left. Yes, the UN will object but will not be able to cater to the time needs of the dangers, but then they might also need to wrote another essay for Jeff Bezos, so their time will be used no matter how they sail. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Science

The first step

Today I was confronted with a first step in the right direction. NPR (and others) give us ‘Dominion Voting Systems Files $1.6 Billion Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News’, the baseless accusations and the empty facilitation by merely shouting the same messages by Fox (and a few others) all whilst there was no proper investigation or follow up now has consequences. The NPR article gives us ““Fox endorsed, repeated, and broadcast a series of verifiably false yet devastating lies about Dominion,” the complaint states, including claims that the company’s software manipulated the results of the 2020 vote.” This first step is one that seals the fate of Donald Trump. The bully tactics and the baseless accusations now come at a cost and should Dominion Voting System end up with a success, the base and foundation of Trumpism will see several additional court cases come there way, paving the way for honourable men like Mitt Romney to clean house and return the Republic party to sanity. It is also the first time that we will see the media being held to a higher level, one that had been surely lacking, which in turn will give the Washington Post a hard time too. With the additional “Dominion has also filed defamation lawsuits against Trump ally and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, and Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, lawyers who worked with Trump on his post-election flurry of legal actions. The company is seeking $1.3 billion in damages from each of them”, we get to see a new stage, we get to see the ‘friends’ of Donald Trump seeking the caves (like Osama Bin Laden once did) as well as the tall grass to avoid detection, they have upset too many people and too many corporations, each of them seeking their pound of flesh. So how will this end? It is too early to say, but when we see “Last month, Smartmatic filed a $2.7 billion lawsuit against the network, and named Fox stars Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro.” We might take notice of the dismissal that Fox News is seeking, but their stories are out there and at times copied by smaller players and there is no hiding from that, so as I personally see it “the network also canceled Lou Dobbs’ Tonight show” is merely a first step and Fox, should it survive they will have to clean its house in several ways, optionally introduce ethics to its field. The article (at https://www.npr.org/2021/03/26/981515184/dominion-voting-systems-files-1-6-billion-defamation-lawsuit-against-fox-news) has a few more items, but it is a start, and no matter how it turns out the outcome will introduce new versions of rage all over the US, a setting that the media condoned, yet now that their chickens are hatching they fear the outcome and they seek some level of immunity, so as the US faces its own version of the Leveson report, I wonder how it will play out, because any outspoken politician will get tainted by it, any Fox source relying on freedom of speech will be held accountable to the impact they created and the US has well over 100 million really angry people at present, which means that it is not a good day for Trumpism to seek the limelight, not with Fox in the balance of their views with an optional $4,000,000,000 ticket awaiting impact. 

I do personally believe it is a good day for accountability in the mix and that has never been a bad thing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

One sided coin

When is a one-sided coin like a watchdog? That is the underlying question, and the answer is seen in this article ‘When they are shallow’. We all have needs, we all have centred targets, but what happens when that setting makes you miss the larger picture? Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against watchdogs, I have nothing against the media, or politicians, but when they give a one sided brief just to please themselves, how shallow will they be? It is not the first time, but in this case it starts with ‘US watchdog report cites civilian casualties in Saudi arms deal’, now this might be correct, might being the operative word and not towards optionally pointing fingers and not towards the setting. We see “The Saudi-UAE air raids hit farms, schools, water supplies, and energy sources, triggering what the United Nations has described as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis” now, I am not making a statement that they did not do that, but in all that, was it truly some civilian hit target or were there Houthi and/or Hezbollah fighters there? So whilst some focus on ‘precision-guided-munition components’, no one is looking what they were clearly firing on, because that too is an unknown. So whilst some focus on one side of “Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them civilians, have been killed by the Saudi-UAE air strikes – often with American-made weapons, targeting information and aerial refuelling support”, in a stage where should consider on ‘how many were civilians (and how many were not)’ in the sentence “Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them civilians”, yes we can hide behind ‘many of them’, but precision is essential, even if the weapons are not. In addition Representative Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee gives us ““This obvious pre-spin of the findings reeks of an attempt to distract and mislead,” Engel said, adding that he feared the classified annex to the report would be “used to bury important or possibly incriminating information””, and I am not debating that, yet in all this, the stage where Eliot Engel is optionally helping our the Iranians, that is still up for debate, is it not? So when we check NPR and we see the question “Congress had concerns about $8 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and those concerns included how the arms might be used in the war in Yemen” and the only thing that Eliot Engel gives us is “Yeah”? By the way the interview (at https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/901431799/engel-discusses-ig-report-on-u-s-selling-8-billion-worth-of-arms-in-middle-east) gives us nothing on ‘Iran’, ‘Houthi’ and ‘Hezbollah’, three tags that are essential in the Yemeni war, as well as the current Saudi Arabian state of affairs, so why are they missing? So whilst Engel gives us “Meaning that all the excuses that they give us, all the reasons they give us for doing what they have to do are phony and are made up. It’s just that they don’t – they want to have freedom to operate, not have the public know anything, certainly not have Congress know anything. And this is the way they’ve operated from day one. And it’s not really, you know – on the Foreign Affairs Committee, this is our jurisdiction. We’re supposed to be investigating these things, and they look at us as somehow intruding on their private purview”, a view that is his and might be valid, but the Yemeni war is larger and the three elements (Houthi, Hezbollah and Iran) are left out of it giving us an unbalanced and one sided story. Now, there is a side that accept, the US can decide on how it does business and who it does business with, and consider the hilarity we see when that $8,000,000,000 dollars goes to the Chinese or Russian treasury coffers? The US has been alienating its middle eastern partners to such an extent (all whilst ignoring to a larger degree the activities by Iran), we need to see the way that ball rolls down the hill and away from the congressional weapons sales teams. So whilst some might applaud the activity of watchdogs, the absence of the whole picture is actually rather disturbing. Not merely to the stage, but the fallout is other large. This does not reflect on Eliot Engel, but his congressional party is seemingly ignoring a much larger stage and this stage includes both Hezbollah and Iran, so why is Eliot Engel and his band of naughty congressionals ignoring that? Consider that the people for a week have been aware of ‘Saudi Arabia’s project clears 177,637 Houthi mines in Yemen’, now, we accept that some would have originated in Yemen, but not all and when we see these elements in the equation (and that is merely the beginning of that mess), we need to wonder why the US watchdog is so one sided. An investigation into the forces active in Yemen, as well as the weapons used and one side is left off the table completely. So how does your humanitarian side react to that? Oh and for desert I offer ’84.000 children in Yemen are dead, who is holding the Houthi and their methods to account?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics