4 ms·

Wait, a mysterious man showed up to an impactless meeting to basically embarrass the hell out of an aspiring undergrad research and your immediate reaction wasn

Wait, a mysterious man showed up to an impactless meeting to basically embarrass the hell out of an aspiring undergrad research and your immediate reaction wasn't "Oh shit, these people are probably trying to cover something up." Cause that's my immediate reaction, sounds similar to the cigarette industry in the 60s

Taywee 4y ago
I think that's a strong reaction. Corporate damage control and prevention of profit loss will look pretty much the same whether they're covering something up or just correcting the record. If there's a threat to profits, an industry and corporation will usually attempt to prevent or attack it regardless of any connection to the truth.
- mandmandam 4y ago
  > "just correcting the record" If that phrase isn't triggering your alarm bells, I don't know what to tell you... > "If there's a threat to profits, an industry and corporation will usually attempt to prevent or attack it regardless of any connection to the truth." Oh okay, you do get it lol. The thing is though, it doesn't have to be like this. We allow it to be at our own mortal peril, and that isn't even remotely hyperbole.
  - Taywee 4y ago
    "Correcting the record" isn't inherently malicious, and a company attacking something does not indicate a likely cover up. That reasoning is overly cynical and fallacious. I'm no fan of corporations or overlarge industries (and their respective lobbyists), but the way I see them is like large organisms. They are neither good nor evil, simply consumed by self-preservation and the drive to thrive.
    - walleeee 4y ago
      questions of good and evil aside, these sorts of organisms have subsumed human beings into a new composite apex predator paperclip maximizers are real, they're made of code and people
      - Taywee 4y ago
        I agree entirely, but it's not relevant to my point. Understanding the problems with an entity is completely different from assuming that every bad rumor about that entity is true, or taking the position that the entity can never actually be right. You can't fight problems from a position that doesn't consider things realistically. You just lump yourself in with all the other raving conspiracy theorists.
        walleeee 4y ago
        Fair, I don't think we disagree
      - BOOSTERHIDROGEN 4y ago
        paperclip maximizers?
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
> "Oh shit, these people are probably trying to cover something up." Was that also your reaction when Youtube shut down anti-vax videos and videos promoting dangerous Covid "cures"? Sometimes, even if you know something is false, it is helpful to nip misinformation in the bud.
- _yid9 4y ago
  So, now that it’s been admitted that testing for immunological blocking response (ya know, “immunization”, the thing vaccines used to do) was NOT done by Pfizer, and testing for risk to human reproduction was NOT done at all — are you still glad that everyone shut down debate about risks? What else do you “know” is false or true, that even those who created the thing are unaware of? Your position seems to reflect an astonishing level of hubris, to me.
  - Taywee 4y ago
    They did test that the vaccine reduced risk of transmission and contraction of the disease, and testing for fertility didn't make sense anyway (and recent studies verify that it has no effect on fertility anyway) so I don't know why anybody who isn't grasping at straws would bring up anything of that sort in the first place. I am glad that they shut down foolish misinformation like that, which is only designed to mislead people into being anxious about nothing in an effort to spread FUD about vaccines.
    - taylorius 4y ago
      Although they have recently admitted that the vaccine does not, in fact, reduce the risk of transmission - which might call their testing into question, no?
    - _yid9 4y ago
      Bless you, but it's surreal to have such a discussion in a forum that purports to attract interesting discussion on technical topics. Perhaps you missed the Pfizer's admission to the EU parliament that they did no such testing. The fact that governments, researchers and medical professionals worldwide claimed they did test effectiveness against transmission (and thus claimed moral high-ground in forcing these prophylactic treatments which do not include immunization), when in fact they did NOT test, will go down as one of the most catastrophic blunders in the history of public medicine. Trust in public medicine programs -- and, tragically, public vaccination programs in particular, has been destroyed, perhaps for generations. And it is due, in no small part, to catastrophic hubris such as revealed here. FUD about vaccines is now rampant because the extreme testing, care and attention they usually undergo was short-circuited. The resultant outcome of unnecessary carnage will be squarely on the shoulders of those responsible for this outrageous lack of scientific humility.

