4 ms·

> Why is it so hard to believe that pharmaceutical companies would behave differently? It's very easy to believe that pharmaceutical companies employ scientist

> Why is it so hard to believe that pharmaceutical companies would behave differently? It's very easy to believe that pharmaceutical companies employ scientists to disclaim danger. But that fact alone doesn't mean that pharmaceuticals are dangerous. We use research and evidence to make decisions about how dangerous a given product is, and we weight that against its benefits. The same is true for any industry. I would add to your list of examples cars and social media. You will note that we continue to use cars, despite the fact that a world without cars would be safer.

pseudoscienflst 1y ago
Yeah, there are countless examples. And I wouldn't say we should get rid of cars (just as I'm not saying we need to get rid of vaccines). I'm amazed at the bristling when the possibility that vaccines are dangerous is brought up. As it relates to your car analogy - can you imagine someone reacting similarly to the claim that cars are dangerous, car manufacturers know this and downplay it, and they could possibly be made safer?
- wat10000 1y ago
  Why are you amazed at the bristling? Vaccines are literally the most lifesaving medical intervention ever created. They’re second only to sewers for most lifesaving invention of any kind. They’re extensively studied and extremely safe overall, with a few outliers quickly detected and resolved. Despite this, we are faced with this incredible resistance to them. People want to take this stuff away from us. This would kill millions. There is no legitimate reason to bring up the possibility that vaccines are dangerous anymore. Anyone who does so is either ignorant or malicious. Either way, doing your helps the people who would kill millions if they got their way. Is it really a surprise that people bristle when you take the side of megadeaths?
  - nomolimit 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - wat10000 1y ago
      “Inquiry” is not this “gosh just asking questions” bullshit you’re doing. If you want to go out and actually add to the body of human knowledge by doing yet another study or vaccine safety, then by all means, go for it. But dropping into online conversations to say “I can’t believe you idiots trust Big Pharma” isn’t inquiry.
      - keepgettingban 1y ago
        > “Inquiry” is not this “gosh just asking questions” bullshit you’re doing. If you want to go out and actually add to the body of human knowledge by doing yet another study or vaccine safety, then by all means, go for it. But dropping into online conversations to say “I can’t believe you idiots trust Big Pharma” isn’t inquiry. This is where you're confused. I'm not here making some big claims, adding to the body of human knowledge about how vaccines are actually bad. I've mentioned many times that I think vaccines are a net positive, and don't want them discontinued. I myself am 3x vaccinated against covid (all mRNA), and will continue to get vaccinated in the future. By simply mentioning skepticism in pharmaceutical companies' claims that vaccines are safe, even though we all acknowledge the dire financial incentives by which they propagate such claims, I have induced zealous attacks rivaled only by the most fundamentalist theologians. I guess I have answered my own initial question (flagged into a memory hole) - people have adopted these beliefs in the same way that others adopt religion, and any attack on the belief is interpreted as a personal attack. The amount of ad hominems levied against me on this post here are incredible - childish, bad faith, burner account, and so on. I remain curious and intellectually honest, I don't fault you or anyone else for their beliefs - only the way you treat others when they dare question them.
        wat10000 1y ago
        I didn’t say you’re making big claims. You’re doing the “just asking questions” schtick. And you’re acting surprised that people realize what you’re doing. “By simply mentioning skepticism” in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, you are supporting people who want to get millions killed. You don’t have to believe Big Pharma. There’s plenty of independent evidence that vaccines are safe.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > I'm amazed at the bristling when the possibility that vaccines are dangerous is brought up. How do you think people should respond when presented with opposition to widely used, safe, effective, life-saving medications, when that opposition is completely unfounded on evidence? "Bristling" seem an appropriate response. People would probably respond similarly if you proposed, say, to ban plumbing systems.
  - keepgettingban 1y ago
    > People would probably respond similarly if you proposed, say, to ban plumbing systems. Beautiful strawman, bravo.
    - hackyhacky 1y ago
      Nice job avoiding responding to the point of my comment, bravo. Fyi, that's not a strawman. A strawman fallacy is when I refute an argument that you didn't make. The line you responded to is an analogy.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  I don't believe you. You seem like an intelligent person, so I'm sure you are well aware of how there are multiple independent testing regimes around the world, decades of data and so on. Funny how it's always new accounts coming along with postures of extreme worldly wisdom about corporate malfeasance or misaligned incentives, but displaying complete cluelessness about the manifold institutional responses and copious public health statistics that are equally relevant. Why should I take you seriously when you only apply your critical faculties to one side of the picture and studiously ignore the other half?

