Re "Don't you think that if the FDA had approved a monkey vaccine by Pfizer that it would appear on both the FDA's and Pfizer's web sites, and that the news would have been well covered in all media?"
Yeah quite possibly. Don't you think the Associated Press could find, in that case, something better at Pfizer than an unnamed company rep to refute the claim?
All the same, my problem with all this (and those like you that just want to believe the fact checkers who are often very wrong in their fact checking) is that we are not allowed to use evidence of past behaviour as a factor in the believability of statements from and about an organisation.
As an example, if there were documents of mine that you'd like to read and circulate in the public interest, would you be satisfied with my credibility if I requested that I give you the documents in 2096? Likewise, if I'd incurred a fine of $2.3 billion to avoid going to court to defend myself AND being described as a corporate cheat by official authorities, would you happily accept the word of an unnamed "rep" who works for me.
I appreciate you spend most of your time on this site in a self imposed position of moral superiority and, therefore, feel able to just brush off every observation that doesn't align with your particular viewpoint.
With that in mind, I expect you'll just revert to insults and accusations, push the question of Pfizer's credibility to one side. and consider that a job well done.
