• WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

      • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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

    • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

  • aksdb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • Shadow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.”

    • the_weez@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        Pneumonia isn’t.

        The guy just got pneumonia and then caught a secondary. This happens all the time.

    • warmaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

      • AlexanderESmith@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t care who it is, they give the information, then authorities verify it. If it comes up verified, there you go.

        • Mountaineer@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • AlexanderESmith@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

          • AlexanderESmith@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            8 months ago

            Then it still doesn’t matter. If an identified source gives information that isn’t verifiable, it’s still not actionable.

          • orcrist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

          • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            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 ;)

      • PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        This isn’t an allegation floating in the ether. Specific allegations can be investigated, usually pretty objectively.

      • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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.

        • warmaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            How? I’m literally arguing that anonymous whistleblowers aren’t inherently untrustworthy. That’s the OPPOSITE of what corporate shills keep saying!

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

      • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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?

      • 𝚝𝚛𝚔@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Downvotes to an honest question. I should take a break from internet.

        Complaining about internet numbers? That’s a downvote.

        • warmaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • Lumisal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Honestly, not that hard.

        Easier than building a new modern airplane, as Boing Boing has shown.

        Edit: I’m keeping that typo lol

        • wildncrazyguy@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Kid

      • poo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah people in Russia are always just fallin’ out of windows too - silly people!

  • Hegar@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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

    • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 months ago

      Apart of that definition being outdated: Which major CEO isn’t? It’s more like a basic requirement for the job :-(

    • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      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