I wonder who backs o'keefe? Probably just a ragtag bunch of freedom fighters

You're literally the one who is rejecting basic critical thinking concepts like not making unfalsifiable theories. You cheerfully gobble up whatever silly narrative like James O'Keefe want to shove down your throat while dismissing offhand actual reporting that contradicts the conspiracy theories that you chose to believe in ahead of time.

Is it your opinion that the video of the Pfizer executive is a deep fake?

I saw them showing video of someone saying something.

What I haven't seen is evidence that the person is both a reliable witness and who they claim it is.

The biggest red flag is that he's basically shouting out "bombshells" in a crowded restaurant to apparently brag to industry outsiders.

Feels like there's a big chance he's not real, or if he does work for them he's not an exec or research scientist but perhaps works in accounting and as a qanon follower believes the company he works for is up to no good.

Or he's who they say he is and is just trolling his audience or perhaps they sent in an attractive woman on a date (common tactic for them) and she was so obsessed with it and he figured if he just told her what she clearly wanted to hear she'd be impressed by how powerful he was and go home and bang him.

Or maybe a publicly traded company that employs thousands of people and makes billions of dollars in profit got greedy and one guy decided to blow the whistle on them while hundreds of others who'd know stayed silent but instead of going to the NYT or 60 minutes he instead just drunkenly shouts it to his date at a restaurant.

Who knows, but the latter definitely seems like the least likely option.

They've produced organizational charts and showed the guy's now deleted LinkedIn page so he looks pretty much exactly who they say he is.

If he's just lying his ass off then idk there.

His position though is "Director of Research" and I think he's a MD but not sure on that.

linkedin is self created though

I could update my linkedin right now and say I'm an exec in charge of research at pfizer and there's literally nothing they can do to prevent that

and the "now deleted linkedin account which shows a connection to x, y, & z" is a common trope in this stuff so definitely part of the playbook and would be part of the basic preparation if you were going to attempt a hoax like this

so that means nothing as far as I'm concerned

Well that's fine. Nothing to see here.

Is the crime having naughty thoughts&desires or did they do something?

I'm not sure. I only watched the video once but it seemed conflicting on that point-- I'll watch it again.

But questions: 1) Has a pharmaceutical company ever engaged in unethical behavior and been caught? 2) Has Pfizer?

It seems like there are a number of people posting in this thread who would like a job with them.

Criticize a billion dollar corporation is one quick way to get the troops rallied for sure.

Is it Stockholm syndrome I wonder?

Translation: I have no rebuttal to that, but I'll be back next post with insinuations about those who aren't ready to completely buy into my speculations with things like "It seems like there are a number of people posting in this thread who would like a job with them." and "Is it Stockholm syndrome I wonder?"

Add another one to the list.

But tell me Bobo: Do you think it's reasonable to conclude that this is all a fraud?

Also and fwiw-- some people are literally just never going to believe anything that hits a bit too close to power-- and this is for deep seated psychological reasons and Stockholm syndrome is a very reasonable conjecture there.

If by "this all", you mean the video, that seems an odd question as I haven't seen anyone do that. I think it's quite reasonable to conclude it could be a fraud; much more reasonable than to speculate that those who question the veracity of the video "would like a job with them" and may be suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

I like how his Linkedin page is billed as "Internal Pfizer Docs."

Well the job part was hyperbole. The Stockholm syndrome not so much.

And Rickroll absolutely suggested that it might be a fraud.

Are you going to answer the question about whether you think the video is a deep fake?

You realize that there were four separate images in that tweet right?

Careful, I just got banned for asking questions like that.

No you did not.

But in your capacity as a critical thinker, do you think the video is a deep fake?

my timeline/details are hazy so this is probably not 100% accurate but the main gyst is

when doug polk was getting flak for his association with coinflex someone doug up (hehehe) a doug polk linkedin that purported to show he had far deeper connections and was actively involved in the scam/fraud/incompetence.

the account had almost no connections and when doug posted his actual linkedin account and says "that's a fake that's not me" the other one was soon deleted, which only made people believe even more that there was a vast conspiracy/coverup going on

i tend to look at this as "why would doug make two linkedin accounts?" if he did have two then "why would doug create a linkedin account that he didn't actively use and didn't have any connections etc"

of course it's possible he made one, forgot about it, made a new one and only used that and the old one was never updated to hide some connections to unsavory organizations

but more likely is someone felt like they knew doug was more involved and it was just easier to create a linkedin account in his name that mentioned ownership in a shady organization, post it as something "he found" and then quickly delete it so it can't undergo any scrutiny and the cherry on top is that the deletion is going to viewed by many that doug is actively trying to cover up his past instead of the faker trying to cover up his faked linkedin account

maybe doug had two linkedins, maybe this pfizer guy is the real deal, i can't rule it out, and that's exactly why there's so much upside in pulling this stuff off because the burden of proving a negative is upon them and it's impossible to do

If I'd been to Brazil then I could prove it with passport stamps, receipts, photos, etc. But if I haven't been to Brazil and you insist I have then I can't quite prove I've never been by showing you a picture of me in NYC. All that means is that I've been to NYC, not that I haven't been to Brazil. This is why hoaxes are so powerful and all claims need to be automatically viewed as false until proven true rather than to believe it is true with the hand wave of the hard evidence is hidden under a coverup.

Of course he did, and he may be right. But he didn't do this, and nor would I based on what we currently know:

There's a huge difference between the bolded portions.

Here is what you said Trolly. You said that I was gobbling up a silly narrative.


Asking you if you think the video is fake is pretty reasonable, right?

Ok sure. I was a bit careless with my word usage there.

Ironically I've been to Brazil and did not get a passport stamp when I went (I walked there from Colombia).

I've also been to Brazilian day in NYC and it's a lot of fun.

Don't you think I would have said so if I had seen it?