pseudoscienflst 1y ago

Yeah, there are countless examples. And I wouldn't say we should get rid of cars (just as I'm not saying we need to get rid of vaccines). I'm amazed at the bristling when the possibility that vaccines are dangerous is brought up. As it relates to your car analogy - can you imagine someone reacting similarly to the claim that cars are dangerous, car manufacturers know this and downplay it, and they could possibly be made safer?

wat10000 1y ago
Why are you amazed at the bristling? Vaccines are literally the most lifesaving medical intervention ever created. They’re second only to sewers for most lifesaving invention of any kind. They’re extensively studied and extremely safe overall, with a few outliers quickly detected and resolved. Despite this, we are faced with this incredible resistance to them. People want to take this stuff away from us. This would kill millions. There is no legitimate reason to bring up the possibility that vaccines are dangerous anymore. Anyone who does so is either ignorant or malicious. Either way, doing your helps the people who would kill millions if they got their way. Is it really a surprise that people bristle when you take the side of megadeaths?
- nomolimit 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - wat10000 1y ago
    “Inquiry” is not this “gosh just asking questions” bullshit you’re doing. If you want to go out and actually add to the body of human knowledge by doing yet another study or vaccine safety, then by all means, go for it. But dropping into online conversations to say “I can’t believe you idiots trust Big Pharma” isn’t inquiry.
    - keepgettingban 1y ago
      > “Inquiry” is not this “gosh just asking questions” bullshit you’re doing. If you want to go out and actually add to the body of human knowledge by doing yet another study or vaccine safety, then by all means, go for it. But dropping into online conversations to say “I can’t believe you idiots trust Big Pharma” isn’t inquiry. This is where you're confused. I'm not here making some big claims, adding to the body of human knowledge about how vaccines are actually bad. I've mentioned many times that I think vaccines are a net positive, and don't want them discontinued. I myself am 3x vaccinated against covid (all mRNA), and will continue to get vaccinated in the future. By simply mentioning skepticism in pharmaceutical companies' claims that vaccines are safe, even though we all acknowledge the dire financial incentives by which they propagate such claims, I have induced zealous attacks rivaled only by the most fundamentalist theologians. I guess I have answered my own initial question (flagged into a memory hole) - people have adopted these beliefs in the same way that others adopt religion, and any attack on the belief is interpreted as a personal attack. The amount of ad hominems levied against me on this post here are incredible - childish, bad faith, burner account, and so on. I remain curious and intellectually honest, I don't fault you or anyone else for their beliefs - only the way you treat others when they dare question them.
      - wat10000 1y ago
        I didn’t say you’re making big claims. You’re doing the “just asking questions” schtick. And you’re acting surprised that people realize what you’re doing. “By simply mentioning skepticism” in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, you are supporting people who want to get millions killed. You don’t have to believe Big Pharma. There’s plenty of independent evidence that vaccines are safe.
hackyhacky 1y ago
> I'm amazed at the bristling when the possibility that vaccines are dangerous is brought up. How do you think people should respond when presented with opposition to widely used, safe, effective, life-saving medications, when that opposition is completely unfounded on evidence? "Bristling" seem an appropriate response. People would probably respond similarly if you proposed, say, to ban plumbing systems.
- keepgettingban 1y ago
  > People would probably respond similarly if you proposed, say, to ban plumbing systems. Beautiful strawman, bravo.
  - hackyhacky 1y ago
    Nice job avoiding responding to the point of my comment, bravo. Fyi, that's not a strawman. A strawman fallacy is when I refute an argument that you didn't make. The line you responded to is an analogy.
anigbrowl 1y ago
I don't believe you. You seem like an intelligent person, so I'm sure you are well aware of how there are multiple independent testing regimes around the world, decades of data and so on. Funny how it's always new accounts coming along with postures of extreme worldly wisdom about corporate malfeasance or misaligned incentives, but displaying complete cluelessness about the manifold institutional responses and copious public health statistics that are equally relevant. Why should I take you seriously when you only apply your critical faculties to one side of the picture and studiously ignore the other half?