The little apparatchiks at youtube removed the PV video. Just a bunch of good little government operatives doing the devil's work.

Now Playing on Rumble...



Well that Escalated Quickly...

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
This guy is so screwed, I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up a suicide.

More likely he will end his days as a worn out, toothless, bottom-for-hire on the gay BDSM scene.

Or heading the USDOE Office of High-level Waste Dispoipal.

Google/YouTube Block Project Veritas Expose’ on Pfizer Executive Discussing “Directed Evolution”

Project Veritas founder and CEO James O’Keefe announced earlier on Friday that Google/YouTube removed the expose’ and undercover story showing Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer’s Director of Research and Development, Strategic Operations – mRNA Scientific Planner, discussing the company pursuing “Directed Evolution” a process to modify the COVID-19 virus.

According to the reasoning provided by YouTube, as outlined by O’Keefe, the undercover interview violated the YouTube terms of service for disinformation around the COVID-19 vaccines. This justification despite the claim itself was coming from Pfizer, not Project Veritas. James O’Keefe explains.
WATCH:



https://theconservativetreehou...olution/#more-242684

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Now Playing on Rumble...



Well that Escalated Quickly...

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe class="rumble" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://rumble.com/embed/v24neoc/?pub=4" width="640"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

Every time I watch this I laugh.

Last night, Tucker Carlson remarked that Pfizer’s marketing and PR department had refused to comment or even return Fox’s phone calls all day long, while Fox was only trying to confirm Jordon Trishton Walker’s employment with the pharma giant. But Pfizer was quiet as a covid vial freezer.

At this point, I think it is safe to conclude Walker DOES work at Pfizer. That’s been confirmed through Pfizer’s silence.

Pfizer’s late-released press statement yesterday was short, plainly-written, and to the point. It completely ignored Walker, and most of what he said — except for the single most explosive claim: whether Pfizer is engaged in gain-of-function research. And maybe I’m reading it wrong, but the statement does NOT actually deny the things that Jordon said about “directed evolution” in the PV videos.

In fact, Pfizer’s statement is pretty much an admission, if you read it carefully.

Before we look at my marked-up version of Pfizer’s statement, here’s what Jordon Walker told Project Veritas’s actor:

One of the things we’re exploring is like, why don’t we just mutate it 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.

A risk! Of what? Well, Walker mentioned Wuhan. So.

Now, here’s Pfizer’s precisely-worded statement issued late yesterday, with my notations and highlights:

Pfizer’s statement was packed with lawyerly sleight-of-hand and misdirection. But there are three key admissions, each successively more damning for the pharma company, but obscured by tricky rhetorical legerdemain. Let’s pull the curtain back.

1️⃣ First, note that Pfizer’s key exculpatory sentence sounds like a denial, but it is so narrow that it doesn’t actually deny anything, not really:

In the ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research.

It SOUNDS like a denial, but it only denies gain-of-function research on the CURRENTLY-USED vaccine. They are specifically NOT denying GoF on any other vaccine or, critically, on any other vaccines directed at SARS-CoV-2. They also didn’t mention their contractors or affiliates.

Here’s another way to look at it. Let’s rewrite that denial sentence as a “real” denial, without the lawyer equivocation. It would look like this:

Neither Pfizer nor its contractors and affiliates have never conducted gain of function or directed evolution research.

See? It’s very easy to write a “real” denial. Pfizer’s lawyers were paid to make the non-denial sound like a real denial, by making it complicated and limited while sounding simple and broad.

2️⃣ Pfizer’s lawyers snuck the real admission in the second paragraph. In two difficult-to-read sentences that also sound a lot like denials, Pfizer actually admitted it is tinkering with dangerous viruses.

In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells. In addition, in vitro resistance selection experiments are undertaken in cells incubated with SARS-CoV-2 and nirmatrelvir in our secure Biosafety level 3 (BSL3) laboratory to assess whether the main protease can mutate to yield resistant strains of the virus.

(The phrase “such virus” proves lawyers wrote this, if you’d doubted me. A dead giveaway.)

