Pfizer Responds to Project Veritas Video, Admitting to ‘Engineering’ Covid Variants in Lab Studies
The cash cow’s name is Karma: A confusing press release is doing little to allay fears, Sen. Marco Rubio wants to question the CEO, and Pfizer stocks have plummeted 14.5% in January.
In response to the stunning Project Veritas video, Pfizer officials admitted its scientists “engineered” mutated covid viruses in experiments to ensure its pharmaceutical products remained effective against new variants.
In a press release, the company refuted claims made in the video by Jordon Trishton Walker, “director of research and development for strategic operations and mRNA scientific planning.” The Pfizer director swore the company explored “directed evolution”:
“Allegations have recently been made related to gain of function and directed evolution research at Pfizer and the company would like to set the record straight.
“In the ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research. Working with collaborators, we have conducted research where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus has been used to express the spike protein from new variants of concern.
“This work is undertaken once a new variant of concern has been identified by public health authorities. This research provides a way for us to rapidly assess the ability of an existing vaccine to induce antibodies that neutralize a newly identified variant of concern.
…”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.
Dr. Simon Clarke, a microbiologist at the University of Reading, offered this background on Pfizer’s approach.
‘These are not experiments which might risk the generation of a new variant that transmits more readily between people.
‘What Pfizer are doing is to look at how Covid becomes resistant to nirmatrelvir, a component of their PAXLOVID antiviral medicine.
‘They are looking to see what mutations to the molecule that nirmatrelvir’s targets can make it resistant to the drug.
‘This is important because scientists don’t fully understand how viruses might become resistant to nirmatrelvir.
‘These sorts of experiments are routine in the development of new anti-infective drugs and are required by regulators around the world.
‘Without this level of understanding, we could end up relying too heavily on drugs that rapidly become useless.’
However, the press release left much to be desired. It was filled with highly-technical jargon and seemed to conflate computer simulations with the type of viral work requiring the highly specialized containment area associated with a Biosafety Level 3 facility (areas constructed specifically to study infectious agents or toxins that may be transmitted through the air and cause potentially lethal infections).
The company is going to have to do better to answer the questions posed by U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who sent a letter to Albert Bourla, the President and CEO of Pfizer, following the release of the video in which one of its directors casually discusses the company’s manipulation of the covid virus for profit.
“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.
That may be the least of Pfizer’s worries. Its stocks plummeted by 14.5% in January.
Last year, the drugmaker’s shares sank by 10.4%, despite the company’s stellar earnings growth over the course of the year. Unfortunately, Pfizer’s stock hasn’t been able to shake off this downward momentum with the change of the calendar year. The pharma titan’s shares, in fact, have dropped by another 14.5% during the first four weeks of 2023.
That cash cow’s name may have been Karma.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Pfizer will need to bring along its best scientist, CFO and lawyer to the Senate before long.
Does Jordon Walker still work for them? He seems a bit unhinged. His reaction to being caught is also rather indicative of today’s younger generations who seemed to have not actually grown up. He reacted like a child throwing a tantrum.
He knew that his career was over. He was making good money for not a lot of effort and he might have to get a real job doing something.
My favorite part was him stealing the iPad like that would keep PV from having the video of his loose lips sinking a Pfizer ship.
I wonder how he feels when he sees Pfizer stock (and his stock options) tanking 15% and realizing, “I did that — that was all me.”
If Big Pharma had been more honest about the vaccines’ability to prevent transmission and supported vaccinating only those medically compromised, Phizers overly technical explanation would have more credibility
Pfizer has moved further down the meme list.
1. We didn’t do it.
2. We did do it b/c it is good for humanity.
This is how coverups dissolve: gradually, and then suddenly.
Keep your eye on the calendar. It’s been six days so far. From “conspiracy theory” to admitted/proven fact — will we have a new record?
True that. Pity that the legacy media will refuse to cover it until the story becomes common place in public knowledge. Until then they will confine themselves to ignoring or suppressing the story when they don’t limit their coverage to press releases.
Of course that has no linkage to the amount of ad buys by pharma or the approved/consensus ideology of the media and tech platforms. These media organizations are staffed by unbiased journalists who wouldn’t allow their own policy preferences to influence how or whether a story was covered. /s
In the 1990s, I used to research drug company stocks, especially the small companies developing “break=through cures”. After a few years of doing this, and noticing how low the standard was for getting a drug approved (results were better than for the placebo), I started joking that the real miracle drug that is being ignored is the placebo which has been demonstrated to be very effective against everything. So how about a government mandate that all those who chose to continue with the vaccination program be required to start taking the placebo? It’s at least as effective as the mRNA Frankenstein boosters and doesn’t cost the taxpayer $1.7 trillion.
Almost all Pharm startups are worthless eventually. If you are a day trader and know what you are doing you can ride the wave up. It’s also a sector that is prime for shorts.
