45 Comments
author
Jan 28, 2023·edited Jan 28, 2023Pinned

So just in case people are misinterpreting this post:

I am not arguing that SARS-COV2 was not created via GOF research, or was NOT* bioengineered.

Rather, I am arguing that GOF has been widely thrown out and has become an umbrella term for any form of tinkering with a virus.

It's one thing if a virus was constructed (whether nefarious or done with "good intentions"), but it's another if ANY research that looks at mutations would be considered GOF and thus tossed in with questions on the origins of SARS-COV2.

For anyone who has been around on my Substack I've raised questions about SARS-COV2's origins, even if I wasn't one that questioned it originally. I also raised questions about Omicron's emergence as well.

*Not should have been included in the original comment to infer that my original comment does not infer SARS-COV2 was not bioengineered (i.e. that is still a likely possibility).

Expand full comment
Jan 28, 2023Liked by Modern Discontent

Oh, I see what you are saying. Yes, neophytes like myself would probably misuse GOF and it is the new buzzword. But there are obviously many many different levels of viral engineering and I fully admit I do not understand all of those differences. I think it’s more alarming that Pfizer managed to get the whole scandal buried and away from MSM, so even GOF is sadly still not in the mainstream conscience of most Americans.

Expand full comment
author

Which is why I included the comments about nuclear and luciferase. These terms are used colloquially and yet tend to be misused. Regardless of whether we call it NMRi or MRi it still does the same thing.

GOF could refer to anything, and when we lump SARS-COV2 construction with research typical of virology or things of that nature then it's easy to muddy the waters and dilute some of the arguments.

Expand full comment

Meanwhile Pfizer's statement denies nothing of what Walker said. They also accepted to be looking at engineered viruses (Wuhan strain with spikes from recent variants). Technically it could be different than GOF (Ministry of truth is also technically not a propaganda unit) but semantically it is: the manipulation enhances the original strain to evade immunity by means of the new spikes.

No, I really do not want to have pfizer's cake and eat it too: a company providing vaccines shouldn't be creating new viruses exactly as you do not want your physician to work for the pharma industry, ... oh wait.

Expand full comment
Jan 28, 2023Liked by Modern Discontent

Pfizer didn’t deny it so … 🤷‍♀️

Expand full comment
author

They didn't, but I want my post to be less sensational and more grounded in what is known, not what we infer or conclude. People are free to make those comments, but I try to avoid them and should have done so here.

In that regard, Pfizer not denying does not mean that everything stated is inherently true, at least from my perspective.

Expand full comment

If someone accused ME of something so heinous, I’d sure deny it. But that’s just me. 🙂

Expand full comment
author

Sure, but the difference is now that we are altering our argumentative process.

The intent in finding out where the virus came from was an argument of proving a positive i.e. finding evidence that GOF research has taken place, or if bioengineering occurred which led to SARS-COV2. It was always the point of finding answers to get closer to revealing this happened.

The problem is that this Pfizer situation and the "lies by omission" tactic is now attempting to prove a negative i.e. Pfizer now has to show why they AREN'T doing this research. We are starting with the basis that this research is occurring, and are now telling Pfizer they have to provide evidence as to why it isn't, and when they provide some arguments for their PAXLOVID research we are then inferring, "well they didn't say this, so it must be happening."

To your point, let's assume that you were accused of a murder. Do you deny the murder and have the accuser question your innocence and ask you to prove how you didn't commit the murder, or do you instead ask the accuser to prove how you are the murderer?

Our judicial process, whether we consider it adequate or not, lies on the fact that the accuser (the state usually) must prove the guilt of the defendant, not for the defendant to prove their innocence. It is up for those who are being accused to poke holes in such an accusation, and if the accuser cannot meet their burden of proof then we argue that the evidence is lacking to make such comments.

This situation essentially a Kafka trap on the part of Pfizer because either Pfizer admits to doing this research or we assume that this research is happening and Pfizer has to show it isn't.

Heads they lose; tails we win. That's not how the process should go down.

Expand full comment
Jan 29, 2023·edited Jan 29, 2023Liked by Modern Discontent

Thanks for your clarification. Your last sentence was a tad harsh on yourself. We're all human; the PV piece was emotional, even for the viewers (especially the violent parts), and it's easy to get pulled in. Be kind to yourself, and your vulnerability in posting this second piece is a sign of strength. Kudos to you!

