5 ms·

The same people who wouldn't be charitable with, say, Exxon, are bending over backwards to defend global pharmaceuticals. Exxon has an interest in minimizing (

The same people who wouldn't be charitable with, say, Exxon, are bending over backwards to defend global pharmaceuticals. Exxon has an interest in minimizing (disregarding) the harmful effects of their products and same goes for Pfizer & friends who's got every govt funneling money to them seemingly without limit.

sn0w_crash 4y ago
Remember Exxon has duped those same people into thinking they are a “good” company They rank higher than Tesla on ESG ratings. Yes, Exxon.
- taolegal 4y ago
mberning 4y ago
It’s incredible how they managed to rehab their image almost overnight. Anybody remember the bextra scandal? Yeah, these are the same corrupt corporations.
- lispisok 4y ago
  We went from finding out pharma companies exploded the opiate epidemic to people getting tattoos of the brand of covid vaccine they got in a few years. Just because pharma companies make some useful products does not make them good actors. Of course Pfizer is going to say everybody needs another covid booster shot. Every time they convince people they need another it's billions in revenue.
  - 2-718-281-828 4y ago
    do you have a link? google just leads to stuff about how long to wait with a tattoo after vaccination.
    - InvaderFizz 4y ago
      Searching booster tattoo on Twitter has a few hits. But I think they are all photoshop.
    - incrudible 4y ago
      https://twitter.com/senadaruc/status/1398599697934303232 https://twitter.com/senadaruc/status/1398599697934303232
- busymom0 4y ago
  Not just bextra. The asbestos in baby powder and opioids scandal is still ongoing too.
- lob_it 4y ago
wwweston 4y ago
At a first approximation, everybody is charitable with Exxon, as demonstrated by continued popular uptake of their products across at least two spectra of political beliefs. Some may also embrace critical beliefs about exactly how much oversight/restraint Exxon should have and/or what forms of public support alternatives should receive, but it's about as rare or rarer to have Exxon's products treated with the suspicion that vaccinations are more dangerous than the diseases they treat.
xracy 4y ago
Nah, Pfizer is a terrible company. Pharmaceutical companies can rot in hell. But that doesn't change the fact that vaccines save lives. It's not that I am bending over backwards to defend Pharma. It's that people are bending over backwards to find shitty things in the silver linings of these companies, instead of just complaining about the thunderclouds themselves like the rest of us. Corporations are big. Companies can be capable of doing shitty things and good things at the same time. If you wanna complain about Opioids, I'm happy to have a conversation about how terrible pharma is.
- akira2501 4y ago
  > It's that people are bending over backwards to find shitty things in the silver linings of these companies, instead of just complaining about the thunderclouds themselves like the rest of us. I'm sorry.. but wasn't it the US Government make significant investments in both companies producing this therapy? Wasn't the the US Military that drove much of the initial interest into mRNA therapies in the first place? Why do we continue to consider these companies as anything other than conduits of government research and funding? When then is it a surprise when these companies don't recognize this that people become offended?
  - xracy 4y ago
    If I'm reading your response correctly you're basically saying "The silver lining that you're talking about wasn't even initiated by these companies, but instead a function of gov't interest/investment." That sounds about right. I could believe that the only good thing to come out of these companies is the result of the Gov't makes them do things for the people. Profit is not a good motive for a company investing in making people healthy.
- drcross 4y ago
  >But that doesn't change the fact that vaccines save lives. Yeah, all fine and good when you have informed consent. I took my life in my own hands by not getting vaccinated for covid after I looked at the mortality age graph, and knew I was fit and healthy and didn't need to worry. Society at large, however, castigated me, threw me in the same box as a conspiracy theorist, denied me my rights. People acted goddamn stupidly about this subject. I'm angry about this and I won't forgive and I won't forget.
mertd 4y ago
Oil consumption creates negative externalities for everyone. Mass vaccination creates positive externalities. It's not that hard.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  Does oil consumption not have any positive externalities? Have mass vaccinations never had a negative externality? Remember, the first world is not the entirety of humanity before answering.
matrix_overload 4y ago
Because the Big Pharma played the centuries-old trick from a conqueror's handbook: give your vassals a tiny bit of power over their peers, while pillaging the land for profit. So the activists now enjoy the newly given power to bash, shame and deplatform anyone who could be labeled as "antivaxxers", while predictably turning a blind eye towards the hand that gave them that power.
- ccn0p 4y ago
  For multiple years now I've been trying to figure out how the magic trick worked, and I think you just nailed it.
- taolegal 4y ago
  There's a control aspect, but I think the labels are just standard totalitarianism. That maybe 30%~40% of the population (hopefully not more) don't have a spine & just conform to anything in the hopes of social reward. So labelling is just a way to say "I'm not a bad person" when in fact the people who just blindly conform end up solidifying the worst trends in society. It's scapegoating.
  - sfusato 4y ago
    Check out "Asch conformity experiments" [0]. The idea is that if you can make it look (make believe, basically) that the majority swings in a certain direction, a large chunk of the population will simply follow EVEN IF they think otherwise. Mattias Desmet goes deeper into this in his "The Psychology of Totalitarianism" [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09WYYMR2H https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09WYYMR2H
snowwrestler 4y ago
The mRNA vaccines were developed by BioNTech and Moderna, two small and relatively new companies specializing in that technology. BioNTech chose to partner with Pfizer to scale their vaccine production. This may have had some positive impact on the Pfizer brand. In contrast, Moderna chose to take investment and scale their own production. In either case, people are taking the vaccines because of the physical benefits the vaccines provide, not because of how they feel about the corporate history of the companies producing them.
- coolhand2120 4y ago
  > In either case, people are taking the vaccines because of the physical benefits the vaccines provide, not because of how they feel about the corporate history of the companies producing them. I'm sure there's a cohort of people that fit your description, but a whole lot of people took it because they were forced to. I think at this point it's safe to say that some others took it willingly but were lied to and told it would make others safe when that was never tested before it was repeated thousands of times, and turns out to be completely false. In all of these cases however it was not informed consent.

