Plenty of scientists and doctors have spoken up. They have been attacked and silenced.
No offense whatbogsends, I know you are an intelligent man with a good head on your shoulders, but this sounds like a conspiracy.
Upvote
0
Plenty of scientists and doctors have spoken up. They have been attacked and silenced.
It doesn't appear that you actually read the post you just quoted which listed 2 major lawsuits in which criminal culpability was determined for Pfizer.
Of course, you can find this information as easily as i can.
In addition to the criminal fines in 2009 and 2020:
2004:
Pfizer Admits Guilt in Promotion of Neurontin–Agrees to Pay $430 Million
Sun, 16 May 2004
A lawsuit initiated by Dr. David Franklin, a whistleblower, has been settled: Pfizer pleaded guilty to criminal fraud in the promotion of Neurontin, and agreed to pay $430 million. This case is but an example of contemporary drug marketing, demonstrating that the current system–as overseen under the stewardship of the FDA–encourages rather than discourages fraudulent marketing of ineffective, even dangerous drugs.
Pfizer Admits Guilt in Promotion of Neurontin-Agrees to Pay $430 Million - Alliance for Human Research Protection
And in 2011
Pfizer to Pay $142.1 Million Over Neurontin Marketing
in 2012 (not a criminal conviction like the other 4, but a criminal charge that was settled):
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pfizer has agreed to pay the federal government $60 million to settle allegations that its employees bribed doctors and other foreign officials in Europe and Asia to win business and boost sales.
The Securities and Exchange Commission said Tuesday that Pfizer's overseas subsidiaries made illegal payments to health care officials in China, Italy, Russia, Croatia and other Eastern European countries. As early as 2001, Pfizer sales representatives tried to conceal the bribes by recording them as legitimate business expenses for travel, entertainment and marketing purposes, the agency said.
Pfizer pays $60M to settle bribery charges
How many times do they have to be caught in criminal activity before we can fairly make an assessment on their integrity?
I understand the efficacy of the theory of vaccination.
Just because vaccination can be an effective strategy doesn't mean that all vaccines are necessarily safe and effective. Only a fool would make that argument.
. Why not have a 5 night 3 hour debate with Fauci and his pals verses Simone Gold and hers.
That is absolutely the case. That's why all scientific studies have to include a statement about conflicts of interest: they matter. But the vast majority of researchers studying vaccines and their effectiveness and safety do not have a financial stake in their success. And biomedical researchers are themselves overwhelmingly vaccinated, so if there's a conspiracy afoot no one has bothered to tell us about it.Are you honestly that naive that you think the medical industry does not profit off of millions of people being on establishment-pushed drugs? Be real.
That had to do with some bad business overseas, but was it that Neurotin itself was a bad drug? nope.
Something for you to read:So, despite Pfizer being criminally convicted at least 4 times, and involved in bribery, kickbacks, and misrepresenting of their products, you still believe they're a trustworthy company?
Your perspective seems entirely detached from reason to me.
They swore to protect the patients under their care, and for many of them, who know and follow the science —not the consensus— this makes them go against their oath.
The fact this is being done, purportedly for the purpose of protecting the public against such a nearly bogus disease, makes it obvious the whole vaccine matter is politically driven —all the more reason not to get it.
Something for you to read:
Fact check: Resolved lawsuits against Pfizer alleged marketing fraud
Interesting that the lawsuits do not involve vaccines or that the drugs themselves were bad.
The Neurotin lawsuit was because they advertised the drug for two things it was not approved for - as the sole drug for epilepsy and as a treatment for bipolar disease. It is perfectly fine as a drug to use in combination with another for epilepsy and for things like parathesias and other things. It would be like if Novartis advertised hydroxchloroquine for Covid - 19.
Since there are no kickbacks for the vaccine, no bribery has been uncovered, it is not advertised for other diseases, and the lawsuits involve business folks and not the scientists that I saw, and it is under intense scrutiny, no, I am not concerned. If something comes up, I may change my view of that drug. As I am staying with my 95 year old mother who is in home hospice, I really wanted the vaccine to spare both of us.
Mask use and social distancing. You know, the practices which kept the death count from covid down to "only" 600,000 or so.I don't believe the numbers any more than I believe the noise. Again, and no, the measures against Covid don't account for all this: How did in 2019 38,000,000 cases of flu drop to 1,800 in 2020?
Yep, there's a giant conspiracy to cover up the truth. Just like there's one to cover up the "fact" we never landed on the moon.Or at least the so-far known risks.
Known and publicly reported, that is.
If the best anti-vaxx arguments can do is bring up stuff from a decade ago, it kinda makes one think that the vaccine really is as safe and effective as claimed. I mean, if there were evidence it wasn't a more effective anti-vaxx argument would be to show that using data, but since that isn't being done, it certainly makes one wonder.And all of this proves the Covid vaccine is bad?
Yep, there's a giant conspiracy to cover up the truth. Just like there's one to cover up the "fact" we never landed on the moon.
Therefore, remove freedom of speech and conscience...right?
No offense whatbogsends, I know you are an intelligent man with a good head on your shoulders, but this sounds like a conspiracy.
This is really interesting from a political and legal viewpoint. As if all doctors must spout one approved view.https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93877?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Weekly Review 2021-08-08&utm_term=NL_DHE_Weekly_Active&fbclid=IwAR0EH2yFqo1dBSYW7DOHF_Y1qCXid_35B1IgaLhpAq4iIH6uo_oBp9kbEQk
This should have been done a long time ago, but here we are.
Actually, I think it is more like plumber licensing. If you want to get a plumbers license and call yourself a licensed plumber you basically agree to work to the standards of the license board. Publicly claiming the standards are nonsense and people shouldn't listen to them is cause for review of your license.This is really interesting from a political and legal viewpoint. As if all doctors must spout one approved view.
They never have before; disagreements often result in new methods to treat patients.
Which medical authorities is he compelled to agree with, because they disagree all over the board?Actually, I think it is more like plumber licensing. If you want to get a plumbers license and call yourself a licensed plumber you basically agree to work to the standards of the license board. Publicly claiming the standards are nonsense and people shouldn't listen to them is cause for review of your license.