Now, I agree that Pfizer didn't deny it and what they denied, they denied under the name of Pfizer, not BioNTech...and I don't trust them with a 10 foot pole, but ofc, that doesn't mean EVERYTHING they say is false.

Expand full comment
author

It was meant to be a bit glib, but I also rushed to write the end so I can see it coming off as being purely self-deprecating. I remember I commented to Brian Mowrey once with the phrase "urge to clickbait, rising..." and I should have went with that.

You're right. Skepticism is needed for a lot of what we see and time should be given to figure out the context. The more I think about it the more I consider this to be someone who just got caught in the crossfire and really just wanted to impress his date 🤷‍♂️

Expand full comment
Jan 30, 2023·edited Jan 30, 2023

I know you meant it to be a bit glib, but I read your comments beating yourself up a bit on Brian's post and then continued on your post (and there's a hint of truth in every joke ....), so I just was supporting you in being a tad more gentle on yourself and also tell you that I admire you for quickly sharing a new opinion. It's ok for people to change their minds; our society shames us for doing so by trying to hold us accountable for the first things we say, but IMHO it's a sign of character and strength for people to show that they're evolving in their mindset/understanding.

I'm sure Jordon wanted to impress his date, but I also believe what he said is true. That being said (or errr technically "written"), to your and Brian's point, perhaps this kind of experimenting is "normal"; however, it seems extremely dangerous to me. I do believe the original strain started in a lab...to me, it's almost incontrovertible (esp with the furin cleavage site). I do not know if it's getting out was accidental or intentional; frankly, I am on the fence. However, even if it was accidental, then if the type of experimenting they were doing is similar to what Pfizer intends to do, then I do not think it is "ok". They are playing with lives for the sake of profit, and that is not ok in my book.

Expand full comment
Jan 29, 2023Liked by Modern Discontent

Good comment. 💕

Expand full comment
Jan 29, 2023Liked by Modern Discontent

Thanks for the post, and recognizing the limitation of responding immediately without fully considering the evidence. I always appreciate your reflections and your honesty. I noticed Walkers lack of scientific words as well, and it seemed like he could be relaying a conversation with a couple co-workers rather than what was happening at Phizer's labs. I wouldn't put it past Pfizer to do something like that tho, because I think they are participating in the global fascist capitalism that has taken a root. (Ivor Patton put out a great post on global fascist capitalism at so far he's been unable to upload to substack....).

This video of Walker would be just a starting point to gather more info, not proof what's happening at phizer. It was very enjoyable to watch though! I always thought that project veritas was using honey traps at times, because in their videos people give information that I don't think they would normally give if there wasn't a beautiful woman or a handsome man on the other side of the conversation. This honey trap had three dates with Walker... so interesting. I'm always aware when videos are edited, and I try to find the original version to make sure what's coming across in the edited video actually reflects what was said.

Expand full comment
author

Substack has been wonky. Usually when Substack makes an update to their website the whole thing feels like it falls apart. Something about not breaking what doesn't need fixing.

It does raise a lot of questions, and it really makes one curious as to what is going on, but that doesn't mean that what Walker says is entirely truthful. It is possible it's just gossip and all of this is hearsay. Hearsay is a thing, right?

Funnily enough, I am always curious who these people are that PV deploys. I wish we all could be attractive enough to have our date try to impress us with GOF research. 😉

The lack of scientific words was something I should have paid more attention to. Like I said, James O'Keefe would be none the wiser to the meaning of these words, which is why I hoped Malone would provide more context or at least some pushback to what was being said, but because he started with the premise that what was stated was inherently true, we're going down that path without figuring out if it was true or not.

Expand full comment
founding
Jan 29, 2023Liked by Modern Discontent

I think you’re being a little harsh on yourself. It’s not like you don’t encourage/teach skepticism in your readers practically all the time. I didn’t originally feel this was the smoking gun that maybe the Covid-skeptical crowd was hoping for ... especially after listening to the first hour or so of the Twitter space.

I really enjoyed the cis/trans example although I tend to think of cis/trans ambiguities in genotyping. I wonder if that’s why I find these gender terms so confusing 🤷🏼‍♀️

Expand full comment
author

The post was partially meant to be in gest as a form of self-deprecation, but I appreciate the comments about it seeming to have come off harsh. You never know how readers will interpret what you write as can be seen in the comments.

