Liza did not seem to be listening to Steve's questions and did not understand when he asked hypotheticals about when do you start to question safety signals. She also tried to bulldoze information, overwhelming opposition with speed of delivery and terminology. She had not done her background research and seemed unable to grasp all-cause…
Liza did not seem to be listening to Steve's questions and did not understand when he asked hypotheticals about when do you start to question safety signals. She also tried to bulldoze information, overwhelming opposition with speed of delivery and terminology. She had not done her background research and seemed unable to grasp all-cause mortality versus covid incidence in the Pfizer data. Sadly her arguments seemed to have no more substance than 'trust the science' the conflict of interest 'science' the pharmaceutical companies provide.
Liza did not seem to be listening to Steve's questions and did not understand when he asked hypotheticals about when do you start to question safety signals. She also tried to bulldoze information, overwhelming opposition with speed of delivery and terminology. She had not done her background research and seemed unable to grasp all-cause mortality versus covid incidence in the Pfizer data. Sadly her arguments seemed to have no more substance than 'trust the science' the conflict of interest 'science' the pharmaceutical companies provide.
"She also tried to bulldoze information, overwhelming opposition with speed of delivery and terminology."
Typical action of an uninformed debater or worse, misdirection by a biased speaker. We see it all the time.
As the old saying goes, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."