Big Pharma company Pfizer unleashed a strange meme on social media, in an attempt to connect with the Internet populous. The meme displays an odd pink monster, deemed “Science”, wrapping its arms around a nervous figure, “the human brain”, as the figure reaches for a yellow bubble, which reads “wild conspiracy theories”.
“It’s easy to get distracted by misinformation these days” warned the major pharmaceutical company, “but don’t worry…Science has got your back.”
Pfizer added hashtag #ScienceWillWin. Throughout history, in what other instances were citizens told to blindly follow the leader—in this case “Science”—and avoid all other conflicting opinion?
The terrifying creatures represent Pfizer’s grip on our conscious state of mind, and Pfizer’s effort to cause the user to exist in a world of paranoia. In this representation of the world, all other perspectives may be dangerous “wild conspiracy theories”. Thankfully, Science is here to protect us from our thoughts and opinions.
The invasive blob’s close physical contact does not appear to be consensual to the nervous figure, who is shown visibly uncomfortable. Does the aggressive blob represent the compromise of our personal privacy, for the greater good of the state?
Pfizer chose not to allow user comments on the scientific meme, in an attempt to “pull the user away” from “wild conspiracy theories”. Should personal thoughts existing outside the Scientific regime be considered treasonous, and a danger to our society?
Today’s use of the blanket term “Conspiracy Theory“, erodes the value and reliability of any alternative perspective or data. While conspiracy theories can at times offer exciting alternative viewpoints, the blanket term is widely used across social media to discredit free speech that goes against the populist narrative. While some argue that conspiracy theories contribute to misinformation, and incite violence, the truth is that conspiracy theories are examples of freedom of speech.
The reaction of the individual to written word, or ideas, comes down to the individual themselves. The FDA’s initial emergency use authorization of the coronavirus injections were not. approved with 100% confidence or absolute knowledge of the long term effects, yet the order relied on evidence that benefits outweighed the risks. Is the FDA’s EUA not a medical scientific hypothesis?
Pfizer’s meme suggests that Science is separate from Theory, indicating that what the pharmaceutical company deems “Science” should be regarded as absolute fact. Humanity should not question the science. Any resistance to what financially incentivized pharmaceutical manufacturers consider “Science” should be trusted to the fullest extent. If this is the case, what is the requirement for the medical waivers releasing responsibility in the case of vaccine side effects as a result of the coronavirus injection?