Project Veritas Sting Catches Pfizer Employee Seemingly Admitting the Company Is Deliberately Mutating Covid

I'm not sure if this guy knows what he's talking about, but I want to know more.

What he's talking about is the kind of gain-of-function research that created Covid in the first place in Wuhan. Or, rather: Pfizer calls it "directed evolution," that is, "evolution" forced and guided by the human hand, and so claims it's not therefore "gain-of-function" research and therefore allowed.

This is called "serial passage." I think that means you keep running the virus through different animals attempting to get specific mutations.

This technique was used in covid as part of its gain-of-function techniques used on bat viruses.

This is all to create the viruses so that they can then create the vaccines to the virus -- which makes no sense to me. You're inventing a poison and then inventing the antidote. How about you just don't make the poison in the first place?

The claim is that they're just creating mutations that would possibly happen anyway. This makes no sense to me. For one thing, they're trying to predict natural mutations in viruses, which can steal genetic sequences from other organism and then randomly incorporate them into their own RNA? This is something they think they can predict with accuracy?

For another thing: Just wait until the virus actually appears in the wild. Then make the vaccine. How about that?

The Post-Millennial:

Project Veritas released a new video Wednesday in which a Pfizer executive claimed the company is attempting to "mutate" COVID via "Directed Evolution" in order to preempt the development of future vaccines.

As a result, #DirectedEvolution trended worldwide.

Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer's Director of Research and Development, Strategic Operations and an mRNA Scientific Planner claimed that Directed Evolution is not the same as Gain-of-Function research which according to the outlet is defined as "a mutation that confers new or enhanced activity on a protein," meaning that the virus in question can become more powerful depending on the mutation or scientific enhancement.

Walker told an undercover Project Veritas journalist, "One of the things we [Pfizer] are exploring is like, why don't we just mutate it [COVID] ourselves so we could create -- preemptively develop new vaccines, right? So, we have to do that. If we're gonna do that though, there's a risk of like, as you could imagine -- no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses."

He added, "From what I've heard is they [Pfizer scientists] are optimizing it [COVID mutation process], but they're going slow because everyone is very cautious -- obviously they don't want to accelerate it too much. I think they are also just trying to do it as an exploratory thing because you obviously don't want to advertise that you are figuring out future mutations."

I don't know this, but I'm guessing: Remember when Fauci secretly redefined "gain of function" during the Trump transition when no one was paying attention? I wonder if the redefinition claims that gain-of-function only involves gene splicing but not this "serial passage" technique of obtaining the same results. Which would explain why people plainly engaged in "gain of function" keep saying that it's technically not gain of function.

posted by Ace at 12:04 PM

| Access Comments