Instead of, you know, a link to the current "About" page.

https://www.pfizer.com/about/people/executives

Notice anyone missing?

Does the name or face of the person listed as Chief Executive Officer even remotely resemeble James C Smith to you?

Here are more sources for you:

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/5634987
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thomson-reuters-results/thomson-reuters-names-new-ceo-earnings-top-estimates-idUSKBN20J1LK
https://divergemedia.ca/2021/06/28/thomas-reuters-foundation-chairman-is-also-board-member-at-pfizer/

Do you need more?

The fact is, you made absolutely no effort to vet information that fed your addiction to conspiracies.

Also, here's a link to the current- not archived- page that tells you about the *current* leadership in place at the Thomson Reuters Foundation https://www.trust.org/about-us/

>If you gonna chase around being pedantic as fuck, you need to
>do so, subtly

There's nothing pedantic about correcting blatant misinformation.

But again- there's a reason you ran with an archived announcement, and not the live page. You jump on anything at all that feeds your conspiratorial leanings.

You can be is smug as you want, but in no way is it pedantic to correct your blatant and easily debunked misinformation. But then, it is easier to lash out instead of admit you were just, you know, wrong.

>And there's no way you in hell you don't see the ethical
>problems this presents.

I asked you for evidence to suport your collusion claims.

Do you have any? If so, we can discuss that.