Reply #68: That is...er...entirely covered by what I wrote. But hey, let's pretend it wasn't. [View All]

[Occam Bandage]

So your case is this:

Dr. Sanjay Gupta is a bad choice for Surgeon General, because he says that a drug that has been repeatedly found extraordinarily safe and absolutely effective is both safe and effective. This is bad, because the television station that employs him also accepts advertising from the company that manufactures this drug, and charges the standard rate. Therefore, it is possible that if the drug were actually dangerous and ineffective--and if Dr. Sanjay Gupta was the only person who knew of this, since such information tends to spread rapidly and result in lawsuits and media sensationalism once it hits the public--then Dr. Sanjay Gupta might hide that information because revealing it might possibly result in the aforementioned drug company pulling its advertisements (in what would become a huge PR disaster) causing a potential financial loss for his employer, if that employer is unable to find another company to fill the slots without charging a reduced rate.

That is a really, really weak case, I have to say. I understand why you say "he's in the pocket of Big Pharma" instead; that actually sounds like it might be meaningful.