When was the video taken? If it was during the initial time, why do you use it as evidence that the Pfizer CEO hasn't taken the vaccine? Why didn't you mention that, instead making it seem like the CEO hasn't taken the vaccine for other reasons than he literally stated in the video?
And let's consider you were right, the Pfizer CEO doesn't trust the vaccine and still hasn't taken it. Why the hell would he ever admit he didn't take it? Why wouldn't he say "yeah, I took the first dose"?
I don’t know when the video was taken. It could have been early in the pandemic. I saw that video and found it odd that the CEO didn’t take his own vaccine in the middle of a pandemic - that’s all.
What does concern me, is the reason why Pfizer would be willing to give up on a market of 1.38 billion people. That single local trial could have doubled their potential global market.
I don’t understand the logic of foregoing so much profit. Why do you think they would do that? Any explanations?
How was it misleading? By his own admission he didn’t take the vaccine.
Do you agree it is fishy that a for profit Pharma company would choose to forego a market of 1.38 billion customers simply because they would have been required to do local clinical trials? I find that troubling. Why don’t you?
> How was it misleading? By his own admission he didn’t take the vaccine.
You posted the video as proof the Pfizer CEO hasn't taken the video, without mentioning when it was taken, and without mentioning that he followed public health recommendations. You made it seem like the CEO decided not to take it because he doesn't trust it, but he didn't take it as to not be selfish. Do you now admit that you posted this in a highly misleading way?
I will admit that when I initially posted the video I did not know when it was taken.
Do you admit it is highly suspicious for a for profit Pharma company to forego the profits on a single market that is larger than both the US and the EU combined?
Can you explain your hypothesis for why they would do that?
I disagree. There, proven wrong. Happy? I'm not going to engage with your argument until we've cleared up your initial point.
Now, back to my question: Then we are in agreement that the Pfizer CEO acted fully correctly and you shouldn't take this video as any evidence he hasn't taken the vaccine yet?
On what basis do you disagree? What is your explanation?
> Then we are in agreement that the Pfizer CEO acted fully correctly
No, the CEO did not act fully correctly. In fact he lied to the world when he implied that the vaccine prevented infection.
He knew at the time that it had not been tested for its ability to prevent infection but he implied we should take it to protect our loved ones. [0]
> and you shouldn't take this video as any evidence he hasn't taken the vaccine yet?
Yes, I already agreed several comments back that I hadn’t checked the date of the video when I first posted it. I also agreed that it isn’t evidence he hasn’t taken the vaccine since the video was taken.
You were being intellectually dishonest by repeatedly ignoring the core point of my argument about the Indian market, even after I openly acknowledged the error about the date on the original video.
I’m genuinely sorry this argument got so heated. I just get frustrated when people who accuse me of being dishonest behave in a dishonest way.
And let's consider you were right, the Pfizer CEO doesn't trust the vaccine and still hasn't taken it. Why the hell would he ever admit he didn't take it? Why wouldn't he say "yeah, I took the first dose"?