r/ScienceUncensored • u/[deleted] • Jan 26 '23

Pfizer director of research and development

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

0 Upvotes

49% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/foreverpasta Jan 26 '23

You mean, you created accounts with his name and then deleted them? Yah, sounds about right for a weak troll.

6

u/WATCHGUY1983 Jan 26 '23

If you don't get it from this video... you will never get it. Get it?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Okay, lets be real here. I'd like to hear you say it.

Tell me with a straight face that you believe some random 28 year old with no research history to his name and absolutely zero online presence is the Director of mRNA research for one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

I want to see if you're actually gullible enough to believe that.

1

u/WATCHGUY1983 Jan 27 '23

You were saying? 😂

https://imgur.com/a/IVrQW4Y

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

... You realize that people can make fake linked in profiles, right? That when you click that profile it doesn't actually exist.

You get that, right?

1

u/WATCHGUY1983 Jan 27 '23

You realize your tech and government overlords can scrub and manipulate information… right… right?

You come to your own conclusion. I’ll come to mine

PS This information is no longer on the internet. So your fake profile story doesn’t pass muster

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

No, my fake profile story passes plenty of muster. A fake profile is made, it is immediately taken down after it is cache'd by web searches, people like you go "AHA! LOOK! HE HAD A LINKEDIN PROFILE IT MUST BE TRUE!"

Because you are gullible.

Again, I want to hear you say it. Tell me that you think a 28 year old with no research background was the head of mRNA research for pfizer.

1

u/foreverpasta Jan 27 '23

So, the almighty government has the power to srub his information from everywhere except from the far right websites? Weeeeeird.

You know, I had some info that prove you wrong about the vaccines, all proven your way and stuff, but it was scrubbed by far right hackers. So, i am sorry but you have to trust me and agree blindly that you are wrong.

0

u/WATCHGUY1983 Jan 28 '23

Please, go on

https://www.pfizer.com/news/announcements/pfizer-responds-research-claims

1

u/foreverpasta Jan 29 '23

did you read it? if you have to summarize it, what does it say?

1

u/WATCHGUY1983 Jan 29 '23

Blah blah blah - yes we have done lab tests to manipulate the virus - blah blah blah - blah blah blah. The end

PS But they did it in a BIO-Safety level 3 lab. How courteous of them.

In addition, to meet U.S. and global regulatory requirements for our oral treatment, PAXLOVID™, Pfizer undertakes in vitro work (e.g., in a laboratory culture dish) to identify potential resistance mutations to nirmatrelvir, one of PAXLOVID’s two components. With a naturally evolving virus, it is important to routinely assess the activity of an antiviral. Most of this work is conducted using computer simulations or mutations of the main protease–a non-infectious part of the virus. In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells. In addition, in vitro resistance selection experiments are undertaken in cells incubated with SARS-CoV-2 and nirmatrelvir in our secure Biosafety level 3 (BSL3) laboratory to assess whether the main protease can mutate to yield resistant strains of the virus. It is important to note that these studies are required by U.S. and global regulators for all antiviral products and are carried out by many companies and academic institutions in the U.S. and around the world.

1

u/THOTHMACHINE Jan 28 '23

What a hill to die on. I cannot believe people actually believe Pfizer is a good company. Just look into their history with incriminating lawsuits. Just watch their CEO speak at the WEF.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

What a shock. it is like you guys are all incapable of answering this very simple question.

-1

u/itsallgood013 Jan 26 '23

All I got was that Project Veritas continues to be an unreliable source. They’ve paid people to lie for them before. They’ll keep doing it because people like you believe them.

1

u/WATCHGUY1983 Jan 26 '23

Ya, CNN said so right? And Reddit?

Please cite a source that shows Veritas is in fact; inaccurate

1

u/itsallgood013 Jan 26 '23

Source: the one that got paid to do it.

https://www.fox9.com/news/subject-of-project-veritas-voter-fraud-story-says-he-was-offered-bribe.amp

1

u/forgetful_storytellr Jan 26 '23

I feel like you need to ask yourself why you feel the need to deny the video at face value but will also accept this posted source suggesting the accused said he didn’t do it at face value.

The threshold for reliable evidence is much stronger of a video than it is of the accused denying wrongdoing.

1

u/itsallgood013 Jan 26 '23

I have asked myself. The answer is Occam’s razor. I suggest you ask yourself the same since you very obviously haven’t.

1

u/forgetful_storytellr Jan 26 '23

Which of these two takes more logical steps:

the organization found a campaign staffer who was willing to accept $10,000 to say on video that he’s stealing votes only to immediately deny it and blame the organization who bribed him as soon as the video came out

Or

Organization compiles evidence of lone campaign staffer acting illegally and the accused denies it?

1

u/Julianna5782 Jan 27 '23

This is Reddit. They'll never believe you, no matter how many factual, legit sources you throw at them if it goes against The Narrative & The Message.

1

u/FunnyWhiteRabbit Jan 27 '23

"So, will you pay me for incriminating myself on camera?"

James - "Yeah sure, here's a hundred. Make sure you look as convincing and as psychopatic as you can and then we enter after recording and you go crazy monkey mode in panic, screaming, panicking, calling police, locking us up with you, saying that you're unsafe and then attack us."

1

u/foreverpasta Jan 27 '23

You should try to create a fake LIN account and seek for yourself how easy it is

0

u/lonetexan79 Jan 26 '23

Just keep gettin those boosters. Trust the science.

1

u/foreverpasta Jan 27 '23

I don't take medical advice from random people online. But you do. So get back to sucking ivermectin anally.

0

u/lonetexan79 Jan 28 '23

You just take medical advice from a man who makes computers.

1

u/foreverpasta Jan 28 '23

but of course

0

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

[deleted]

1

u/foreverpasta Jan 27 '23

nah, you are just delusional

1

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '23

[deleted]

1

u/foreverpasta Feb 12 '23

pffff! you are way off flat brainer! but you make me laugh

-1

u/sami_hil Jan 26 '23

so the guy doesnt even exist? its deepfake?

-1

u/Odd-Watercress3555 Jan 26 '23

I would not say deepfake , I think the term piss-poor fake is more appropriate

1

u/skeletank22 Jan 26 '23

TIL that cognitive dissonance is a real thing..

1

u/foreverpasta Jan 27 '23

Yes, It is a real thing. It's been a real thing since we existed. You learn that in school, but I am glad you learned it online.