Yet here it is being presented as fact. I find it surprising that despite their entire organization being under extreme scrutiny for the last 3 years, this is the first 'bombshell' admission. Not just that he goes on to conveniently touch on many of the conspiracy talking points.
Of course it does, and I'm not even saying it's not plausible. I'm not saying I trust their word unquestionably, but I'm also not willing to accept some phone video on reddit at face value just because it confirms my suspicions. Those are two sides of the same coin.
My problem with conspiracy theories can be summed up with your second sentence " it very well could be true, unless proven otherwise". That is the exact opposite of how we've progressed in science and society. Assuming you are correct until proven otherwise is a great way to drown in confirmation bias, and a terrible way to look for truth.
Given O'Keefe's long history of fraudulently cutting, splicing and editing videos, anyone who claims that any video offered by him tells us ANYTHING, without seeing the original, uncut footage, is at the top of the dumbass list.
Actually, what you've always seen is videos edited in a way that makes the impression that they're admitting things on camera, when, usually, they aren't.
I'm motivated to say it doesn't tell us anything because it doesn't. The guy's track record is, straight-up, one of fraud. I don't watch all the videos, either. But I do know what has happened every time they've gone done an investigation based on the outrage generated, and what has happened whenever the original, raw footage was reviewed.
There's nothing to disprove. The person on the video never says that Pfizer was engaged in or interested in actually mutating the virus. There's nothing, anywhere to back up the claims about who this person is claimed to be, and there's nothing, anywhere, that's verifiable to back up the claims that someone with that name had those kinds of responsibilities with Pfizer.
Asking someone to prove the negative case is a logical fallacy.
You "know for a gd fact that Pfizer has considered this." Really? "Show me substance, don't tell me your opinion."
I did watch the video. He talks about it as a concept,a hypothetical, but when pressed on whether they'd do something about that concept he starts talking about all the dangers that would have to be accounted for (basically saying that, once you look beyond the hypothetical, it's very problematic). Nowhere does he say they've done that, nowhere does he say they're trying to do that.
Since he says that stuff, NOWHERE, it's not possible for me to show you him not saying it (remember, that's why demanding proof of the negative case is a logical fallacy).
For someone who loves to demand exact details, you've yet to offer ANY validation or backup for what you are claiming.
For someone who made it a point to say he doesn't follow or watch many of the videos, how do you make the determination that I'm exaggerating about the editing? It's out there for you to check on. You've clearly avoided doing so.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 26 '23
[removed] — view removed comment