VIDEO NOW BLOWING UP THE INTERNET; Pfizer director on camera saying they are “mutating" COVID-19 Virus to increase infectiousness. UNREAL!
"That is Not What We Say to the Public" …
"People Won’t Like That’ … ‘Don’t Tell Anyone"pic.twitter.com/pGP8dCkNNf
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) January 26, 2023
To benefit Pfizer. I can actually see why a company would wish to mutate a virus in order to better fight it. I can also see how this could so easily result in disaster. Bottom line: I do not trust Pfizer nor do I trust the government agencies that regulate Pfizer.
I don’t see the big deal; it’s called Following the Science(tm). I mean, it’s not Pfizer’s fault that The Science(tm) is so mind-bogglingly lucrative, and so they surely cannot be blamed. And to be fair they cannot be blamed, as the government in its infinite wisdom has given them nearly blanket immunity, and has its regulatory agencies largely funded by it. And if you think that’s a dangerous and obvious conflict of interest, then you simply don’t understand the complexities of Science(tm) of the following thereof.
It’s one hell of a business model though: create a problem, develop a crappy solution, have the government fund and/or mandate that solution, bear no responsibility for its effects or even whether it works or not.
Ah, I love the smell of crony capitalism in the morning, although inhaling too hard might bring on sudden onset myocarditis or some other ailment. It is stroke season, after all, so mask up. Science(tm) says so.
/snark concluded.
On another note, these Project Veritas videos demonstrate sufficiently that no need exists for classified documents. If all it takes is a few drinks to get people to spill this kind of info, any classification system is beyond meaningless.
/snark actually concluded.
Like how is he like head of like R & D/Operations/MRNA Strategic Planning. He talks like a giddy teenage schoolgirl! He doesn’t come across as somebody with any scientific qualifications.
Either a) Pfizer employ individuals who are geared to sales/marketing, akin to useful fools, to head their R&D because those individuals don’t realise the scientific implications of what they are proposing or b) the guy is talking crap. Something doesn’t add up here.
I should have done an online search before my above comment, however, I looked him up and he is an MD. He is apparently on loan from Pfizer from Boston Consulting Group. He was sent to learn mandarin right before the pandemic hit.
https://brianoshea.substack.com/p/who-is-jordon-trishton-walker?utm_campaign=auto_share
This is the reason I oppose animal testing. Our society/regulatory agencies/businesses are simply too immoral and unethical to do so.
With this “vaccine”, the immoral and unethical pharmaceutical industry was allowed to completely bypass animal testing and move straight into coercive experimentation on the world population.
… That doesn’t seem better.
Well, that didn’t take long! 😂
https://babylonbee.com/news/pfizer-releases-new-vaccine-virus-combo-pack
Maybe we just need to learn to live with the medications we currently have until we learn the concept and right/wrong, good/evil.
There are legitimate reasons to do this… but….
Leaks are possible, especially when it is policy to NOT figure out where leaks come from.
And beyond that, if you knew that releasing a virus would increase your companies profits by a lot and that no one would even bother to investigate whether you did it, much less punish you for doing so, wouldn’t it be a huge temptation to release it?
[…] from The American Catholic: You Can Trust Pfizer – Donald R. McClarey, J.D., at The American […]
Are there any institutions remaining that aren’t failing their purported constituents? Trust in institutions is evaporating, and for good reason. We live in a post-Christian society, and that includes much of the Church hierarchy. When the Church fails, is it any wonder that society falls apart not long after. We need to reconvert the Church, and then society will follow.
I don’t see any legitimate reason for gain-of-function or directed evolution research. The conditions under which a virus in the wild mutates is dependent upon so many factors that cannot be recreated or anticipated in the lab. By forcing evolution in a specific direction one is introducing a variable that may or may not exist and may or may not be critical (or even possible) in the natural course of the virus’ mutation in the wild. And even then the intervention might be more harmful than the pathogen, assuming one can even be developed at all, especially for things like coronaviruses which are constantly mutating. It’s practically all risk for something that there is no certainty would even ever exist if not for the human intervention.
Although I guess that has to be weighed against the risk of the pharma companies having a bad quarter, so in that sense the cost-benefit analysis makes sense.