FLASH's avatar
FLASH flash@primal.net 1 month ago
⚡💉 NEW - Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has a public meltdown at the World Economic Forum over growing numbers of people refusing vaccines, calling it a “new religion.” He says he’s deeply concerned and frustrated, blasting what he describes as religion-driven, anti-science rhetoric.

Replies (28)

Default avatar
G Force G 1 month ago
Says the man who wouldn't take his own vaccine.
bitbuybyte's avatar
bitbuybyte bbb@primal.net 1 month ago
Translated: Declining authoritarian religion of vaccination is concerned with growing religion of peaceful “leave me alone” unvaccinated. (Of which supposedly the vaccinated should have no concern with)
Séimí Mac Síomón's avatar
Séimí Mac Síomón seimi@nostrplebs.com 1 month ago
These are the people who refuse to make anything until they have guaranteed complete immunity from prosecution for harms caused by their product. Also their science is wank, they just wank each other off and call it science, it's laughable.
liminal 🦠's avatar
liminal 🦠 liminal@gitcitadel.com 1 month ago
Can they qualify anti science? Because "trust the people who say what science is to conduct science properly" is antithetical to the scientific method. The scientific method should be used to validate all research. To examine and criticize existing work and conclusions, learn how one can validate it, or at least move the validation to someone who is trustworthy to the individuals directly impacted by research & medicine. @Emma @MedSchlr
1 replies ↓
frphank's avatar
frphank 1 month ago
Wait until he hears about Bitcoin.
Jamie's avatar
Jamie 1 month ago
I flat out don’t trust the science they publish and they suppress those who challenge them.
1 replies ↓
The_Crin's avatar
The_Crin Thecrin@satlantis.io 1 month ago
one would not distrust vaccines if they had not been turned into black boxes of which one does not realize what they are doing until the effects arrive.
MedSchlr's avatar
MedSchlr 1 month ago
Right, the scientific method is a tool used to examine truth in a way that can be replicated. Findings may or may not be generalizable to a particular group or individual. It’s an approximation of truth where probabilities weight in certain direction of association but there are often many contextual and confounding variables that need to be considered when interpreting the outcomes of a scientific study.
1 replies ↓
MedSchlr's avatar
MedSchlr 1 month ago
This is a brilliant paper that highlights some major downfalls of empirical research today. Building on the discussion of this paper what is also needed is wider discourse of the meaning of the findings of studies. For example, how can peer-view happen in a more transparent way? How can various stakeholder groups, researchers and the public etc. discuss research findings more objectively?
MediT's avatar
MediT 1 month ago
I’m not sure I understand the question well enough to answer appropriately. When I made the call I didn’t really have good information on outcomes in those that got the jab vs those that did not. So in a strict statistical sense, no. For me it was simply that I was not in a vulnerable demographic so a less than 1% chance of death vs unquantifiable risk associated with medical intervention for which there is no long term data. To me, the math said I should take my chances. I still don’t fault those that saw the equation differently.
↑