>It's even worse that what you shared, lol
>
>Pfizer just elected the CEO of Thompson Reuters to it's Board
>of Directors:

Former. Key word there. Critical, actually.
He’s currently chairman of the board of trustees, of the thompson reuters chiaritable foundation.

You rant a lot below about this, yet you said nothjng at all that remotely makes a case for “collusion”.

So what evidence do you have to support the collusion claim, specifically the ways in which that collusion has impacted Reuters COVID information?

>https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/james_c_smith_elected_to_pfizer_s_board_of_directors?linkId=8632903
>
>In a sane, non-corporate hellscape of a society, this would be
>grounds for censure/investigation/govt oversight...here
>though?
>NAH.
>
>Honestly man, debating with diehard liberal vaxxers is
>pointless.
>
>It's simply not about public health for these cats.
>it's about a superiority complex.
>
>One could very easily be vaccinated and boosted and see that
>that combo...ain't a long term solution.
>
>There's way too many objective problems with the "just get the
>vaxxx!!!!" idea, even if you remove the adverse effects of the
>vaxx, Pfizer's sketchiness, etc...
>
>
>
>The vaxx doesn't sterilize the disease, so it's going to
>mutate.
>and you simply can not inject people with an unknown chemical
>compound for each new mutation, in perpetuity.
>
>AND the pfizer product wears off after about 6 months.
>
>You can't inject an unknown chemical compound every 6 months
>into a large population, in perpetuity.
>
>NO ONE knows the long term side effects
>
>There appears to be some crossover point where certain
>co-morbidities overwhelm the protections supposedly offered by
>Pfizer's product.
>
>So solutions beyond the Pfizer product objectively MUST
>happen.
>
>They simply *have* to be developed.
>
>
>Thankfully, the global scientific community don't get their
>"science" from MSNBC, lol