As 33,000,000 people now know, a man named Jordan Trishton Walker was secretly interviewed by a Project Veritas reporter a few days ago. A video of the encounter was posted on Twitter and the Project Veritas website on January 25 at 7:37 PM EST. Just before it went live, one Twitter user tweeted: “I’ve seen the footage and video coming out of Veritas, and it’s explosive!” He was right. The day after the video was released, a second video was released, this one of Walker’s reactions to the first video. Walker assaulted James O’Keefe and his crew in an effort to obtain and destroy an iPad containing the video of his interview.
This was a normal response, given the circumstances. Walker, Pfizer’s director of research and development – strategic operations and scientific planning for Mrna – had admitted on video that Pfizer was involved in experiments he described as “directed evolution”. To anyone who has heard of the coronavirus, “directed evolution” sounds a lot like “gain of function.” Broadly speaking, gain-of-function research is when a pathogen is intentionally made more dangerous. Some scientists, however, see it differently. For example, Dr. Thomas Briese of Columbia University described gain-of-function as a “proactive” approach to understanding what will happen in nature. That’s exactly what Walker said in the video. When pressed on the point, Walker denies that they are doing gain-of-function, but then seems to contradict himself by adding, referring to gain-of-function: “They’d rather not, but we do these selected structure mutations to try to see if we can – the most powerful ones”. How is it not a gain of function?
Go ad-free, get exclusive shows and content, go Premium today – $1 trial
In the context of the Pfizer investigation, Walker says “there better be no more outbreaks.” There appears to have been an outbreak, and the outbreak was connected to Pfizer’s research. What do you mean by that? At another point in the interview, he hints that this is how the covid “pandemic” began, “I suspect [this] it’s the way the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. Like, it doesn’t make sense that this virus would come out of nowhere.” Do you suspect it? Or do you know it?
A background check on Walker conducted by Brian O’Shea reveals that prior to working at Pfizer, Walker worked for the Boston Consulting Group, a 25,000-employee business consulting firm. His specialty is very similar to the kind of conversations we hear at the World Economic Forum (WEF): sustainability, diversity and social impact. Walker worked in their health division. While there, and just before the so-called pandemic became global news, BCG sent Walker on a business immersion Chinese course. Because? Did you deal with Chinese clients or contractors? Right after that, he went to work for Pfizer.
So what we have here is a young-looking 36-year-old man who works as a director of research and development for Pfizer. The title puts Walker at the center of covid vaccine research. His title also says that when he says they are doing experiments on the covid virus described as “directed evolution” he is in a position to know. The way he describes directed evolution sounds so much like illegal “gain of function” research that the two are indistinguishable. He worries about another “outbreak”, meaning there has already been one. It means a lab leak. He then shares that he believes this is what happened in Wuhan. And it just so happens that he took a crash course in Chinese (in China?) around the time of the outbreak.
This brings us to Pfizer’s response. The first thing of interest is that Pfizer doesn’t mention Walker once in the press release. They don’t deny that he works for them, that he has the mountainous title found on his (now deleted) LinkedIn profile, or any of the things he specifically said. Instead, their release attempts to refute the idea that they are conducting illegal gain-of-function research. They are just as successful as Walker when he said, in essence, “we don’t do that. We do the exact same thing, but we call it something else to legalize it.” Ironically, Pfizer also denies the term “directed evolution” used by Walker in the now infamous video.
Stop buying from companies that hate you, change your spending
They write: “In the ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer has not conducted gain-of-function or directed evolution research.” That seems pretty self-explanatory, but combined with the rest of his answer, it’s as convincing as Bill Clinton saying, “I never had sex with Monica Lewinsky.” Just as Clinton’s lie hinged on the definition of “sexual intercourse,” Pfizer’s claim is conditioned by the words “ongoing development of the Pfizer-Biotech COVID-19 vaccine.” This is a very specific condition. It leaves open the possibility that they may have made gains of function and directed evolutionary research in any other context but that one. Or that they could make it seem that way by diverting attention from the Covid vaccines. “Oh, you mean the gain from functional research. Sure, we did it there, but not here.”
Their document supports “working with collaborators”, which I read meant contractors like Boston Consulting Group. These contractors “conducted research where the original SARS CoV-2 virus was used to express the spike protein of new variants of concern.” Where did the contributors get the new variants of concern if not through the process of directed evolution described by Walker? They say they only do this after public health authorities identify the variant, which means Pfizer couldn’t have done it themselves.
How do public health authorities know? Is there anything to stop Pfizer finding out on its own, telling the public health authorities, and then telling people that they are acting on the advice of the authorities? We’ve seen this sort of thing happen before, like with the Hamilton 68 disclosures, where the desired information was created for the purpose of being broadcast from an “independent” source, except it wasn’t actually independent .
Pfizer later states that “most of this work is done through computer simulations or mutations of the main protease.” To me, that sounds like, “We don’t gain function except when we do.” A computer simulation is not the same as a mutation. They go on to write, “when a full virus does not contain any known gain-of-function mutations,” that is, “we checked before and found that it is safe and legal to use that virus because it has not yet been altered.” In such cases, says Pfizer, “this virus can be engineered to allow assessment of antiviral activity in cells.” I’m not sure the reason for engineering the virus changes it from gain-of-function research to something benign. Nor does the fact that a virus has not yet been designed prevent it from being designed later in exactly the way described in this document.
The entire press release seems very carefully crafted to say the same thing Walker admitted in the video, but to do it in a way that ensures no one understands anything after the first line. After limiting their statement to a specific “vaccine,” they say, “Pfizer has not conducted gain-of-function or directed evolution research.” That’s what they want readers to remember. The rest of the document appears to describe Pfizer conducting gain-of-function/evolution research directed at partner labs, possibly overseas, to avoid regulatory oversight.
Add in Dr. Anthony Fauci’s connection to NIH-funded SARS research in Wuhan, China, Walker’s statement about Wuhan, another “outbreak,” and his consulting job that required training in Chinese, and it starts to look that Pfizer may be one of a handful of partners who are directly responsible for the “pandemic.” Nothing in Pfizer’s recent press release directly refutes this, although they try to say that they have not conducted this type of research before admitting that they do similar research through collaborators elsewhere .
Was the covid outbreak a Pfizer experiment that got out of hand? Or was it their version of a product launch?
Quick: Do It Before Biden ‘Fixes’ Your Retirement Plan Next…
Red Voice Media would like to clarify why we do not refer to any vaccine related to COVID-19 as a “vaccine”. According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine requires that the vaccine has a lasting effect of at least one year to prevent contracting the virus or disease it is intended to combat. As all the available COVID-19 vaccinations to date have barely offered six months of protection, and even then it is not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision to stop referring to the Pfizer substances, Moderna or Johnson & Johnson as vaccinations. .
English 
Español de Venezuela