3 ms·

> 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 cons

> 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

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.