Woah Pfizer executive admits they are considering mutating virus.

[Tuur]

Maybe they took them down because the videos were less than truthful?

Is it your contention that the Pfizer employee lied?

 

[Tuur]

Yeah, even I am not that harsh on the funeral industrial complex.

Feh. There's no such thing. It's mostly small businesses dominated by traditions that can vary from place to place. Some morticians are unscrupulous, others aren't, and are often caught in the middle, especially with family dramas.

 

[Tuur]

The Pfizer guy isn't "confessing" to anything. He's just talking about some possible research paths they considered for developing more "future proof" vaccines. There is no evil intent behind what he describes.

There's no evil intent, but it's not particularly wise. Even though the number of possible mutations would be finite, my guess is that it's large enough that Pfizer's program is still hit and miss. Meanwhile, there's the risk of inadvertent release. Industrial accidents do happen.

 

[wing2000]

I don't trust a multi millionaire company whos 'scientist' admitted covid is going to be a cash cow for a long time. Nothing shady at all with a pharma company mutating a virus...

....so if you don't trust private industry to develop vaccines, who would you trust? Anyone?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Well it's clear that you can't trust big pharm. And you certainly can't trust the government. I guess I will just trust people who are on the internet telling me to drink bleach and inject horse medicine. They won't control me!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Maybe they took them down because the videos were less than truthful?

Where was it recorded? Recording someone without their permission is illegal in some states.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So, the videos were removed... and it were videos of a guy admitting things so i don't see why it would be fake news.

Its confirmed the guy is a real employee.

It's possible the guy was lying or exaggerating to sound more impressive and like more of an "insider".

As noted in my earlier post, it's not the first time Project Veritas has used the pretense of tricking a person into thinking they're on a date (and perhaps having a few drinks in the process) and taking what they say as some sort of revelation or admission of something.

I watched one of my co-workers at a bar a few years back (after a couple drinks) try to impress a woman by telling some exaggerated story about how our company (and more specifically him) had insider knowledge about the Experian breach with false or exaggerated details like:

"I knew about it a week before the public did but had to keep it secret" -which was false.

"We know who the cyber criminals were who did it" -no he didn't.

"I was the one having to do damage control for Experian and help with the data forensics" -which was exaggerated, he was mid-level dev who was tasked with pulling an email list of possibly impacted customers from our end, and uploading it to their FTP site.


Had the target of his affection have been a Project Veritas plant, the story would've been "High ranking developer confirms <Company XYZ> knew about the breach but kept it hidden for a week"


People who think they're on dates or think they have a shot with someone (and have had a few drinks) have a tendency to develop what I call "Clark Griswold syndrome".

By that, I mean... the scene in National Lampoon's Vacation where by the end of the exchange, he's told her that he was a former CIA op who was the secret owner of the hotel they were at.

 

[Gene2memE]

And you think this is perfectly normal?

Yes. The tools to do this have been around for about 2 decades (if not longer) and it's progressively becoming an accepted practice when developing vaccines on rapidly mutating viruses, such as influenza.

There was a big mis-match between the vaccine and the viral variants in the 2014-2015 flu season, and that's what really kicked this sort of thing into prominence.

There are about 77,000 papers on google scholar about forcing mutations to predict the future evolution of influenza.

is this even legal?.

As far as I can see, perfectly so. Normally this sort of stuff requires approvals and oversight from national medical bodies, but once those approvals are given then work can proceed.

Why doesn't the media talk about this.

Mostly because it's not that interesting, unless you're trying to misrepresent what's going on to gin up wild conspiracy/political talking points.

Science reporting is hard to get people to read about at the best of times. Stuff about testing for potential future viral variants to develop slightly more effective vaccines is of little interest to most people outside of very specialised areas.

Project veritas didn't made up those words the guy said them himself.

Yeah, but he was likely talking in loose/non-specalist terms in a non-clinical setting, which leaves his words open to mis-interpretation/mis-representation without the proper context being known. That's Project Veritas' M.O. That, and selectively editing stuff to make things slant a particular way.