You might be tempted just to skim those two sentences and let your brain take a quick nap. That’s what Pfizer wants. I think Pfizer got its wires cross a little, intending this to a limited hangout disclosure, but also not wanting to be too clear about it.

Although seemingly part of the same thought, the two sentences are unrelated to each other. They are two different examples where Pfizer admits to performing GoF work, while simultaneously struggling to make the research sound limited, routine, and professional.

It’s like a teenager giving you a dense, complicated explanation for why he left the car keys outside his bedroom window.

The first sentence starts with the meaningless limiting phrase, “In a limited number of cases.” That’s lawyer-speak for “sometimes.” Considering there are trillions of viruses, this language of limitation means nothing. “Limited” is not the same as “small” or “few.” This phrasing is an intentionally misleading rhetorical decoration, meant to trick you into believing it rarely happens.

If they’d really meant “small,” they would have used the actual number, like: “Only four times since Pfizer was founded….” But they didn’t. So we can assume this happens a lot more than they want to admit.

Next, they admitted that if a “full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations” then “such virus may be engineered[.]” And there you have it. I don’t know how you can say it any more plainly than that.

The rest of the sentence is just an excuse for WHY they do GoF research in that case: “to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells.”

That excuse was supposed to make you think that it is the ONLY time Pfizer does GoF work.

3️⃣ The suggestion that there’s only ONE time when Pfizer does GoF research was immediately disproved in the very next sentence when Pfizer used the phrase, “In addition…”, showing the preceding example was part of a LIST. In other words, the second sentence is a SECOND example of Pfizer’s GoF work, and ultimately they never explicitly claim that the two examples are the ONLY cases where Pfizer does GoF research.

That is a lawyer trick for making partial disclosure seem like complete disclosure: “Judge, we gave them two examples and we never said those were the only ones.”

So that you don’t have to scroll back up, here’s that second sentence again:

In addition, in vitro resistance selection experiments are undertaken in cells incubated with SARS-CoV-2 and nirmatrelvir in our secure Biosafety level 3 (BSL3) laboratory to assess whether the main protease can mutate to yield resistant strains of the virus.

By including this sentence in the Paxlovid paragraph, you’re supposed to conclude that this research is ALSO limited to Paxlovid. But it is important to note that the statement never actually says that. If you started this line in a new paragraph, it would be a separate logical thought. The sentence’s inclusion in the Paxlovid paragraph makes it ambiguously misleading.

Pfizer admitted this research is being done in a BSL 3 lab, where research on very dangerous pathogens is performed — the standard level for microbes that can cause serious or deadly diseases through inhalation. There’s only one reason to mention that they’re using BSL 3 — because they could deliberately or accidentally create something infectious or worse, resistant.

Which makes sense, because covid is a BSL-3 virus, and any mutated version would be as dangerous or more so. But that question was quickly resolved by the last part of the sentence, which admitted what they’re trying to accomplish: “assess whether the main protease can mutate to yield resistant strains of the virus.”

In other words, they’re trying to make drug-resistant viral strains. I don’t have to tell you that should be illegal. I don’t care about getting ahead of the curve. There’s less risk of being surprised by nature than of a bad or negligent human actor intentionally or accidentally releasing a deadly, artificial, drug-resistant strain.

We’re supposed to think those two admissions are it; that’s all, folks. But Pfizer doesn’t actually say that. It would be trivially easy to add this capstone: “Pfizer does not conduct any other enhancement research.” But they didn’t, and they WOULD HAVE said it, if that were true.

Is this illegal? Probably not. According to Dr. Malone in his Tucker interview, the Biowarfare treaty — which governs “directed evolution” of microbes — has a lot of holes. For one big example, Israel — Pfizer’s covid laboratory — is not a signatory to the Biowarfare treaty. So Pfizer’s research in Israel is unregulated.

We have entered an age where it’s not just large states in control of weapons of mass destruction. Now, CORPORATIONS build and control weapons of mass destruction.

It’s the democratization of doomsday.

For a contrary view, Substacker Eugyppius argues that nature is a far better and more active incubator of antiviral-resistant mutant viruses than Pfizer could ever hope to be, so let them tinker. I disagree. Nature doesn’t stitch DNA together from completely disconnected sources, like these pharma clowns do using their fancy CRISPR tools.