Gender terms are confusing because they're intended to be confusing. I think it just muddies everything to make it far more difficult to have some cohesive idea.

I do think we should be more critical/skeptical of these things when it comes out. We pride ourselves in being skeptical so we should always provide some hesitation, and to that I'm a bit frustrated that I wasn't more careful.

Expand full comment

Great commentary and good companion to Brian’s article. While Brian provides a useful and challenging perspective, I find some of his writing a tad obtuse. At times, he seems to assume a high level of technical knowledge from the reader, which makes it tricky for the layman to follow. However, I may just be a dunce. 😊

Expand full comment
author

It's funny you bring that up, because I wouldn't be surprised if people make the same comments with my posts!

It's hard to figure out what level of knowledge people have and so it becomes easy to write from your own perspective, but given I at least have a science background I can easily lose people who may not know certain terms. In a few of my recent posts I tried including terminology that may be useful, but sourcing that information takes additional time. Trying to find citations that people may find useful also ends up taking more time, and so at the end of the day I can see why some people may consider omitting this process, although it ends up leaving out a ton of context.

Note: This isn't what Brian does, but it's certainly something I see with a lot of other Substacks where a study is posted with some comment that may have suggested they only read the abstract and leave it at that.

As to Brian I understand why many think his writing is too technical. From my perspective I can sometimes find that his analogies may confuse me, and it's only when I start to write something up and analogize things myself when I realize what Brian is getting at with his posts (such as ones where he analogizes things to a trial).

Brian is very knowledgeable, and more than likely far more knowledgeable than I am, and I think that may sometimes come out in his writing when it feels too technical.

Expand full comment
Jan 28, 2023·edited Jan 28, 2023

But with Sars Cov 2 with a furin cleavage- doesn’t that point to GOF engineering? It’s still debatable if the leak was on purpose or by accident, but the danger of GOF should be readily apparent.

But I think the issue is a wider problem, the money backing all new experiments are driven by only one goal in mind- something I call the shiny penny theory. The last 20 years have demonstrated the US has in multiple agencies (education, tech, medicine) that they are immediately attracted to the newest thing and make the simplistic assumption that newer means better. So in education, they heard about Singapore Math and boom, the US has to also implement Singapore math! EV cars will save the environment! Let’s force all money into inefficient and environmentally unfriendly practices of solar panels, lithium batteries and windmills! Vaccines can cure HPV- boom- lets apply vaccines to cure everything! Commence Bill Gates spending machine. But each of these changes had the systems ignore and even unlearn in some cases the mastery of many basic skills- and all in the pursuit of money- new textbooks, new medicinal patents.

What the video actually demonstrated was the type of creatures who are in CHARGE of the decision making apparatuses driving public policy- which is utterly frightening. He is arrogant, and clearly not terribly bright, and yet his “Yale’ credentials have him with one foot in a consulting group and the other in medicine, apparently not skilled in either department, but there he is, with the access to the ears that change the course of medical invention. When will funding go back to basic things again like better antibiotics and anti virals without necessitating GOF of chimeric corona viruses with HIV inserts and the like?

Expand full comment
author

Sorry I didn't respond Charlotte, but hopefully my clarification in my pinned comment adds more context towards the intention of this post. In no ways am I suggesting that GOF hasn't occurred, but that GOF as what may have been done with SARS-COV2 wouldn't be the same as how we view GOF when looking at other studies.

Expand full comment

All good Modern :). I just saw this thread by Chief Nerd about the Pfizer lab- thought you might be interested

https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1619744068522881025

I love reading your articles!

Expand full comment

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/triple-play-saturday-january-28-2023 ... a more legal dissection

Expand full comment
author

Yes I saw that post; that's why I included my comment above about the part that was included.

C&C may look at it from the legalese perspective, but I looked at it from a scientific perspective.

They make an argument that they are trying to make drug-resistant strains which should be illegal:

"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."

If you make a drug wouldn't you inherently want to see if the pathogen may become resistant to it and lose effectiveness?

