@Pezevenk @TheOneTrueChapo and @ClimateChangeAnxiety

:chavez-salute:

every time I see anti-vaxx shit posted here at least one of you is already in the comments, fighting the good fight.

@admins please reconsider chapo's site-wide tolerance of anti-vaxx/vaccine-skeptical/vaccine-hesitant rhetoric

  • KiaKaha [he/him]
    3·
    4 years ago

    This article seems to raise significant issues with the Pfizer vaccine.

    Conspiracy theories are often distortions of reality. Much like how antisemitism is a distortion of the genuine problems people have with banks and capital, antivaxx is a distortion of the genuine problems people have with the intersection of capitalism and the pharmaceutical industry.

    We can critique capital without being antisemitic. We can critique pharmaceuticals without being antivaxxers or anti-science.

    • AlfredNobel [comrade/them,any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      It's a long article but quickly goes bad when the exclusion criteria which is complained about as hard to find is within the linked protocol document of the supplementary material section. Which is exactly where you would expect it to be. How none of them knew this is worrying.

      • Sphere [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Someone in the NakedCapitalism comments section mentioned it. I also found the exclusion criteria on Pfizer's website, as I said in my previous comment about the article.

        • AlfredNobel [comrade/them,any]
          ·
          4 years ago

          It speaks to a level of unfamiliarity with scientific literature that I would not expect from an IM with 30 years experience. But maybe they just held the worst journal club of all time.

      • Pezevenk [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Yeah, well, I literally just googled "Pfizer exclusion criteria" and I found the protocol document immediately. Which immediately raised a question mark. I have to say that I did find some interesting criticisms but I think it was kind of hyperbolic overall.