This is just shitty lawyer tricks. He hasn't proven anything. All he's done is lay out the innuendo at this point that because she worked for Pfizer in the past that her opinion on this board was somehow biased. There's nothing to prove that.
Yes, she was paid. If you want the opinion of top scientists with experience, knowledge, and a reputation you can trust, you're going to have to pay them well. She was well paid. That doesn't imply anything other than that she received what her work was worth.
As for "independence," if Pfizer's paying for it, some lawyer can always argue what this man did. The real question is who else would pay for such a service? Who else has the motive to spend the kind of money her team commands if not the company who wants their evaluation? The trick is in the rules. The lawyer never made a case to show that the rules under which they operated biased their result. As far as we know, they were fed the same BS data the rest of us were. She says she had leeway to give her own independent opinion and she stakes her professional career behind saying that's exactly what she did. And this lawyer gave me no good reason to suspect otherwise.
I'm not going to claim she's innocent. That wasn't proven in 3:31. But neither was her guilt. And I personally find it offensive when people try and hustle innuendo and supposition as if it's definitive proof of anything. I've well past fed up with watching media personalities and pundits operate that way. Concrete proof or STFU.
This is just shitty lawyer tricks. He hasn't proven anything. All he's done is lay out the innuendo at this point that because she worked for Pfizer in the past that her opinion on this board was somehow biased. There's nothing to prove that.
Yes, she was paid. If you want the opinion of top scientists with experience, knowledge, and a reputation you can trust, you're going to have to pay them well. She was well paid. That doesn't imply anything other than that she received what her work was worth.
As for "independence," if Pfizer's paying for it, some lawyer can always argue what this man did. The real question is who else would pay for such a service? Who else has the motive to spend the kind of money her team commands if not the company who wants their evaluation? The trick is in the rules. The lawyer never made a case to show that the rules under which they operated biased their result. As far as we know, they were fed the same BS data the rest of us were. She says she had leeway to give her own independent opinion and she stakes her professional career behind saying that's exactly what she did. And this lawyer gave me no good reason to suspect otherwise.
I'm not going to claim she's innocent. That wasn't proven in 3:31. But neither was her guilt. And I personally find it offensive when people try and hustle innuendo and supposition as if it's definitive proof of anything. I've well past fed up with watching media personalities and pundits operate that way. Concrete proof or STFU.