Molnupiravir's report to the FDA in their meeting commented that they saw mutations in those given Molnupiravir but couldn't parse whether it was from Molnupiravir or just due to viral selection. Would this be gain of function? This is a bit muddy.

Remdesivir was given to patients who were immunocompromised and noted an increase in the variant with mutations within the RdRp. This would seem like GOF research, so should we not do that?

In the case of Remdesivir it's interesting because the RdRp mutation made these strains better in a sea of Remdesivir, but completely crappy sans any Remdesivir, noting a selective pressure.

Altogether, I am making the argument that this argument isn't an inherent slam dunk. Maybe Pfizer is tip-toeing around GOF research, but again I would be going down a route of speculating on what GOF research they are actually conducting.

Expand full comment
Jan 28, 2023Liked by Modern Discontent

A bit of a weird post, some logical sort-of-errors sprinkled though

"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." But Walker's claim was regarding Covid vaccines. The disclaimer wouldn't have been cleared by lawyers if "ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine" was meant to be limited to past product. They don't have to deny "any GOF" to dispute Walker's claims. And no way are they going to blanket disclaim contractors, that's just asking them to commit legal suicide.

Then his gotcha on the Paxlovid escape experiments. As you point out, real-world "GOF" begins for antiviral escape as soon as they are prescribed in the real world. Anything done in a lab is redundant to this risk. And once again, not what Walker was talking about, so effectively still refutes his claim.

So everyone on Team Veritas seems to just be ignoring the actual claim in claiming the claim wasn't refuted. "Pfizer still said GOF! GOF bad! Wuhan Institute of Virology!"

Expand full comment
author

I think what's interesting is that, if taken from a legal perspective, wouldn't we be using an evidentiary standard, and not finding technicalities in the legalese? I think C&C is good as being an aggregator of posts, but in reading some of their articles I run into the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. It becomes apparent when they may be out of their wheelhouse when covering certain science posts (a bit like Berenson in some ways), and so that reminds me to be hesitant with how I interpret their articles.

Expand full comment

I don't know.

Pfizer denied nothing.

They didn't deny his employment status.

They admitted doing GoF under some circumstances and didn't claim any limit to their use of GoF.

They have high level labs in jurisdictions that don't restrict GoF.

Even if he doesn't have the technical background to understand the details, his use of sensible terminology could easily be the result of being in high level meetings and discussions that for example could describe exactly what he is talking about.

He seemed to report as if common knowledge what SARS2 actually came from (which it is of course... In many circles). And he didn't seem that concerned about it being an inevitable result of certain types of research.

And where did omicron come from again?

Jeff Childers has a good explanation of what they said from a legal standpoint... Very little it turns out.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/triple-play-saturday-january-28-2023

Expand full comment
author

I commented to sadie above about the legalese standpoint.

To the first few points I didn't argue against those; rather, I agreed that it appears that he works at Pfizer.

I would refute the use of sensible terminology. Take into account that original antigenic sin, immune imprinting, quadruplexes, cytokine storms, myocarditis, and many other terms are thrown around but may not be used correctly.

I also use terms incorrectly so I don't want to appear smug, but use of terms may not necessarily infer one's knowledge of the topic.

But also, I guess you'd have to be aware of what words to say to a date that gets them off. 🤷‍♂️ If your date doesn't know anything about science maybe you don't dive too deep into it and try to provide superficial knowledge and so it ends up sounding off to us as viewers, or maybe he really didn't know and just threw stuff out to, again, appear attractive to his date.

Expand full comment

💯💯👍👍🎯🙏 Absolutely. The typically lawyer speak has denied nothing, and by specifically drawing attention to SarsCov2 and paxlovid isolate, it draws attention away from what ELSE they are practicing GoF with. I'm wondering what patents Pfizers lawyers have been filing over the last 6 months🤔🤔

Also, I have to hand it to Pfizers lawyers, they do earn their ridiculously high salaries- their contract wording matches their PR wording in that it seamlessly sleight of hands even the most basic of content.

Expand full comment

The most serious problem is not that viral research involving mutations is done. I did it with fungus a long time ago. The problem is that unstable and unethical people doing are overseeing the research. The Project Veritas video showed us an undisciplined and unethical person who is in a position to effect significant policy making decisions. That’s significant.