sn0w_crash 4y ago

Remember Exxon has duped those same people into thinking they are a “good” company They rank higher than Tesla on ESG ratings. Yes, Exxon.

taolegal 4y ago

mberning 4y ago

It’s incredible how they managed to rehab their image almost overnight. Anybody remember the bextra scandal? Yeah, these are the same corrupt corporations.

lispisok 4y ago
We went from finding out pharma companies exploded the opiate epidemic to people getting tattoos of the brand of covid vaccine they got in a few years. Just because pharma companies make some useful products does not make them good actors. Of course Pfizer is going to say everybody needs another covid booster shot. Every time they convince people they need another it's billions in revenue.
- 2-718-281-828 4y ago
  do you have a link? google just leads to stuff about how long to wait with a tattoo after vaccination.
  - InvaderFizz 4y ago
    Searching booster tattoo on Twitter has a few hits. But I think they are all photoshop.
  - incrudible 4y ago
    https://twitter.com/senadaruc/status/1398599697934303232 https://twitter.com/senadaruc/status/1398599697934303232
busymom0 4y ago
Not just bextra. The asbestos in baby powder and opioids scandal is still ongoing too.
lob_it 4y ago

wwweston 4y ago

At a first approximation, everybody is charitable with Exxon, as demonstrated by continued popular uptake of their products across at least two spectra of political beliefs. Some may also embrace critical beliefs about exactly how much oversight/restraint Exxon should have and/or what forms of public support alternatives should receive, but it's about as rare or rarer to have Exxon's products treated with the suspicion that vaccinations are more dangerous than the diseases they treat.