 

[NBB]

Yes. The tools to do this have been around for about 2 decades (if not longer) and it's progressively becoming an accepted practice when developing vaccines on rapidly mutating viruses, such as influenza.

There was a big mis-match between the vaccine and the viral variants in the 2014-2015 flu season, and that's what really kicked this sort of thing into prominence.

There are about 77,000 papers on google scholar about forcing mutations to predict the future evolution of influenza.



As far as I can see, perfectly so. Normally this sort of stuff requires approvals and oversight from national medical bodies, but once those approvals are given then work can proceed.



Mostly because it's not that interesting, unless you're trying to misrepresent what's going on to gin up wild conspiracy/political talking points.

Science reporting is hard to get people to read about at the best of times. Stuff about testing for potential future viral variants to develop slightly more effective vaccines is of little interest to most people outside of very specialised areas.



Yeah, but he was likely talking in loose/non-specalist terms in a non-clinical setting, which leaves his words open to mis-interpretation/mis-representation without the proper context being known. That's Project Veritas' M.O. That, and selectively editing stuff to make things slant a particular way.

Not that interesting? the cause of this pandemic probably was (said by this guy himself too) a virus mutated in a lab. Has the potential of killing a lot of people, also a senator sent a letter to pfizer to stop any of this in case they were doing it. Not that interesting?

 

[Pommer]

Not that interesting? the cause of this pandemic probably was (said by this guy himself too) a virus mutated in a lab. Has the potential of killing a lot of people, also a senator sent a letter to pfizer to stop any of this in case they were doing it. Not that interesting?

Gotcha! journalism, isn’t.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not that interesting?

That's right.

the cause of this pandemic probably was (said by this guy himself too) a virus mutated in a lab.

Possibly, but not probably.

Has the potential of killing a lot of people, also a senator sent a letter to pfizer to stop any of this in case they were doing it.

Performative stupidity from a US Senator? Welcome to the 21st century. (Little Marco must be planning to run for President as soon as Trump is indicted.)

Not that interesting?

The more I hear about this the less "concerning" it sounds. (And it started out with the low likelihood of being problematic due to its sourcing from PV.)

 

[NBB]

That's right.

Possibly, but not probably.


Performative stupidity from a US Senator? Welcome to the 21st century. (Little Marco must be planning to run for President as soon as Trump is indicted.)

The more I hear about this the less "concerning" it sounds. (And it started out with the low likelihood of being problematic due to its sourcing from PV.)

I smell big inconsistency here, so some puppy funny video is more interesting than this? you know like sometimes they put something like that in the news, the video on twitter has like 30 millions views and a lot of people were talking about this with concern.

 

[Pommer]

I smell big inconsistency here, so some puppy funny video is more interesting than this? you know like sometimes they put something like that in the news, the video on twitter has like 30 millions views and a lot of people were talking about this with concern.

Is “truth” determined by large numbers of people believing it? Or is truth independent of popularity?

 

[NBB]

Is “truth” determined by large numbers of people believing it? Or is truth independent of popularity?

I don't think main stream media is too concerned with the truth though, truth can be anything that is on their side it seems.

 

[Pommer]

I don't think main stream media is too concerned with the truth though, truth can be anything that is on their side it seems.

What is it that you think you’re saying? (I found this cryptic)

 

[wing2000]

I don't think main stream media is too concerned with the truth though, truth can be anything that is on their side it seems.

...you don't trust pharmaceutical companies, you don't trust "main stream media" (whatever that is).....

Who do you trust?

 

[wing2000]

..speaking of mutations, is anyone else seeing these annoying pop-up adds?

 

[Tuur]

...you don't trust pharmaceutical companies, you don't trust "main stream media" (whatever that is).....

Who do you trust?

Main stream media is the popular media, the one you see when you turn on your TV or you radio or pick up most newspapers. If you think they are devoted to the truth, I give you as a counter example one William Randolph Hearst and Cuba prior to the Spanish American War. They are devoted to sales and to agendas.

