A reminder of how they started the marketing...

submitted by Orangutan from i.redd.it

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Causing deaths and injuries to so many people, even children. What punishment would they get in the US?

[–]turtlew0rk 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

this made me lol

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How do you punish a corporation?

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Drone strikes with Hellfire missiles

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The corporation is insured. Try again.

[–]L_X_A 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A few weeks ago I was discussing the merits of Canada's Freedom Convoy on r/TrueReddit, a sub which is supposed to be a place for measured, evidence-based discussion on Reddit (it is not; well, not anymore).

The discussion branched off into why the protestors were justified into being skeptical of statements issued by govt. health institutions. One of the top-voted comments said something along the lines of "Nobody ever said that vaccines were totally effective, and nobody ever said they were safe".

In my response, I linked to papers and news articles such as this saying that the vaccine was perfectly safe and effective. I was polite, respectful, and substantiated my point with evidence.

r/TrueReddit banned me 1h after I posted that comment. No reason given.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The discerning reader will catch two things. First, that "95% effective in preventing infections" is a phrase that we can not really make sense out of without definitions for "effective" and "preventing" and "infection" (and we know we need their definition for the latter because of the way "cases" has not pratical meaning for us). Secondly, these are claims made by corporations and as such are probably marketing claims and not really scientific claims. Additionally, what ever scientific claims these corporations are making, they are the first step in the scientific process and do not constitute any "Science" that is meant to be taken seriously until independent researchers can: dissect the claims, dissect the data and reasoning behind the claims, consider and offer alternative explanations for or critiques of the data, and independently verify any findings from what ever experiements were done. That's how science works. Pretending press releases or unsubstantiated claims are Sciencetm (a wholly owned subsidiary of corporations involved in technology) is what Gupta is doing because he's owned by NEWStm (a wholly owned subsidiary of who ever advertises on them Pfizer who advertises a whole lot on them).