[flagged]
The reason your comment history shows you to believe in nefarious vaccine conspiracy theories is that you get your news from sources who do not issue corrections and instead continue to lie after they know they are wrong.
https://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/03/12019/james-o%E2%80%99k...
https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/project-veritas-loses-defama...
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/08/project-veritas-not-only...
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/09/project-veritas-ex-coo-...
Really? They literally have a page on their websites devoted to their mistakes, which shows your comment is ignorant at best. It’s probably nowhere near a complete list, but send me the link to MSNBC’s or CNN’s list.
https://www.projectveritas.com/mistakes-that-project-veritas...
It appears almost everything you believe about Project Veritas are statements which journalists have been forced themselves to correct. Over 300 journalists have pulled back erroneous statements about PV.
https://www.projectveritas.com/wall-of-shame-retracto/
> nefarious vaccine conspiracy theories
Excuse me, but Pfizer has been fined more than any other pharmaceutical company for violations, and also paid the biggest fine in history ($2.3 billion). I can believe that the vaccine is generally effective while saying Pfizer has a history of being scumbags. Pfizer convincing everyone that questioning them makes you anti-vax, despite their long criminal history being a record in quantity of penalties and size of penalties, was a nasty trick.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
Even The Intercept reported last year that Pfizer is a top lobbyist for making life as difficult as possible for whistleblowers.
https://theintercept.com/2021/11/29/pfizer-whistleblower-ref...
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.
They lied to people who are in their pocket? Your conspiracy theories make less and less sense the more you explain them.
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.
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.