I've seen too much of what passes for reporting to trust it absolutely. It's always good to do what fact checking you can. Interesting how that's mocked in some circles. And yet it was that fact checking that led me to conclude that yes, the vaccine drastically lowered my odds of death due to COVID-19, courtesy of data from the state health department. And why do I trust that data? In part because I know one of those who gathered it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's possible the guy was lying or exaggerating to sound more impressive and like more of an "insider".

As noted in my earlier post, it's not the first time Project Veritas has used the pretense of tricking a person into thinking they're on a date (and perhaps having a few drinks in the process) and taking what they say as some sort of revelation or admission of something.

I watched one of my co-workers at a bar a few years back (after a couple drinks) try to impress a woman by telling some exaggerated story about how our company (and more specifically him) had insider knowledge about the Experian breach with false or exaggerated details like:

"I knew about it a week before the public did but had to keep it secret" -which was false.

"We know who the cyber criminals were who did it" -no he didn't.

"I was the one having to do damage control for Experian and help with the data forensics" -which was exaggerated, he was mid-level dev who was tasked with pulling an email list of possibly impacted customers from our end, and uploading it to their FTP site.


Had the target of his affection have been a Project Veritas plant, the story would've been "High ranking developer confirms <Company XYZ> knew about the breach but kept it hidden for a week"


People who think they're on dates or think they have a shot with someone (and have had a few drinks) have a tendency to develop what I call "Clark Griswold syndrome".

By that, I mean... the scene in National Lampoon's Vacation where by the end of the exchange, he's told her that he was a former CIA op who was the secret owner of the hotel they were at.

Update: My theory may have been on to something.

“In that viral video, Jordon who was trying to impress his Tinder date – an undercover Project Veritas journalist, claimed that Pfizer was thinking of mutating the COVID-19 virus using Directed Evolution..

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Basically, what the Pfizer guy was saying is that Pfizer had considered where the virus might mutate in the future to produce vaccines that would respond to those anticipated mutations before they become widespread. (The vaccines are at least 6 months behind widespread emergence of particular variants.) It's a perfectly reasonable thing to consider, but (a) it might not be effective (might not generate mutations that appear) and (b) there could be some downsides related to the creation and containment of new variants that haven't (and may not ever) evolved on their own in the wild. This approach requires very careful consideration of the possibilities of lab failures.

[This is not traditional "Gain of function" work. That involves taking existing features from one virus and adding it to another. For example, taking a deadly virus that doesn't spread well and giving it a feature that makes it propagate more rapidly.]

Like most "PV" operations, this video "investigation" is designed to propagate a point of view, particularly one not backed by actual facts. In this case they are fueling a "vaccines are dangerous" and probably "vaccine companies are dangerous" narrative.

No, you reworded what the Doctor actually said, to read passively (Pfizer had considered where the virus might mutate in the future... as if Pfizer isn't actively engaged)". Dr. Walker actually said (segment from a transcript found in substack):

"O’Keefe: That's right, it appears that Pfizer is internally discussing the possibility of mutating the covid virus themselves in order to tailor a vaccine to sell to the public. Listen to Walker describe in detail just how they would conduct such a scientific experiment - first, in living animals.

Walker: So the way that we're thinking about it - don't tell anyone this by the way. You have to promise you won’t tell anyone, okay? So, the way it would work is like we put them in – the virus in these monkeys. And then we successively, like, cause them to keep infecting each other. And we collect serial samples from them, and then, the ones that are more infectious, to like, the virus, we'll put them in another monkey and you just constantly actively mutate it. That’s one way. Or we could even do like, directed like simulation, which like, we tend not to prefer. And they just sample what the different like, proteins on the surface of the virus look like over time.

Journalist: Okay.

Walker: So, then you can see the mutation. You can now force it to mutate in a certain way that you want it.

Journalist: Okay."

Walker was scrubbed from the internet within 24 hours, as were these videos on all platforms that the big G browser and Youtube control. But there are still some free speech sites remaining where one can view them, like Twitter (now that the old Biden Administration regime has been removed).