Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -95
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
路
439d
Trump's nominee as head of the FDA, Marty Makary, is controversial with scientists, say the media. In fact, Makary's views are mainstream. They're attacking him because he has stood up to Big Pharma, which gives the media, and the vax scientist attacking him, millions of dollars.
3/26/2025, 2:18:35 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
路
317d
.@MartyMakary wrote a brilliant book on harms caused by the health and medical establishment. You can hear my interview with him here:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
路
317d
Congratulations to @DrJBhattacharya & @MartyMakary for becoming our next Director of NIH and Commissioner of FDA, respectively! They were censored and persecuted for being right about Covid. The success of both men is proof that the American dream is alive and well! 馃憦馃┓馃嚭馃嚫
Jay Bhattacharya
@DrJBhattacharya
路
338d

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the influence of pharmaceutical companies on political appointments and public health policy. It suggests that Big Pharma attempted to interfere with a nomination, implying a critique of corporate influence in government decisions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement implies harm by suggesting unethical behavior by Big Pharma, but it does not directly harm individuals.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects privacy but could be seen as accusatory towards pharmaceutical companies, potentially lacking in dignity.聽[-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding of perceived corporate influence, aligning with transparency and accountability.聽[+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    It engages in criticism of Big Pharma but lacks specific evidence, which could be seen as a personal attack on the industry.聽[-1]