In a tweet this morning, Dr. Malone agreed with my overall take about the statement:

Robert W Malone, MD @RWMaloneMD
1) Pfizer lawyers did not throw their Director of R&D Operations and Scientific Planning under the bus. 2) there is no denial of what he said. 3) No denial that he is Pfizer staff. 4) Swapping new spike sequences into original Wuhan-1 is technically gain of function research.
7:38 AM ∙ Jan 28, 2023

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com...ack&utm_medium=email

If you Google : Jordan Walker Pfizer

"It looks like the results below are changing quickly
If this topic is new, it can sometimes take time for reliable sources to publish information
Check the source
Are they trusted on this topic?
Come back later
Other sources might have more information on this topic in a few hours or days
Get more tips"


They cant wash this fast enough

Senator Marco Rubio Sends Letter to Pfizer CEO on Alleged Gain-of-Function Research

Dear Dr. Bourla:

I write in response to troubling reports on Pfizer’s intention to mutate the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) virus through gain-of-function, or “directed evolution,” as detailed by Pfizer Director of Research and Development, Jordan Walker. As has been proven time and time again, attempts to mutate a virus, particularly one as potent as COVID, are dangerous. If the claims detailed in the video are true, Pfizer has put its desire for profit over the concern of national and global health and must hold itself accountable.

In a video released by Project Veritas on January 25, 2023, Mr. Walker laid out Pfizer’s plans to develop new vaccines for future variants of COVID by mutating the virus through directed evolution, a process that uses protein engineering to impose natural selection on a living organism or other biological materials, including viruses. Though he claimed the research is currently “exploratory,” he detailed how the research would proceed, such as how scientists would inject the mutated viruses into monkeys and collect serial samples from other monkeys who are infected.

Whether it’s gain of function research, or selected structure mutations through directed evolution, as Mr. Walker claimed would occur, any effort to make a virus more transmittable and deadlier is careless and dangerous. Further, Mr. Walker stated that Pfizer is willing to engage in this dangerous research because COVID and its variants are “a cash cow” for the company and regulators will go easy on their efforts because a significant percentage of government officials aim to work for Pfizer and other biopharmaceutical companies and do not want to compromise their future job prospects.

As a company that claims to “innovate every day to make the world a healthier place,” these claims from your leadership charged with research and development are alarming. As the American people deserve to know, I request that you provide the following information:

1. What efforts is Pfizer currently, or planning to, engage in to mutate the SARS-CoV-2 virus?

2. Does Pfizer intend to continue mutating the SARS-CoV-2 virus through gain-of-function, or directed evolution research, with the purpose of creating new vaccines before the variant is present in the greater population?

3. Has Pfizer engaged with federal officials engaged regarding their plans to oversee this research? Please provide the names and agencies for these individuals.

4. What steps has Pfizer taken to ensure the mutated virus does not leak from the laboratory and infect the greater population?

5. Has Pfizer engaged with other biopharmaceutical companies to collaborate on this research effort? Please list the entities that you have been in contact with.

6. Will you commit to halting any future research that mutates the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine as substantial evidence has indicated that similar dangerous research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology very likely led to the initial emergence and global spread of the virus?

As a leader in global public health and development of the COVID vaccine, with American taxpayer dollars, it is critical that Pfizer is accountable for their actions and be transparent with the public on the substance and intent of their research.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

In a tweet this morning, Dr. Malone agreed with my overall take about the statement:

Robert W Malone, MD @RWMaloneMD
1) Pfizer lawyers did not throw their Director of R&D Operations and Scientific Planning under the bus. 2) there is no denial of what he said. 3) No denial that he is Pfizer staff. 4) Swapping new spike sequences into original Wuhan-1 is technically gain of function research.
7:38 AM ∙ Jan 28, 2023

Apparently O'Keefe verified from Pfizer internal documents that Jordon Walker is Director of Research & Development Strategic Operations.
And Dr. Malone, in this video, is taking what Walker revealed on the video, very seriously.

