5 ms·

Those published corrections were court-ordered. Other journalists publish corrections to their articles as soon as they are discovered, as your own second link

Those published corrections were court-ordered. Other journalists publish corrections to their articles as soon as they are discovered, as your own second link shows. Project Veritas knew their own claims were wrong at the time they published. Your inability to understand the difference contributes to why you subscribe to vaccine conspiracy theories. Whether Pfizer has bad business practices (lobbying against whistleblower protections for reporting corporate fraud) says nothing about the vaccine or its effectiveness.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
> Your inability to understand the difference contributes to why you subscribe to vaccine conspiracy theories. Point me to a link to why you think so. I'm merely pointing out that Pfizer's own letter, here, hardly denied anything their guy said, which cannot be a conspiracy theory. They could just deny that he even worked for them, or claim that he was taken out of context. They haven't. That's pointing out a fact, nothing more. > Whether Pfizer has bad business practices (lobbying against whistleblower protections for reporting corporate fraud) says nothing about the vaccine or its effectiveness Unless they lied on effectiveness to regulators, who according to the video, are also in their pocket. The guy literally alleges the regulators are very much friendly with Pfizer; and Pfizer completely left that unaddressed in this "denial." Thus why I would simply ask for an investigation. Didn't we just go through this with Theranos? Regulators didn't catch Theranos and skeptics were mocked as being misogynist before WSJ finally broke everything.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  > Unless they lied on effectiveness to regulators, who according to the video, are also in their pocket. They lied to people who are in their pocket? Your conspiracy theories make less and less sense the more you explain them.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    I didn't say it, Pfizer's director did bragging that the regulators are soft on them. If true, that means the regulator's ability to do their job would logically be compromised. It also rings, to me, true because of Pfizer's long record-setting criminal past. Tell me then why Pfizer didn't deny any of it, except one portion in partial capacity, and waited over 48 hours until Friday night (the time you post anything you want to bury from the news cycle). Their silence is confirmation [1]. You can hate Project Veritas all you want - but if Pfizer doesn't deny their claims despite 22M views, or even allege that he was taken out of context, that's all I need to know. In which case, you are too busy shooting the messenger to read the message. If it was so easily false as you portray, Pfizer could have simply tweeted a one-sentence denial within the first hours. [1] Especially because, for a CEO to allow a video like that to get 22M views and not deny it, if it was false, would be potentially a financial crime of negligence (total disregard of the Fiduciary Duty of Care) he would be personally responsible for (like, could be sued by shareholders and lose his house). Convince me how allowing a story that is false to get 22M views, and not issuing a denial to 90% of the claims after waiting over 48 hours, is compatible with that Fiduciary duty. If the story is actually false, we should be suing Albert Bourla right now for malpractice, for deliberately allowing Pfizer's name to be dragged through the mud and doing nothing to stop it, and worse, releasing a statement that does not deny 90% of the "false" claims and only seems to partially confirm one. You would have to be insane to react this way to a false story.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      You contradict yourself again. Why would they post a rebuttal on Friday if they knew that anything they post on Friday would get buried? You'll need to rearrange some of the yarn and pictures on your pegboard to make a more cohesive conspiracy theory. Maybe the reason it took them so long is that nobody with any sense is watching what Project Veritas (or OAN, The Epoch Times, The Washington Times, etc.) puts out, so it only became an issue when politically powerful conspiracy theorist panderers like Rubio made a deal out of it, and then they only respond to the accusations that Rubio repeated.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

> Your inability to understand the difference contributes to why you subscribe to vaccine conspiracy theories. Point me to a link to why you think so. I'm merely pointing out that Pfizer's own letter, here, hardly denied anything their guy said, which cannot be a conspiracy theory. They could just deny that he even worked for them, or claim that he was taken out of context. They haven't. That's pointing out a fact, nothing more. > Whether Pfizer has bad business practices (lobbying against whistleblower protections for reporting corporate fraud) says nothing about the vaccine or its effectiveness Unless they lied on effectiveness to regulators, who according to the video, are also in their pocket. The guy literally alleges the regulators are very much friendly with Pfizer; and Pfizer completely left that unaddressed in this "denial." Thus why I would simply ask for an investigation. Didn't we just go through this with Theranos? Regulators didn't catch Theranos and skeptics were mocked as being misogynist before WSJ finally broke everything.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
> Unless they lied on effectiveness to regulators, who according to the video, are also in their pocket. They lied to people who are in their pocket? Your conspiracy theories make less and less sense the more you explain them.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  I didn't say it, Pfizer's director did bragging that the regulators are soft on them. If true, that means the regulator's ability to do their job would logically be compromised. It also rings, to me, true because of Pfizer's long record-setting criminal past. Tell me then why Pfizer didn't deny any of it, except one portion in partial capacity, and waited over 48 hours until Friday night (the time you post anything you want to bury from the news cycle). Their silence is confirmation [1]. You can hate Project Veritas all you want - but if Pfizer doesn't deny their claims despite 22M views, or even allege that he was taken out of context, that's all I need to know. In which case, you are too busy shooting the messenger to read the message. If it was so easily false as you portray, Pfizer could have simply tweeted a one-sentence denial within the first hours. [1] Especially because, for a CEO to allow a video like that to get 22M views and not deny it, if it was false, would be potentially a financial crime of negligence (total disregard of the Fiduciary Duty of Care) he would be personally responsible for (like, could be sued by shareholders and lose his house). Convince me how allowing a story that is false to get 22M views, and not issuing a denial to 90% of the claims after waiting over 48 hours, is compatible with that Fiduciary duty. If the story is actually false, we should be suing Albert Bourla right now for malpractice, for deliberately allowing Pfizer's name to be dragged through the mud and doing nothing to stop it, and worse, releasing a statement that does not deny 90% of the "false" claims and only seems to partially confirm one. You would have to be insane to react this way to a false story.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    You contradict yourself again. Why would they post a rebuttal on Friday if they knew that anything they post on Friday would get buried? You'll need to rearrange some of the yarn and pictures on your pegboard to make a more cohesive conspiracy theory. Maybe the reason it took them so long is that nobody with any sense is watching what Project Veritas (or OAN, The Epoch Times, The Washington Times, etc.) puts out, so it only became an issue when politically powerful conspiracy theorist panderers like Rubio made a deal out of it, and then they only respond to the accusations that Rubio repeated.