It's clear you cannot differentiate between a fallacious argument and a legitimate critique of your logic or lack thereof. Your entire argument for disparaging James O'Keefe hinges on a "documentary" made by someone who worked for him Do you not understand what a conflict of interest is? It's not an "argument" you've referenced one likely highly biased documentary by a former employee of James O'Keefe. And I noticed you didn't even attempt to justify how a professional wouldn't have a copy of their own evidence against Pfizer. I think he brought that to James O'Keefe in an attempt to trap him in arbitration with big pharma. What other possible explanation could justify willingly handing James O'Keefe the only proof he had? There's one other distinct possibility, he's a disingenuous piece of shit much akin to your style of "argument". Are you Justin?🤔

It's clear you cannot differentiate between a fallacious argument and a legitimate critique of your logic or lack thereof. Your entire argument for disparaging James O'Keefe hinges on a "documentary" made by someone who worked for him Do you not understand what a conflict of interest is? It's not an argument you've referenced one likely highly biased documentary by a former employee of James O'Keefe. And I noticed you didn't even attempt to justify how a professional wouldn't have a copy of their own evidence against Pfizer. I think he brought that to James O'Keefe in an attempt to trap him in arbitration with big pharma. What other possible explanation could justify willingly handing James O'Keefe the only proof he had? There's one other distinct possibility, he's a disingenuous piece of shit much akin to your style of "argument". Are you Justin?🤔