“doesn’t cost the taxpayer $1.7 trillion.”
I’m sure that can (and would) be arranged.
Evil corporations bio-engineering viruses as part of some secret conspiracy to reap untold profits. When did this country become a bad Hollywood movie script?
The actual date depends on whether the movie to which you refer is Vantage Point, or Weekend at Bernie’s
When I was working on Hepatitis C we would dose an animal, with whatever compound we we’re interested in, to see what mutations would occur in the virus. The idea was to try and create a drug that was effective against a broad range of the virus and its mutations, I don’t see this as being much different, although Pfizer has created this storm themselves.
I suppose that depends on whether one believes a self-serving corporate press release or an inadvertent confession by a person with knowledge of the company’s actions.
I think I need to change my screen name to LabRat.
Researched at their facility in space, right? With the mutant-bug handling facilities isolated from everything else by hard vacuum and space radiation? The one that falls into the sun if not nudged constantly to stay in place?
Why wouldn’t Pfizer or any other drug manufacturer engineer a mutant virus to make sure their drug worked against it? Wouldn’t that be better than not knowing if the drug would be effective against the mutation?
Am I missing something?
Doesn’t seem like that would be useful. Just because you see a mutation in a lab doesn’t mean you’re going to see it in the real world. And the danger of that Frankenstein experiment getting out, while slim, isn’t zero. As the sting showed, Pfizer knows what the result would be… and does it anyway. It’s likely how we got COVID in the first place.
Problem comes if the resistant mutant escapes into the wild
“Simmer down, you rubes. All of this was for your own good.”
Directed evolution is corporate spin for gain of function research. That is why the Phizer exec was so violently upset when he admitted the same and why Phizer issued that word salad sandwich
Having done work in the pharma industry, this statement is typical of “technical” output to the masses — poorly written, badly organized, leaving a lot unsaid, and forcing readers to make inferences that may be right, or may be wrong, but will almost certainly be incomplete.
Putting aside whether Covid vaccinations are good, bad, or useless/unnecessary, a few things to keep in mind.
First, the crazed Pfizer victim of the Veritas sting DID say they were doing “directed evolution.” The definition of directed evolution, a common process (but mostly “in vitro,” more on that in a bit) is very straightforward–the wikipedia discussion is pretty good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
Note that directed evolution consists of MULTIPLE iterations; if you are doing ONE piece of genetic engineering and then seeing how medicines work against that one change, you are NOT doing directed evolution. Pfizer SEEMS to be saying they are doing just a SINGLE change, that is, getting an earlier version of the Covid virus to express the variant’s spike protein, and then seeing how their vaccine works or doesn’t against it — that is, does the vaccine generate antibodies that work.
My question for them is this: why aren’t you using the variant ITSELF, rather than getting a previous version to express the variant’s spike.
Second, recall that the Pfizer exec said they were infecting monkeys with the altered virus. I have no doubt that is true. You can do directed evolution in vitro, which is mostly how it happens. In vivo work requires animals, typically mice strains, but the public is not really aware that primates are still used quite a bit. I am almost certain that when they said they were “working with collaborators” that’s what the collaborators, somewhere, are doing.
So assuming they are just doing ONE iteration, simply expressing the spike protein of the variant with an older virus, and simply infecting monkeys in one round and testing the vaccine’s ability to generate antibodies, they are correct: they are NOT doing directed evolution. Maybe they are lying, or maybe our crazed sting victim is just not very smart about the science.
Now, third, let’s look at the third paragraph, which is a hodgepodge. Here are the key sentences, taken in pieces.
“With a naturally evolving virus, it is important to routinely assess the activity of an antiviral. Most of this work is conducted using computer simulations or mutations of the main protease–a non-infectious part of the virus.”
The key phrase is the “mutations of the virus” by that they mean most likely JUST the new spike. Are these the mutations that have NATURALLY occurred, and you are just watching this ONE time? Or are you having the experiments work through multiple iterations to see how that spike “evolves.” Then you are doing “directed evolution.”
Next, we have this, the sentence that has most everyone who has read it either horrified or convince that Pfizer is engaging in obfuscation and deflection.
“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”
First, which virus are you talking about here…the variant or variants now in question, or future variants? I think what they mean is, “well, with this new guy, it’s not obvious it has some new spike protein, so we will replicate the ENTIRE virus, stick it in a petri dish with Paxlovid, and see how the drugs works?
Is that right?
Then there’s this.
“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.”
Wait, so are you doing a ONE time new spike protein expression, putting the full virus in a petri dish, and then watching it mutate? And then testing Paxlovid? They you ARE doing directed evolution.
Bottom line, the whole statement is a hot mess.
But I hate to break it to you guys, NOTHING is going to happen to Pfizer and its management team. They are following the “rules.”