6 ms·

So you're saying no company ever should undertake any promotion of the benefits of their products? The advertising industry wants a word with you!

by altacc 5y ago

silent_cal 5y ago
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make - it's just advertising, and you're all acting like it's an announcement from a public health authority.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >you're all acting like it's an announcement from a public health authority. I think people are "acting like" it's scientific data about a vaccine of interest to the public. Are you suggesting the data is unreliable or falsified? If so, and you have a basis for that, please cite. Otherwise, it's difficult to understand why you're implying people shouldn't be interested in this information.
  - silent_cal 5y ago
    Yes, it's unreliable because the publisher has a massive conflict of interest. Or did you not know that Pfizer makes money when people use its shots?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  TBH, this feels like a libertarian mindset of "Everyone will try to lie and cheat you!". Why should they lie? If their data had something different to their press release, lying and then getting caught (e.g. by a whistleblower) would damage their reputation. If their data shows it's bad, as responsible scientists why shouldn't they come out with the truth to protect the general public, and say "We'll continue work on the Omicron-specific vaccine.". Unless you think their main motive is to boost their stock price in the short term. That kind of thinking should be reserved for people dealing with the blockhain-ponzi schemes.
  - ccn0p 5y ago
    Given the amount spent on lobbying [1], the Pharmaceutical industries track record of deceptive tactics [2], and the profits they have made and stand to make [3], it's not unreasonable to question the underlying motives, intentions, and biases of stuff like this. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2020&id=H04 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summ... [2] https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/04/06/meet-the-40-new-billionaires-who-got-rich-fighting-covid-19/?sh=19fd9b6417e5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/04/06/meet-...
  - Gwarzo 5y ago
    Phizer is immune to bad reputation and they know it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical... Phizer holds single largest criminal fine in human history at 1.3$ Billion USD (to my knowledge). They have many reasons to lie; while I'm not suggesting they are (I have no idea how I would determine truth from falsehood in the realm of scientific information) it's quite ignorant to make the statement "Why would they lie". They would lie because it's something innate to humans and Phizer is no exception. They stand to make ludicrous amounts of money if boosters become mandated - now boosters may ultimately be the best option for the protection of human life! But this doesn't mean we shouldn't be incredibly skeptical of every word that comes from this organization. While I am fully vaccinated (ironically with 2x Phizer), I am and will remain hesitant at accepting information provided by pharmaceutical companies at face value until the day I'm dead.
  - chronofar 5y ago
    "Lie" is the wrong term. "Mislead" or "misrepresent" would be the more appropriate way to phrase it. On a topic as politicized as this with as little scientific literacy as the general public has you don't think they'd have anything to gain by fudging things a bit in their favor (ignoring a confounding variable here, drawing a misleading conclusion there) to distribute more shots? And you think it would just be clear cut that the general public would be able to discern such mistakes over the long term and hold them accountable? And you don't think companies often take measures just to boost their short term earnings/stock price even if it has obvious long-term deleterious effects? I'd say these viewpoints would be naive in the extreme. Not to say they did commit any such errors here. Perhaps all such studies conducted by Pfizer are truly earnest and valid/replicable, I certainly hope they are. But it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of an organization publishing new science when that organization stands to profit greatly from the results. You may call that libertarian (though I'm frankly not sure how), I'd call it just due diligence.
salawat 5y ago
The advertising industry wants a word with everyone, because that's what advertisers exist to do. Getting people to pay attention to what people are willing to pay them to signal boost. Whether or not that's better off for the person on the receiving end is often entirely orthogonal to the entire arrangement. See: The Tobacco Industry The Dairy Industry pre-FDA The Sugar Industry The Media Industry Some corners of the Supplement industry Also see: Lobbying and Psychological anchoring You, in fact, picked the absolute group of people to prove the virtue of taking someone at their word. Go look for the old Thalidomide adverts, then go read the rest of the history of it. Point being: always consider the source, and incentives. There is always an angle.
podgaj 5y ago
The vaccine is just a product? Like a pair of Nike's? Are you kidding me? I wonder how many phishing emails you fall for every month... We have (some) laws regulating what advertisers can say. Putting out a press releases like this is, in effect, an advertisement. It sways public opinion and will effect their profits. And did you know the US is the only country where it is legal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise their medications to the public? And did you know the pharmaceutical companies are the main source of revenue for the FDA, the agency that approves their drugs?

