To date, I've not witnessed any person who is refusing Pfizer's vaccine publicly chastise anyone who has chosen to be vaccinated. I have, however, seen plenty of vaccinated people call those who are not vaccinated, "idiots", "stupid", "selfish", "antivaxxers". Many more negative connotations are used, often behind the backs of the unvaccinated.
Although there may be some examples of the unvaccinated targeting vaccinated people, I suspect it's because they are fed up of having the above negative connotations aimed in their directions - I may be wrong.
Although there may be some examples of the unvaccinated targeting vaccinated people, I suspect it's because they are fed up of having the above negative connotations aimed in their directions - I may be wrong.
This post is, in essence, for those people who continue to claim that the unvaccinated are idiots, etc.
I pose a hypothetical question to those people, one, which I feel, should, at the very least, tap into their sense of logic when trying to persuade the unvaccinated to "GET VACCINATED!" (They often use CAPS and exclamation marks to drive their point home) - messages like these are rife on social media, such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter etc.
As yet, I've not had any answers to this question, apart from, "It's a silly rhetorical device.", this from someone who has publicly stated that he has been vaccinated. Do you see any negative connotations in his response?
Anyway, I digress.
Here's the hypothetical question:
If Pfizer were a caregiver, would you employ them to look after the welfare of your children, grandchildren, and/or elderly relatives?
Before you answer, it may be wise to check out Pfizer's CV.
Anyway, I digress.
Here's the hypothetical question:
If Pfizer were a caregiver, would you employ them to look after the welfare of your children, grandchildren, and/or elderly relatives?
Before you answer, it may be wise to check out Pfizer's CV.
Here it is (Sources provided at the end of this blog post)
Products
- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expressed great concern about reports of dozens of fatalities linked to heart valves made by Pfizer’s Shiley division. In 1986, as the death toll reached 125, Pfizer ended production of all models of the valves. In 1991 an FDA task force charged that Pfizer’s Shiley division had withheld information about safety problems from regulators in order to get initial approval for its valves and that the company continued to keep the FDA in the dark. A November 7, 1991 investigation in the Wall Street Journal asserted that Pfizer’s Shiley division had been deliberately falsifying manufacturing records relating to valve fractures. Pfizer announced that it would spend up to $205 million to settle the tens of thousands of valve lawsuits that had been filed against it. Even so, Pfizer resisted complying with an FDA order that it notify patients of new findings that there was a greater risk of fatal fractures in those who had the valve installed before the age of 50
- In 2004, Pfizer agreed to suspend television advertising for a related medication called Celebrex. The following year, Pfizer admitted that a 1999 clinical trial found that elderly patients taking Celebrex had a greatly elevated risk of heart problems.
- In 2005, Pfizer withdrew another painkiller, Bextra, from the market after the FDA mandated a “black box” warning about the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risks of the medication. In 2008, Pfizer announced that it was setting aside $894 million to settle the lawsuits that had been filed in connection with Bextra and Celebrex. The settlement included roughly 7,000 personal injury cases, mainly plaintiffs who took Bextra, The attorney represented 2000 claimants, about 10% of them relatives of people who died.
- In 2010, a federal jury awarded $1.37 million to a former Pfizer scientist who claimed she was sickened by a genetically engineered virus at a company lab and was then fired for raising safety concerns.
Children
- In 2000, the Washington Post published a major exposé accusing Pfizer of testing a dangerous new antibiotic called Trovan on children in Nigeria without receiving proper consent from their parents. The experiment occurred during a 1996 meningitis epidemic in the country. In 2001, Pfizer was sued in U.S. federal court by thirty Nigerian families, who accused the company of using their children as human guinea pigs. Eleven of the children reportedly died, while the remaining 181 were said to have suffered from deafness, paralysis, brain damage and blindness.
- In 2006, a panel of Nigerian medical experts concluded that Pfizer had violated international law. In 2009, the company agreed to pay $75 million to settle some of the lawsuits that had been brought in Nigerian courts. The U.S. case was settled in 2011 for an undisclosed amount. A Pfizer spokesperson had previously claimed, "The study saved lives and was conducted ethically and responsibly."
Environment
- In 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency asked Pfizer to end its long-time practice of dumping industrial wastes from its plant in Groton, Connecticut in the Long Island Sound. The company was reported to be disposing of about 1 million gallons of waste each year by that method.
- In 1991, Pfizer agreed to pay $3.1 million to settle EPA charges that the company seriously damaged the Delaware River by failing to install pollution-control equipment at one of its plants in Pennsylvania.
- In 1994, Pfizer agreed to pay $1.5 million as part of a consent decree with the EPA in connection with its dumping at a toxic waste site in Rhode Island.
- Pfizer have also settled wrongful death cases of both adults and children regarding Zoloft's propensity to induce suicide. Despite settling these cases, Pfizer still deny that Zoloft can induce suicide.
Zoloft has generated over $30 billion in sales since its release in 1991, but research suggests that the drug is, at best, little more effective than a sugar pill.
To date, Pfizer has been fined a total of $4,660,896,333 for various violations
I suspect many who have chose not to be vaccinated don't quite trust this particular multi-billion dollar corporation and, more than likely, are completely cheesed off at individuals calling them out with their slanderous comments.
The question still remains. If Pfizer were a caregiver, would you employ them to look after the welfare of your children, grandchildren and/or elderly relatives?
Answers on a postcard, please...
Bob Fiddaman
No comments: