I waffled for a bit before responding to this, so I truly hope you read this in the good faith it’s intended.
You are saying he “naturally would be in constant contact with his colleagues.” This isn’t something you know for sure, but something that you are making an educated guess about.
It’s a theory, one based on him sharing a job title with people that you believe are involved in a conspiracy to poison people, or at least hide that people are being poisoned.
Was this individual ever proven or discussed as a member of the conspiracy before today? Probably not.
But if you add this individual to the conspiracy, then you get to count his actions as being a part of the conspiracy.
Which means that now, you can claim that “they” (the conspirators) are avoiding “their” own vaccines. And that is suspicious.
But you can only make that claim if you accept the theory that the PharmaMar CEO is part of this conspiracy.
Do you see the issue? If I’m allowed, as a conspiracy theorist, to add conspirators into my theory based only on a job title, then I can craft whatever narrative I want just by picking and choosing conspirators from convenient news stories.
I accept it would be damning if your theory of this individual’s involvement in a conspiracy were proven true. But I don’t assume it’s damning based on the possibility that the theory is true.
Does that make sense?
I waffled for a bit before responding to this, so I truly hope you read this in the good faith it’s intended.
You are saying he “naturally would be in constant contact with his colleagues.” This isn’t something you know for sure, but something that you are making an educated guess about.
It’s a theory, one based on him sharing a job title with people that you believe are involved in a conspiracy to poison people, or at least hide that people are being poisoned.
Was this individual ever proven or discussed as a member of the conspiracy before today? Probably not.
But if you add this individual to the conspiracy, then you get to count his actions as being a part of the conspiracy.
Which means that now, you can claim that “they” (the conspirators) are avoiding “their” own vaccines. And that is suspicious.
But you can only make that claim if you accept the theory that the PharmaMar CEO is part of this conspiracy.
Do you see the issue? If I’m allowed, as a conspiracy theorist, to add conspirators into my theory based only on a job title, then I can craft whatever narrative I want just by picking and choosing conspirators from convenient news stories.
I accept it would be damning if your theory of this individual’s involvement in a conspiracy were proven true. But I don’t assume it’s damning based on the possibility that the theory is true.
Does that make sense?
I waffled for a bit before responding to this, so I truly hope you read this in the good faith it’s intended.
You are saying he “naturally would be in constant contact with his colleagues.” This isn’t something you know for sure, but something that you are making an educated guess about.
It’s a theory, one based on him sharing a job title with people that you believe are involved in a conspiracy.
Was this individual ever proven or discussed as a member of the conspiracy before today? Probably not.
But if you add this individual to the conspiracy, then you get to count his actions as being a part of the conspiracy.
Which means that now, you can claim that “they” (the conspirators) are avoiding “their” own vaccines. And that is suspicious.
But you can only make that claim if you accept the theory that the PharmaMar CEO is part of this conspiracy.
Do you see the issue? If I’m allowed, as a conspiracy theorist, to add conspirators into my theory based only on a job title, then I can craft whatever narrative I want just by picking and choosing conspirators from convenient news stories.
I accept it would be damning if your theory of this individual’s involvement in a conspiracy were proven true. But I don’t assume it’s damning based on the possibility that the theory is true.
Does that make sense?