Taywee 4y ago

I think that's a strong reaction. Corporate damage control and prevention of profit loss will look pretty much the same whether they're covering something up or just correcting the record. If there's a threat to profits, an industry and corporation will usually attempt to prevent or attack it regardless of any connection to the truth.

mandmandam 4y ago
> "just correcting the record" If that phrase isn't triggering your alarm bells, I don't know what to tell you... > "If there's a threat to profits, an industry and corporation will usually attempt to prevent or attack it regardless of any connection to the truth." Oh okay, you do get it lol. The thing is though, it doesn't have to be like this. We allow it to be at our own mortal peril, and that isn't even remotely hyperbole.
- Taywee 4y ago
  "Correcting the record" isn't inherently malicious, and a company attacking something does not indicate a likely cover up. That reasoning is overly cynical and fallacious. I'm no fan of corporations or overlarge industries (and their respective lobbyists), but the way I see them is like large organisms. They are neither good nor evil, simply consumed by self-preservation and the drive to thrive.
  - walleeee 4y ago
    questions of good and evil aside, these sorts of organisms have subsumed human beings into a new composite apex predator paperclip maximizers are real, they're made of code and people
    - Taywee 4y ago
      I agree entirely, but it's not relevant to my point. Understanding the problems with an entity is completely different from assuming that every bad rumor about that entity is true, or taking the position that the entity can never actually be right. You can't fight problems from a position that doesn't consider things realistically. You just lump yourself in with all the other raving conspiracy theorists.
      - walleeee 4y ago
        Fair, I don't think we disagree
    - BOOSTERHIDROGEN 4y ago
      paperclip maximizers?

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

> "Oh shit, these people are probably trying to cover something up." Was that also your reaction when Youtube shut down anti-vax videos and videos promoting dangerous Covid "cures"? Sometimes, even if you know something is false, it is helpful to nip misinformation in the bud.

_yid9 4y ago
So, now that it’s been admitted that testing for immunological blocking response (ya know, “immunization”, the thing vaccines used to do) was NOT done by Pfizer, and testing for risk to human reproduction was NOT done at all — are you still glad that everyone shut down debate about risks? What else do you “know” is false or true, that even those who created the thing are unaware of? Your position seems to reflect an astonishing level of hubris, to me.
- Taywee 4y ago
  They did test that the vaccine reduced risk of transmission and contraction of the disease, and testing for fertility didn't make sense anyway (and recent studies verify that it has no effect on fertility anyway) so I don't know why anybody who isn't grasping at straws would bring up anything of that sort in the first place. I am glad that they shut down foolish misinformation like that, which is only designed to mislead people into being anxious about nothing in an effort to spread FUD about vaccines.
  - taylorius 4y ago
    Although they have recently admitted that the vaccine does not, in fact, reduce the risk of transmission - which might call their testing into question, no?
  - _yid9 4y ago
    Bless you, but it's surreal to have such a discussion in a forum that purports to attract interesting discussion on technical topics. Perhaps you missed the Pfizer's admission to the EU parliament that they did no such testing. The fact that governments, researchers and medical professionals worldwide claimed they did test effectiveness against transmission (and thus claimed moral high-ground in forcing these prophylactic treatments which do not include immunization), when in fact they did NOT test, will go down as one of the most catastrophic blunders in the history of public medicine. Trust in public medicine programs -- and, tragically, public vaccination programs in particular, has been destroyed, perhaps for generations. And it is due, in no small part, to catastrophic hubris such as revealed here. FUD about vaccines is now rampant because the extreme testing, care and attention they usually undergo was short-circuited. The resultant outcome of unnecessary carnage will be squarely on the shoulders of those responsible for this outrageous lack of scientific humility.