More and more, recent events with big pharma reminds me of the dystopian book Oryx and Crake. It’s a good read/listen and somewhat prophetic in regards to the health industry positioning themselves to provide the bug, then treatment in a continuous cycle for profit.

quote:

Jordan Walker, Pfizer

Status: Great job in NYC.
Vulnerabilities: Gay, black male.
Career: Done.
Personal life: Done.
Prospects: None
His take: Unfair Public Humiliation

My take: Hell of a price to pay for a Tinder hookup.

I think the CIA could learn a thing or two from Project Veritas.

Pfizer released a statement last night. My wife, ex-biotech project manager in Vaccines Validation, agreed with Malone's assessment. Pfizer denying "gain of function", but spent two paragraphs explaining that they do it, just using different terms.

We don’t have any inside intel, so it’s dangerous to draw assumptions, but yesterday — in the immediate wake of the biggest exposé in Project Veritas’ history, the board placed the gonzo news company’s founder and chairman, James O’Keefe, on involuntary administrative leave, while they reportedly consider permanently removing O’Keefe from his leadership position.

Every single day for the last two years, we’ve been reminded of the axion that in life, there is no such thing as a “coincidence.” When two things are temporally connected, they are almost certainly related to each other somehow. For a random example, when a healthy 52-year-old man takes a shot with brand-new technology and then dies suddenly the very next day, conspiracy theorists leap to unfairly accuse the poor, innocent shot of having something to do with the unlucky guy’s death.

Haha, just kidding. But I’m sure you get the point.

James O’Keefe just broke the biggest story in PV’s history attacking the most well-funded, aggressive, and criminal pharma enterprise in history, and then O’Keefe lead the company in what looks like the most successful fundraising drive the company has ever seen — but suddenly, for some unexplained reason, the board of directors canceled O’Keefe’s password and took his entry swipe key, or at least, the administrative equivalent of those things.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. One is sorely tempted to draw a straight line through the man to the injured animal, Pfizer (along with its deep-state allies), concluding they got to the board members somehow. If I allowed myself to speculate, I could very nicely color this picture in for you.

But we need to avoid being swept away in the hot takes. An alternative explanation could be that the stress of everything going on with the Pfizer takedown somehow exacerbated existing conflicts between O’Keefe and the board, to the point that O’Keefe acted out (think, screaming at the board members or threatening them) and the board reflexively used its powers to put James into time out.

Still, even if that is true, the board members should have offered to resign, not put the very public founder and face of the company into partly-fired status. While the board members legally owe their duties of loyalty to the company rather than the founder, in this case, the founder IS the company.

It is inconceivable to imagine Project Veritas without O’Keefe.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com...ay-february-9th-2023

Say

What

James O’Keefe Is on Paid Leave From Project Veritas
By Andrew Rice, a New York features writer

James O’Keefe, the founder and chairman of Project Veritas, has taken a paid leave from the conservative nonprofit media organization as its board considers whether to remove him from his leadership position, according to current and former employees of the organization.

An internal message sent to Project Veritas employees by the organization’s executive director, Daniel Strack, said that O’Keefe would be taking “a few weeks of well-deserved PTO.” An image of the message was shared by a source familiar with the organization’s internal operations, and its authenticity was confirmed by a current employee. When reached for comment on his personal cell phone, O’Keefe said nothing in response and did not respond to follow-up calls and text messages. Through a Project Veritas spokesman, Strack later released a statement on behalf of the organization. “Like all newsrooms at this stage, the Project Veritas Board of Directors and Management are constantly evaluating what the best path forward is for the organization,” the statement read in part. It did not directly address questions about O’Keefe’s employment status. “There are 65+ employees at Project Veritas dedicated to continuing the mission to expose corruption, dishonesty, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions,” the statement read. “To our supporters: We hear you, we care about you, and we will never give up.”

https://nymag.com/intelligence...itas-paid-leave.html

I just always assumed that Project Veritas was O'Keefe's and O'Keefe's alone. Apparently not.

If they get rid of O'Keefe, I'll never again pay them any heed. "Board"? They can shove a board up their collective ass.

Sounds like they really got too close to the truth. Too many billions at stake to go unnoticed.