Liarless

I've been in the psych wards and unlike the 3-5 minute per week psychiatrists, I listen to the patients. I hear their conversations with themselves or whatever they are picking up on the airwaves. They may hear voices, they may just be hearing interference, but when you actually hear them pick up mid-telephone conversation it becomes so obvious that wireless technology has a part in their mental illness.

They trapped us in a giant wireless cage, the executives, and they can fly free from it in their corporate jets and helicopters whenever they like. You caught Stephen, a civilian, on a frequency the first time you used a phone on a Pan-American flight. When you outfitted your first middle-management Mcmansion with Panasonic wireless handsets, you trapped Brian, a veteran, on your frequency to spend the rest of his life talking to the airwaves and reliving your telephone conversations.

Why am I so hard on you corporate executive? Because you lied and said you believe in free-market, but every day you invest in rigging the game. A handyman or mechanic can now run their entire business from their smartphone, but you, executive, need predictive analytics. Your efficiency measures only mean you are testing your product on active human populations.

Take for example the fact that your corporation gets tax write-offs for advertising. An advertising campaign used to mean a strategy for marketing your product through the media with no guarantee of results. Now media companies own the means of distribution for television and internet through cable and satellite services. Instead of turning to a viewer poll to roughly estimate who is watching a show, the media companies have smart cable boxes that can report how long a resident or consumer watched a particular television show to the nearest second.

The more important question for the media company in our results driven predictive analytics world is how many people saw specific advertising commercials. This allows the company marketing the product through the media company to use its precision sales and inventory software to immediately  measure results of an advertising commercial. If the company in question is a pharmaceutical company and they are able to measure sales through their software and new users of their drugs through advertising strategy, aren't they basically just doing active human testing without consulting the traditional approval methods?

I guess my point is further illustrated by looking at a copy of the Journal of American Medicine or JAMA for short. If you leaf through this professional journal you'll notice that many of the pages are pharmaceutical advertisements. Could you imagine turning through the leather-bound books of case-law in a law library and seeing advertisements for wireless devices throughout? It has been said that the endowments of the Ivy League colleges could provide free post-secondary  education for every citizen in the United States. Isn't the least those endowments could do is to ensure that JAMA is published without being influenced by the pharmaceutical industry? That the knowledge is shared with professionals without having to take money from the manufacturers of drugs to pay for the printing and distribution?

So a pharmaceutical company has software in place to trace sales quarterly or hypothetically daily. It has strategy in place through media companies to trace the success of commercials on consumers on a hypothetically daily basis. Has anyone bothered to research or regulate whether a pharmaceutical company or its affiliates can develop software themselves to sell to clinics or hospitals to help with tracking drugs or charting on patients? If they are permitted to develop software it would mean they could get an alert or update when a new side-effect is charted on a patient. If they are able to obtain this information through software licensing agreements it means they can actively or retro-actively keep track of new side-effects for medication they manufacture. This in essence is what a clinical trial is without having to pass through an oversight committee.

My clinic, for example, has just changed over to a new software system using wireless notebooks and electronic signature pads. I asked one of the ladies talking about it whether she knew if a pharmaceutical company had any part in developing the software. She acted as if it were not her job to look into that type of thing, but seemed sure the person in charge probably knew the answer.

I've heard time and again that I sometimes make connections where there aren't any to be made. I'll admit that this may be true if you'll admit that the connections are possible. You, no doubt, choose to admit that instant results of sales, marketing, and side-effects does put a new twist on predictive analytics. You won't make the connection that the FCC has never definitively released whether wireless waves are safe for the human body. So why would mental health hospitals and clinics introduce wireless emitting antennae into environments where patients may simply be sensitive to the wireless waves? And whose job is it to ensure no subsidiary in a pharmaceutical company's "family of companies" is writing software?

One of my points is that a marketing strategy used to employ the media and was intended to market a product over several years with zero guarantee the campaign would be successful. The company got a tax write-off for using psychology to persuade people to buy their product or service. A pharmaceutical company can actually use psychology to strap someone down and force their product into the person's body and this is why they should not be allowed to advertise. Pharmaceutical companies also employ sales representatives knowledgeable in their products to visit physicians in person. Employing an actual knowledgeable sales force is a much more noble stance by these companies than a mixture of old and new media. After all, with televisions in waiting rooms an ad campaign could hinder the sales approach of a sales representative  that actually read all of his or her competitor's clinical trial information. It should be illegal for any faction of a pharmaceutical corporate conglomerate to advertise on television, print, or internet and to develop software in any way, which could be construed as advertising as well. This will at least level the field for an actual human sales force to try to find time with a physician that is battling with private healthcare insurers to get payment for their practice.