I am questioning the validity of the source. There is no evidence that the placebo was anything but that. Inert. Sure is published in prepublication which is the equivalent of the national enquirer but that is an insult to the national enquirer as once in a while that gets it right.
I read the article critically and there is no possible way to validate it. It seems conformational bias on your part to accept it whole cloth.
As for your other statement I have been hearing conspiracy theory in a few months is truth. Perhaps consider this … a lie unchecked told often enough is assumed to be the truth. In reality outside id this narrowest of like minded that seem to aggregate in certain sections of this forum, the vast majority of those formally trained in science and medicine let alone the majority of the middle od the red public think that these theories are plain kooky.
I don’t need some ass backward journal that can’t site one legitimate source except it’s self proclaimed experts who can’t sight on reasonable source that can be confirmed to know what the time of day is on this piece of garbage article.
With all due respect.
And I am saying that I would believe the craziest National Enquirer headline before I believe anything you Pfizer shills claim. You simply have no credibility at all.
Your credibility is so bad that someone making wild, unsubstantiated claims that would otherwise be dismissed out of hand is more believable than you are.
I seriously doubt this particular claim. But I would accept it with any corroborating evidence offered because commiting this sort of fraud is exactly what I expect out of Pfizer. And you.
Even a backward journal knows the difference between "site" and "cite", unlike, say, a professor in gaslighting.