⚡💉 NEW - Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has a public meltdown at the World Economic Forum over growing numbers of people refusing vaccines, calling it a “new religion.”
He says he’s deeply concerned and frustrated, blasting what he describes as religion-driven, anti-science rhetoric. https://blossom.primal.net/ef07ac38523ae7a8185874d96ec0047ffa10f46dd41566803b337d08bf958a8c.mp4
Translated: Declining authoritarian religion of vaccination is concerned with growing religion of peaceful “leave me alone” unvaccinated. (Of which supposedly the vaccinated should have no concern with)
These are the people who refuse to make anything until they have guaranteed complete immunity from prosecution for harms caused by their product.
Also their science is wank, they just wank each other off and call it science, it's laughable.
It is called do your own research 🧐
Weird how people don't trust you, after you take advantage of their trust.
And give them turbo cancer.
He can GFY
Can they qualify anti science? Because "trust the people who say what science is to conduct science properly" is antithetical to the scientific method. The scientific method should be used to validate all research. To examine and criticize existing work and conclusions, learn how one can validate it, or at least move the validation to someone who is trustworthy to the individuals directly impacted by research & medicine. nostr:nprofile1qqspxw8hwq2356rcjcwe5vt3rmlpsdveq49ptkfncfu8vgu7sznlqxcpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7hvzeku nostr:nprofile1qqs06hur0durup4gswajdrter25f5zhd7vpf9xnu34k8znh877mzngspzamhxue69uhhxetpwf3kstnwdaejuar0v3shjtccw5l99
Right, the scientific method is a tool used to examine truth in a way that can be replicated. Findings may or may not be generalizable to a particular group or individual. It’s an approximation of truth where probabilities weight in certain direction of association but there are often many contextual and confounding variables that need to be considered when interpreting the outcomes of a scientific study.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124&type=printable
This is a brilliant paper that highlights some major downfalls of empirical research today. Building on the discussion of this paper what is also needed is wider discourse of the meaning of the findings of studies. For example, how can peer-view happen in a more transparent way? How can various stakeholder groups, researchers and the public etc. discuss research findings more objectively?
Wait until he hears about Bitcoin.
The cult of risk math.
Relative risk or....
I’m not sure I understand the question well enough to answer appropriately. When I made the call I didn’t really have good information on outcomes in those that got the jab vs those that did not. So in a strict statistical sense, no. For me it was simply that I was not in a vulnerable demographic so a less than 1% chance of death vs unquantifiable risk associated with medical intervention for which there is no long term data. To me, the math said I should take my chances. I still don’t fault those that saw the equation differently.
I flat out don’t trust the science they publish and they suppress those who challenge them.
How dare you defy our science-bishops, you pup!
one would not distrust vaccines if they had not been turned into black boxes of which one does not realize what they are doing until the effects arrive.
As soon as I saw the post I'm here for the comment section
Death penalty for this guy please.
This is not a meltdown. Your content is too good to rely on clickbait titles cmon