xracy 4y ago

Nah, Pfizer is a terrible company. Pharmaceutical companies can rot in hell. But that doesn't change the fact that vaccines save lives. It's not that I am bending over backwards to defend Pharma. It's that people are bending over backwards to find shitty things in the silver linings of these companies, instead of just complaining about the thunderclouds themselves like the rest of us. Corporations are big. Companies can be capable of doing shitty things and good things at the same time. If you wanna complain about Opioids, I'm happy to have a conversation about how terrible pharma is.

akira2501 4y ago
> It's that people are bending over backwards to find shitty things in the silver linings of these companies, instead of just complaining about the thunderclouds themselves like the rest of us. I'm sorry.. but wasn't it the US Government make significant investments in both companies producing this therapy? Wasn't the the US Military that drove much of the initial interest into mRNA therapies in the first place? Why do we continue to consider these companies as anything other than conduits of government research and funding? When then is it a surprise when these companies don't recognize this that people become offended?
- xracy 4y ago
  If I'm reading your response correctly you're basically saying "The silver lining that you're talking about wasn't even initiated by these companies, but instead a function of gov't interest/investment." That sounds about right. I could believe that the only good thing to come out of these companies is the result of the Gov't makes them do things for the people. Profit is not a good motive for a company investing in making people healthy.
drcross 4y ago
>But that doesn't change the fact that vaccines save lives. Yeah, all fine and good when you have informed consent. I took my life in my own hands by not getting vaccinated for covid after I looked at the mortality age graph, and knew I was fit and healthy and didn't need to worry. Society at large, however, castigated me, threw me in the same box as a conspiracy theorist, denied me my rights. People acted goddamn stupidly about this subject. I'm angry about this and I won't forgive and I won't forget.

mertd 4y ago

Oil consumption creates negative externalities for everyone. Mass vaccination creates positive externalities. It's not that hard.

Mountain_Skies 4y ago
Does oil consumption not have any positive externalities? Have mass vaccinations never had a negative externality? Remember, the first world is not the entirety of humanity before answering.

matrix_overload 4y ago

Because the Big Pharma played the centuries-old trick from a conqueror's handbook: give your vassals a tiny bit of power over their peers, while pillaging the land for profit. So the activists now enjoy the newly given power to bash, shame and deplatform anyone who could be labeled as "antivaxxers", while predictably turning a blind eye towards the hand that gave them that power.

ccn0p 4y ago
For multiple years now I've been trying to figure out how the magic trick worked, and I think you just nailed it.
taolegal 4y ago
There's a control aspect, but I think the labels are just standard totalitarianism. That maybe 30%~40% of the population (hopefully not more) don't have a spine & just conform to anything in the hopes of social reward. So labelling is just a way to say "I'm not a bad person" when in fact the people who just blindly conform end up solidifying the worst trends in society. It's scapegoating.
- sfusato 4y ago
  Check out "Asch conformity experiments" [0]. The idea is that if you can make it look (make believe, basically) that the majority swings in a certain direction, a large chunk of the population will simply follow EVEN IF they think otherwise. Mattias Desmet goes deeper into this in his "The Psychology of Totalitarianism" [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09WYYMR2H https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09WYYMR2H

snowwrestler 4y ago

The mRNA vaccines were developed by BioNTech and Moderna, two small and relatively new companies specializing in that technology. BioNTech chose to partner with Pfizer to scale their vaccine production. This may have had some positive impact on the Pfizer brand. In contrast, Moderna chose to take investment and scale their own production. In either case, people are taking the vaccines because of the physical benefits the vaccines provide, not because of how they feel about the corporate history of the companies producing them.

coolhand2120 4y ago
> In either case, people are taking the vaccines because of the physical benefits the vaccines provide, not because of how they feel about the corporate history of the companies producing them. I'm sure there's a cohort of people that fit your description, but a whole lot of people took it because they were forced to. I think at this point it's safe to say that some others took it willingly but were lied to and told it would make others safe when that was never tested before it was repeated thousands of times, and turns out to be completely false. In all of these cases however it was not informed consent.