Expand full comment
author

Sure, but if we go down that route then we'd have to implicate every person who may have been seen as unstable or unethical. Let's remember that Elon Musk is considered unhinged by many people. Many also consider Jack Dorsey to have been unhinged.

We also caught someone who appears to have been on a date and was confronted. Cheaters and shows like that aren't usually followed with a calm conversation about the situation (although I should caution that Cheaters is likely to be staged much like Jerry Springer).

The issue is considering if someone at Pfizer should be as emotional an unhinged as we saw, but that would then argue whether these people are extremely rare in these positions, or heck even if Pfizer was somehow aware of this behavior.

I'm watching Bret and Heather's Darkhorse podcast right now, and they're raising points made in the latter video which makes them wonder if the person may have been a DIE hire rather than a competent individual. 🤷‍♂️

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QkyRmuAdGU

I believe maybe around the 1 hour 30 minute mark after the stream ends.

Expand full comment

I believe we all should pay more attention to the fact that the man said something about "in silico" and follow the meaning and implications of this clue. May we all arrive at the no real virus team?

Expand full comment
author

To provide a caveat, many studies now start with in silico studies.

I covered one Japanese company that was designing their own protease inhibitor which first started with an in silico model to see which modifications may be good.

So the process goes in silico -> in vitro -> in vivo -> animal model -> clinical trials.

So it's not uncommon to see in silico being used as a starting point, and most agencies won't allow for any drug to hit the market unless it has undergone animal and clinical testing.

Expand full comment

The problem is to verify if they indeed move to any real object or anything else is a product of the in silico model.

Expand full comment

In health care, there are now cameras everywhere, and keystrokes are tracked. This is because no one is trusted. This is because we have been tolerating untrustworthy and unethical behavior for quite awhile. There goes the neighborhood. People have real reason to fear going to the hospital because none of the employees are considered or treated as being worthy of trust. This standard is pervading Everything.

By the way, the so-called DIE hiring that you mentioned, contributes to this problem. Competence and character are not the criteria for hiring. Stuff such as skin color and which kind of sex people like are being prioritized, though both should be inapplicable to the workplace. This is ultimately not good for competent and qualified people who are outside of the majority in various personal categories, because they will be viewed as less so, due to DIE policies.

Expand full comment

Regardless of the GoF issue, isn’t it notable that the company responsible for creating and pushing something injected into billions employ such emotionally immature, unserious, immoral and mediocre people in (relatively) senior positions?

Expand full comment
author

I made a comment to Pharmer1 above in regards to that so hopefully that answers my perspective. As I mentioned Bret and Heather are raising some suspicions as to whether he may have been an incompetent person hired due to DIE.

Expand full comment

What you have omitted or forgotten and that which has resulted in MANY deaths...Sort of important to many of us...There was a complete lack of REAL trials/studies of the vaccines and boosters, by Pfizer (and others) and going forward, that same illegal practice would be carried-out with the GOF, excuse me, Directed Evolution to 'stay ahead' of the mutations...!

Of course, that is all a very mute point, since all of the vaccines and boosters seem to be causing more deaths than the virus(s) themselves, or in this case ‘engineered mutations.’

Are you going to overlook all of the corruption in the pharma complex and the revolving door relationships with the government agencies that are supposed to be 'protecting' Americans from the pharma complex?

The lunacy and corruption is in the fact that generating mutations and then creating vaccines to protect humans is a whole lot like printing counterfeit money...Not to mention depopulation...!

Dr. Donnie Smith

Expand full comment

I had immediately taken note of Walker’s strong initial reaction to O’Keefe confronting him:

“I was lying...was trying to impress a date...”

It was immediate, emphatic, and I thought the most sincere thing said by either party.

That said, one only need to look at the lack of accountability by those who funded (Fauci) and performed (ECOHealth - Daszak) gain of function experimentation to assume/conclude that Pfizer saw a green light by the federal gov’t to continue that dangerous and deadly research.

Expand full comment

Thanks for your article. I agree that the GoF discussion of the video does not present some sort of smoking gun, and "Pfizer creates more viruses/variants to make more money" is not exactly the right story.

Pfizer does create more variants due to pfizer vaccines doing so.

The real bombshell is how Jordon is laughing about Pfizer owning the FDA, something we knew but were not sure if they are laughing about it at Pfizer, and now we know

Expand full comment