So you're saying no company ever should undertake any promotion of the benefits of their products? The advertising industry wants a word with you!

by altacc 5y ago

So you're saying no company ever should undertake any promotion of the benefits of their products? The advertising industry wants a word with you!

silent_cal 5y ago

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make - it's just advertising, and you're all acting like it's an announcement from a public health authority.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>you're all acting like it's an announcement from a public health authority. I think people are "acting like" it's scientific data about a vaccine of interest to the public. Are you suggesting the data is unreliable or falsified? If so, and you have a basis for that, please cite. Otherwise, it's difficult to understand why you're implying people shouldn't be interested in this information.
- silent_cal 5y ago
  Yes, it's unreliable because the publisher has a massive conflict of interest. Or did you not know that Pfizer makes money when people use its shots?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
bellyfullofbac 5y ago
TBH, this feels like a libertarian mindset of "Everyone will try to lie and cheat you!". Why should they lie? If their data had something different to their press release, lying and then getting caught (e.g. by a whistleblower) would damage their reputation. If their data shows it's bad, as responsible scientists why shouldn't they come out with the truth to protect the general public, and say "We'll continue work on the Omicron-specific vaccine.". Unless you think their main motive is to boost their stock price in the short term. That kind of thinking should be reserved for people dealing with the blockhain-ponzi schemes.
- ccn0p 5y ago
  Given the amount spent on lobbying [1], the Pharmaceutical industries track record of deceptive tactics [2], and the profits they have made and stand to make [3], it's not unreasonable to question the underlying motives, intentions, and biases of stuff like this. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2020&id=H04 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summ... [2] https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/04/06/meet-the-40-new-billionaires-who-got-rich-fighting-covid-19/?sh=19fd9b6417e5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/04/06/meet-...
- Gwarzo 5y ago
  Phizer is immune to bad reputation and they know it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical... Phizer holds single largest criminal fine in human history at 1.3$ Billion USD (to my knowledge). They have many reasons to lie; while I'm not suggesting they are (I have no idea how I would determine truth from falsehood in the realm of scientific information) it's quite ignorant to make the statement "Why would they lie". They would lie because it's something innate to humans and Phizer is no exception. They stand to make ludicrous amounts of money if boosters become mandated - now boosters may ultimately be the best option for the protection of human life! But this doesn't mean we shouldn't be incredibly skeptical of every word that comes from this organization. While I am fully vaccinated (ironically with 2x Phizer), I am and will remain hesitant at accepting information provided by pharmaceutical companies at face value until the day I'm dead.
- chronofar 5y ago
  "Lie" is the wrong term. "Mislead" or "misrepresent" would be the more appropriate way to phrase it. On a topic as politicized as this with as little scientific literacy as the general public has you don't think they'd have anything to gain by fudging things a bit in their favor (ignoring a confounding variable here, drawing a misleading conclusion there) to distribute more shots? And you think it would just be clear cut that the general public would be able to discern such mistakes over the long term and hold them accountable? And you don't think companies often take measures just to boost their short term earnings/stock price even if it has obvious long-term deleterious effects? I'd say these viewpoints would be naive in the extreme. Not to say they did commit any such errors here. Perhaps all such studies conducted by Pfizer are truly earnest and valid/replicable, I certainly hope they are. But it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of an organization publishing new science when that organization stands to profit greatly from the results. You may call that libertarian (though I'm frankly not sure how), I'd call it just due diligence.

salawat 5y ago

The advertising industry wants a word with everyone, because that's what advertisers exist to do. Getting people to pay attention to what people are willing to pay them to signal boost. Whether or not that's better off for the person on the receiving end is often entirely orthogonal to the entire arrangement. See: The Tobacco Industry The Dairy Industry pre-FDA The Sugar Industry The Media Industry Some corners of the Supplement industry Also see: Lobbying and Psychological anchoring You, in fact, picked the absolute group of people to prove the virtue of taking someone at their word. Go look for the old Thalidomide adverts, then go read the rest of the history of it. Point being: always consider the source, and incentives. There is always an angle.

podgaj 5y ago

The vaccine is just a product? Like a pair of Nike's? Are you kidding me? I wonder how many phishing emails you fall for every month... We have (some) laws regulating what advertisers can say. Putting out a press releases like this is, in effect, an advertisement. It sways public opinion and will effect their profits. And did you know the US is the only country where it is legal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise their medications to the public? And did you know the pharmaceutical companies are the main source of revenue for the FDA, the agency that approves their drugs?