Pfizer and the "get ahead of variants" vaccines

A Project Veritas video shows a supposed Pfizer Director alluding to construction of SARS-COV2 variants to get ahead of mutations with vaccines.

Project Veritas has just released another spicy video. In this case, it appears that Project Veritas caught a Pfizer Director in Research and Development (Jordon Trishton Walker) on tape describing these supposed intentions.

On the surface this seems like a huge bombshell of a find. Walker comments that they aren’t necessarily doing "gain-of-function” research, but that they are doing various studies such as serial passage of the virus through monkeys to see how the virus mutates, or point mutations to see how each mutation influences the virus’ virulence.

To the latter, this sort of experiment is actually not uncommon.

Did anyone ever wonder how they figure out how a new variant is more fusogenic, more virulent, or gains viral entry quicker? A study may take a variant with various mutations, let’s say the N501Y mutation and the E484K mutation because those are the ones I tend to remember.

How would you figure out what the N501Y mutation does? Well, you take a virus and add this point mutation and see how it works in vitro. The same may go for every mutation, as well as any combination of mutations.

In that regard, examination of point mutations aren’t inherently new. It’s what’s been typically used when figuring out how each variant operates relative to other variants.

HOWEVER, that also doesn’t excuse the possibilities that may come about with Pfizer’s incessant meddling.

Let’s consider the fact that many flu vaccines in the US are designed based on the circulating variants identified and sequenced. Generally, the circulating variants are used to predict the flu vaccines that we are given during our flu season surge, with comparisons made to prior vaccines for effectiveness.

However, the guess as to the variant that reaches our shores tends to be off, leading to most flu vaccines having around a supposed 50% efficacy rate, and that’s without looking at absolute vs relative risk reduction and all of that mess. Because of that, it’s generally hoped that the vaccine is at least cross-reactive to the actual variant that circulate in the US during the winter months.

But what does that mean when one has to construct a virus in order to predict it possibly coming about?

One of the biggest issues is that this method of “prediction” is, well, horrendous at best.

One would have to assume one mechanism, such as the virus either becoming more deleterious in its virulence, or possibly it becomes more virulent over time. Maybe it gains tropism for different organs or tissues, or maybe the furin cleavage site makes an appearance once again and the virus prefers cellular fusion as the mechanism to gain entry, or a host of other factors that would need to be considered.

Then that leaves what mutations would be the right ones to choose? And even after doing all of that how would one assume that this would be the variant that would pop up naturally? The only explanation would be to have plenty of different predicted variants lying about “just in case” one happens to be the right one.

That seems totally safe and free of accidental release, no?

Validation of a Lab Origin for SARS-COV2?

What’s interesting is that Walker even comments that the sudden emergence of SARS-COV2 seems very suspicious.

Remember that one of the running hypotheses on the emergence of SARS-COV2 was that it was an attempt to get ahead of some unknown virus that may come about in the future. As Dr. Malone notes in the video, this may have led to animal serial passage studies, along with other studies, to create variants that scientists can get ahead of.

Even if we don’t consider other possibilities, such as Brian’s reporting that SARS-COV2 may have been related to the US, the fact that scientists may have attempted to get ahead of a hypothetical virus by constructing said virus is completely ludicrous.

To see that this approach is one that Pfizer may be taken has, strangely, added some validity to the possible origins of SARS-COV2 stemming from a lab as it mimics the same processes that many have speculated about for several years now.

So, about Omicron…

What appears to have been swept under the rug for more than a year has been the strange emergence of Omicron.

At the time its emergence was considered to have been curious, leading people to speculate a possible lab origin for Omicron akin to Wuhan.

Unfortunately, that idea disappeared from the public interest rather quickly.

With these possibilities with Pfizer, it seems like the emergence of Omicron itself should probably be brought back into the spotlight.

The original running assumption of Omicron was that it possibly came from an immunocompromised South African patient, having the virus stew for quite some time and collecting several variants.

I considered this assumption to be a rather dubious one, mostly because it seemed to fit some stereotype of an HIV-positive patient in order to make the hypothesis work. Again, a model that looks to fit data retroactively.

I also took issue with this assumption that an immunocompromised patient would lead to a less virulent strain of the virus, as the removal of immune defenses would mean that strains with different mutations would have to compete with one another unimpeded in order to gain dominance.

Therefore, an immunocompromised patient would lead to a more virulent, rather than a less virulent strain.

Interestingly, there was evidence of this occurring, as a while back I reported on a study from South Africa in which an immunocompromised HIV-positive patient who was infected with SARS-COV2 for several months showed a variant with greater fusogenicity and cell death relative to the initial variant.

It would be interesting to argue whether the use of an individual to incubate variants would count as gain-of-function, but that’s beside the point.

What this study would suggest is that the original hypothesis of Omicron’s emergence should have been widely questioned, as the results would actually rebut these claims of an immunocompromised host—an already dubious claim that somehow gained traction.

But then that leaves us with where exactly Omicron came from.

It’s been alluded to that Omicron may have been some white-hatter event where someone released a less virulent, more transmissible strain of the virus to quickly overtake Delta and move us closer to normalcy.

Of course, such an assumption raises questions as to who would have designed such a variant, and why would they intend to release it at the time they did, if intentionally…

If Pfizer and other researchers are already conducting these sorts of studies to supposedly get ahead of the virus, then it may be worth raising questions and see if Omicron may have been one of these supposed “get-ahead” variants that may have found its way into the public.

---

In any case, the recorded video raises a lot of questions. I am being cautiously, good-faithfully skeptical of the video until more information comes about (I would like a verification of Walker’s position at Pfizer if true), but I will state that Project Veritas has had a good track-record.

Overall, this raises tons of questions with both the Wuhan variant, the Omicron variant, and what other possible research may be going on.

---

If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists outside the mainstream.

Click on the image above or visit the website at https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent