The anonymous account @riochtconor2 was Conor Riordan, a @pfizer senior exec Conor was not “presenting” data, he was cherrypicking data that cast FFG in a positive light Conor should’ve declared his potential conflict of interest. Trust in science depends on transparency

16 comments
  1. I would love to know what service or what private investigator Paddy uses, the anonymous accounts he finds info on is a bit mad, like how?

  2. The mob really came for that account in the past few days. Sad really. I found his graphs to be really useful and he was only using data from the geohive anyway. I think he should have kept his commentary to himself though and just stuck to the graphs.

  3. I’ve yet to see anyone put forward an argument against the data he was presenting. All I’m seeing is words like “cherry picking” and accusations of him being falsely positive, yet nobody has actually argued against specific data he has shown. His “positive light” was that he was showing hospitalisation and ICU numbers compared to last year to show what a difference the vaccine has made.

    I used to have respect for Paddy years ago but it’s fading rapidly. His accusations that this guy is a FFG cronie seem to be because someone with the name Leo Varadkar donated €10 to this guy’s charity cause. I highly doubt that’s the actual Leo, as anyone could have left that name.

    Maybe Paddy has a vendetta against statistics, after it took him three months to apologise for incorrectly claiming 4 HSE nurses died because of covid.

  4. It’s the coordination of it all that’s fucked up. A bunch of shinner bots suddenly started unloading on him all week and now cosgrove jumps in.

    All because he’s been presenting publicly available HSE data and saying a drop in ICU levels was a good thing. Some fucked up people want things to get worse apparently.

  5. Wouldn’t call his role a senior exec one. Moat people have an employer. Pfizer connection insignificant here if you ask me.

Leave a Reply