2,000 mules

What difference does it make when it was developed? Imagine the compliance? You realize that's the head of pfizer talking...

 

Yes, the head of a drug company talking about being able to determine whether or not people took the drugs they were supposed to. It only sounds scary if you poison the well before the viewer hears him say the words.

 

LOL, took the drugs they were supposed to? Newsflash, he's not putting that out there for the medical profession.

 

Actually… yeah he pretty much is. The use case they are talking about are schizophrenia drugs, and in certain instances patients are legally required to take them (such as if they are convicted of a crime or become violent when not medicated, part of their “compliance” with the law might be to take medication to address mental illness). I’m sure you’ve heard the colloquial phrase “he’s off his meds”.

 

Chant after me, there's nothing to see here, go back to sleep...

 

A random history professor from Israel has an opinion? Cool story.

Besides the irrelevance of the person, I’m guessing this is missing some context, as is typical of Twitter horseshit.

 

His books are really incredible, if you're into humanities. Sapiens is a great read. That being said, no clue why anyone would care about his opinions on things.

 

Had never heard of him, but in the Wikipedia page of this book something caught my eye: The book has gathered mixed reviews. While it was positively received by the general public, scholars with relevant subject matter expertise have been very critical of its scientific and historical claims.

So a book the public audience apparently loves, but actual experts and traditionalist critics loathe or even question its historical accuracy. Sounds like the historian writer’s equivalent to making Marvel movies.

 

It certainly wasn't meant to be a deep, academic read. So I'm not surprised it received some criticism from scholars. That being said, comparing it to Marvel movies is quite the stretch. The topics it brings up I found quite interesting. How humans interact and cooperate, and use imagination to form societies (belief in money, laws, corporations) etc.

 

Bwahahahaha!

 

I didn't realize they published a book. The recall is probably from realizing people who read books have brains.

 

They are going to reissue it as a coloring book.

 

Did you actually read the original linked article? The focus was on hypothetical meds for schizophrenia and Bourla made the statement two years before the Covid-19 pandemic and almost three years before Pfizer's Covid vax was approved.

Just one question. For a patient with severe schizophrenia in which he or she would pose a threat to himself or others absent the meds which alternative would be more invasive, a microchip in a pill or institutionalization? Just asking.

 

They’re just realizing that maybe this is suspect?

 

Big Publishing is in on it

 

In case there is any lingering doubt about how fictional this movie is, the AZ attorney general tried several times to work with the mule story tellers and investigate their claims, confirm the patterns they say the saw in the data, and "true the vote" refused to let the police look at their data....

"2000 Mules" group ignored Arizona AG requests for evidence

 

I’m surprised it was hated on at all. Absolutely loved it as well as Homo Deus

 

I think you guys will probably be quite disappointed when they finally announce the reason for the book recall. A publishing error usually refers to things like blank pages or things like that. I read somewhere that the recall has nothing to do with problems related to fact or fiction.

 

Who cares why the book wa recalled. The premise is laughable.

 

As if there any questions left about the veracity of 2000 Mules - erase all doubts. One of the people that D’Souza claimed was a mule but who was cleared by Georgia before the movie was released is suing.

Analysis | ‘2000 Mules,’ a key piece of election misinformation, has its day in court — The Washington Post


D’Souza’s fraud allegations were adapted from a group called True the Vote, which has been in the “election protection” industry for some time. The film alleges that cellphone geolocation data allowed True the Vote to identify a ring of people who collected and submitted ballots. The film doesn’t show this data, though, save for one map depicting a purported ballot “mule” near Atlanta. Instead, it relies on publicly available surveillance footage captured at ballot drop boxes, which D’Souza claimed in the movie and in an interview with The Washington Post depicted solely those who’d been identified as “mules” who visited numerous drop boxes.


There is literally no reason to believe any of this. No one has ever been identified as part of such a ring, despite the purported “evidence.” The surveillance footage never actually shows anyone going to more than one drop box to deposit a ballot. In fact, only rarely does it show anyone depositing more than one ballot. The map of a “mule” that it shows was fake, as True the Vote’s Gregg Phillips admitted in an email to The Post.

Defendants asserted in multiple published statements that an image of Andrews dropping off the ballots was such an example of a mule and that Andrews had committed various crimes,” Grimberg wrote in his ruling allowing the suit to move forward. In fact, the movie was released after Andrews was cleared by Georgia authorities, but it still includes footage of Andrews submitting ballots as D’Souza calls it a crime in a voice-over.