So the second Boeing whistleblower dead in such a short time?
Letting people know what happens when their money is touched. Fuck
I wouldn’t doubt the psychopathy of Boeings leadership — their execs and management have already murdered hundreds of people, and dozens of them should be serving life in prison — but dying of MRSA after 2 weeks of pneumonia sure sounds like a legitimate coincidence. The first whistleblowers death not so much.
Why do you think this? Is it that you believe that it’s not possible that someone would be able to give someone a pneumonia+MRSA case?
Or are you in the camp that doesn’t believe anyone with a financial interest in Boeing would be willing to have someone killed to suppress future whistle blowers?
E: sorry, it sounds like you do believe the first one was a murder
When you fuck as much stiff as Boeing has you are going to get a lot of whistle blowers, statistically some of them will die, it would be suspicious if none of them died.
Being whistleblower and being involved in such legal proceedings sucks and I can imagine that one might give up (like Barnett in March) or that it takes a huge toll on your body (like Dean now). But then again … two such incidents around the same company … reminds me a bit too much of russian windows.
It would be a shame if that 777 window was to…break.
Holy shit.
Paywall:
Joshua Dean, a former quality auditor at Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems and one of the first whistleblowers to allege Spirit leadership had ignored manufacturing defects on the 737 MAX, died Tuesday morning after a struggle with a sudden, fast-spreading infection.
Known as Josh, Dean lived in Wichita, Kan., where Spirit is based. He was 45, had been in good health and was noted for having a healthy lifestyle.
He died after two weeks in critical condition, his aunt Carol Parsons said.
Spirit spokesperson Joe Buccino said: “Our thoughts are with Josh Dean’s family. This sudden loss is stunning news here and for his loved ones.”
Dean had given a deposition in a Spirit shareholder lawsuit and also filed a complaint with the Federal Aviation Administration alleging “serious and gross misconduct by senior quality management of the 737 production line” at Spirit.
Spirit fired Dean in April 2023, and he had filed a complaint with the Department of Labor alleging his termination was in retaliation for raising concerns related to aviation safety.
Parsons said Dean became ill and went to the hospital because he was having trouble breathing just over two weeks ago. He was intubated and developed pneumonia and then a serious bacterial infection, MRSA.
His condition deteriorated rapidly, and he was airlifted from Wichita to a hospital in Oklahoma City, Parsons said. There he was put on an ECMO machine, which circulates and oxygenates a patient’s blood outside the body, taking over heart and lung function when a patient’s organs don’t work on their own.
His mother posted a message Friday on Facebook relating all those details and saying that Dean was “fighting for his life.”
I had MRSA once, it’s so easy to spread and there is zero doubt in my mind that it could be weaponized. Criminal investigations are necessary after TWO whistleblowers are offed. I’m not holding my breath though. Boeing is too entrenched in the MIP to be investigated in any real sense of the word.
Pneumonia isn’t.
The guy just got pneumonia and then caught a secondary. This happens all the time.
Jesus. Why can’t they make whistle blowers anonymous?
How else would they be able to intimidate them?
Edit: Why should I trust an anonymous source?
Explanation to my doubt:
In computer science, wouldn’t that be like proprietary software only being auditable by cherry picked 3rd parties? In this case I should also need to trust the auditor.
In contrast, in FOSS software, all code is open to the public and can be audited publicly.
Edit2: I value privacy, that’s why I use Linux and Librewolf. I just don’t understand how that translate to this case.
As I now understand how my original post was conveying a different message from what I intended to ask, I copy it below:
Would you trust an anonymous source ?
Downvotes to an honest question. I should take a break from internet.
I don’t care who it is, they give the information, then authorities verify it. If it comes up verified, there you go.
This is how you end up with police making up an “anonymous tip” which allows them to gain a warrant and dig through the personal possessions of anyone they don’t like.
The problem isn’t solve with anonymity, but by actually protecting the whistle blowers.
The authorities should be able to dig through the possessions of massive companies that are fucking up so bad that planes fall out of the sky.
Sometimes you can’t verify things though
Then it still doesn’t matter. If an identified source gives information that isn’t verifiable, it’s still not actionable.
Look! Another Boeing fell from the sky!
-verified
another boeing went boing boing
… there’s an awful song in there somewhere
We already have enough evidence to verify a lot of the horrible things that has happened at these two companies. So what you wrote might be true in some situations, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
cmon honky what are we talking about, what is the current subject
that’s right, they killed the guy who could verify the stuff
like fn work with us here, geez ;)
I’d say we could trust the police to verify but yeah… I’d trust an anon source verified by AP more than the local police in most areas by a fucking mile.
