Additional comment: I imagine some readers will fear this is some sort of virtue signalling exercise where I scream 'RACISM!' and demand some sort of boycott; I've noticed a handful of unsubscribes and I appreciate the dissent.
Frankly, I'm not remotely hurt by Drew's comments, which have no evidence and no rationale. I'm simply here to expose how shallow his arguments are when confronted with contradictory behaviours, and also to raise awareness of what actual systemic racial abuse looks like (it isn't people calling out your behaviours anonymously on Twitter).
Racism against white people is not a thing. (It's just dismissal, which because there is no structural power behind it, has no oppressive or exploitative impact.) Bullock's X feed makes you wonder whether he does anything at all but tweet incessantly in defence of the industry which you rightly point out is extremely racist. And he probably views 'vaccine equity' as increasing Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA-jab profiteering globally. I feel those are the more significant dynamics which you've highlighted here.
The moment anyone prejudices a view on skin colour, they are by default making an argument to race; this is the textbook definition. One can argue he has a right to free speech, but then I would expect legislation permitting the door to swing freely for all sides; I fully imagine however, if someone was to criticise his skin colour, it would come with the full force of the authoritarian law behind it.
Notice however that's only because he's institutional. Racism against black people in furtherance of vaccines is supposedly okay.
In my experience, the seeming void of intellect seems to solely persist in the vaccine circles. In-fact, I struggle to find any that can keep pace with a debate that doesn't crash and burn beyond the first paper citation.
I've watched and read many a social media pundit who wasn't beholden to industry make coherent arguments (I think Jikkyleaks is our biggest counterpoint, having in-depth factual research), although I do wonder what even a 'social media influencer' is. To me, it screams 'propagandist' by another word; 'look, he's here to help influence your decision making'.
My bigger critique is aimed at Poynter. They claim to teach ethics. Instead what we have here is a thin veneer where they give the thin veil of 'credibility' but evidently none of the training.
He once tried to refute me using a study that contained data that refuted his claim. He had only read the title and hadn't even skim-read the contents. Despite the title (claiming SC2 causes myocarditis), it admitted Pfizer and Moderna caused myocarditis in males at a higher rate and I ended up using it against several other shills as well!
Additional comment: I imagine some readers will fear this is some sort of virtue signalling exercise where I scream 'RACISM!' and demand some sort of boycott; I've noticed a handful of unsubscribes and I appreciate the dissent.
Frankly, I'm not remotely hurt by Drew's comments, which have no evidence and no rationale. I'm simply here to expose how shallow his arguments are when confronted with contradictory behaviours, and also to raise awareness of what actual systemic racial abuse looks like (it isn't people calling out your behaviours anonymously on Twitter).
Racism against white people is not a thing. (It's just dismissal, which because there is no structural power behind it, has no oppressive or exploitative impact.) Bullock's X feed makes you wonder whether he does anything at all but tweet incessantly in defence of the industry which you rightly point out is extremely racist. And he probably views 'vaccine equity' as increasing Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA-jab profiteering globally. I feel those are the more significant dynamics which you've highlighted here.
The moment anyone prejudices a view on skin colour, they are by default making an argument to race; this is the textbook definition. One can argue he has a right to free speech, but then I would expect legislation permitting the door to swing freely for all sides; I fully imagine however, if someone was to criticise his skin colour, it would come with the full force of the authoritarian law behind it.
Notice however that's only because he's institutional. Racism against black people in furtherance of vaccines is supposedly okay.
In my experience, the seeming void of intellect seems to solely persist in the vaccine circles. In-fact, I struggle to find any that can keep pace with a debate that doesn't crash and burn beyond the first paper citation.
I've watched and read many a social media pundit who wasn't beholden to industry make coherent arguments (I think Jikkyleaks is our biggest counterpoint, having in-depth factual research), although I do wonder what even a 'social media influencer' is. To me, it screams 'propagandist' by another word; 'look, he's here to help influence your decision making'.
My bigger critique is aimed at Poynter. They claim to teach ethics. Instead what we have here is a thin veneer where they give the thin veil of 'credibility' but evidently none of the training.
Is this guy "just another pretty face"?
He once tried to refute me using a study that contained data that refuted his claim. He had only read the title and hadn't even skim-read the contents. Despite the title (claiming SC2 causes myocarditis), it admitted Pfizer and Moderna caused myocarditis in males at a higher rate and I ended up using it against several other shills as well!