This isn’t an allegation floating in the ether. Specific allegations can be investigated, usually pretty objectively.
Would you trust an anonymous source ?
In cases like this where anonymity is likely necessary to divulge crucial information and survive? Absolutely. You sound like you have no idea how journalism in general and confidential sources in particular works.
Downvotes to an honest question
Honest question, my ass! It was obviously a rhetorical question meant to imply that anonymous sources are inherently not trustworthy.
Honest question, my ass! It was obviously a rhetorical question meant to imply that anonymous sources are inherently not trustworthy
This made me realize the message I was transmitting. I edited my post in hope I can better express my question. Sorry for writing like a moron.
Its not, but you know your comment reads like corporate shilling yeah?
How? I’m literally arguing that anonymous whistleblowers aren’t inherently untrustworthy. That’s the OPPOSITE of what corporate shills keep saying!
I replied to the wrong comment but if it helps my case at all, I’m self diagnosed as retarded.
A lot of people believe everything they read on Facebook so…
Why would you trust any source, anonymous or otherwise, if you had the option to confirm what they said? … Like here, where we did, where we do.
Downvotes to an honest question. I should take a break from internet.
Complaining about internet numbers? That’s a downvote.
Downvotes take content to the bottom, diminishing it’s relevancy. It’s not egotistical. I had a question that I wanted to ask in order to learn. Later I learned that my question was conveying the wrong message, so I edited my post to better communicate my doubt. You may interpret that internet points equal ego points, but they are in fact relevancy points. In this case in particular, asking about anonimity and trust, is as on-topic as it can get, so I do question the reason for less relevancy to my question now. But I acknowledge the reason for less relevancy in my original post, as it was being interpreted as I wasn’t asking a question but conveying an opinion.
Edit: healthy discussion is what Lemmy is all about. Downvoting an honest question is hindering that principle.
And all of that would still be true without the “woe is me” addendum to your post.
Found the ego
Obviously it depends on the quality of the information, doesn’t it
like if it’s some rando just bullshitting, that’s gonna be obvious
if he’s dropping insider secrets or sounding authoritative, that requires investigation
but we’re a bit past all that right
Like you are aware of the wider context of what often happens to whistleblowers, time and again, … like you’re not just in here shooting your mouth off right, you know something about it when you deign to ask such a glib question? Or have you done none of your homework and just wanted to bless us with the annoying noise you made?
Mafia shit confirmed
Yeah Boeing out there giving people pneumonia and then a MRSA secondary infection. Couldn’t have happened naturally that’s unheard of! Nobody has ever had complications after pneumonia so young.
Honestly, not that hard.
Easier than building a new modern airplane, as Boing Boing has shown.
Edit: I’m keeping that typo lol
Your typo took me way back. There was a game called “Wall Street Kid” for the NES where you could “invest” in companies in the stock market, with the hopes to make it big. Many of the companies in it were a play on words of real-world companies. Boeing’s was “Boing Boing”. Thanks for the nostalgia today, though I wish it would have arrived on a more optimistic post.
Yeah people in Russia are always just fallin’ out of windows too - silly people!
Removed by mod
go away moron
Boeing is an important part of our military industrial base and thus an important part of the broader structure of US power.
That’s why they’re allowed to kill whistleblowers without repercussion.
Holy shit they did it again FUCK
Well at least the quality control in their bio-weaponry division is still there.
I, for one, will make sure I never step foot in a Boeing commercial airplane, and I will tell the tale about how Boeing kills whistle blowers to my kid’s kid’s kids
Hopefully you’ll never be asked to fly for work then.
Y’know there’s actually myriad industries that completely lack compulsory air travel, believe it or not.
And?
died after a sudden illness
How sudden? ~900ft/s or so?
Boeing is run by an actual psycho.
Apart of that definition being outdated: Which major CEO isn’t? It’s more like a basic requirement for the job :-(
Capitalism rewards psychopathy
It rewards the whole dark triad of personality traits. And it sickens me to the core.
Modern commercial success requires that one thinks of people as things. Things that produce labour or things that produce revenue.
The easier it is for one to think of people as things the better executive one makes.
Naturally thinking of people as things is psychopathy
What a truly odd “coincidence” huh
Wtf
wow
