A Sunlit7 op
Jordan Walker, the subject of a Project Veritas investigation right about now wishes his infatuation with the male anatomy had stayed on the professional level more so than a personal one. Walker, who is being described as a licensed medical doctor in urology in New York and as being the Director of Scientific and Operational Initiative of Research and Development at Pfizer was the target of a undercover sting by Project Veritas. People missed a lot of cues in that video release or it just may have been that I clicked upon some links in an article ran on Yahoo to see what was up with Pfizer's statement they wanted to develop covid shots into the same as a yearly flu shot, what that entailed as to why I didn't miss those cues. That coupled with words like I heard, subsequent interview, thought, considering and future to name a few. The fact that many people will chose to hear what they want to hear rather than to comprehend what is really being said. The propaganda machine is expectant of that.
I am not going to try and stick up for Pfizer that's for damn sure or even this man's choice to work for them, though chances are, as he stated, he's a contractor for Pfizer not an actual employee of Pfizer. As such there's no way he could be third in line at Pfizer, as was quoted by one famous Fox News host spinning the spun. One site has him listed as a Director of Scientific Research Initiatives through Worldwide Research and Development. Which technically would be a temporary employment agency of science/medical related matters. If one chooses, and many do, you certainly could embellish your resume to make it appear you work for Pfizer without directly contributing for sure that you do, which another site list him as a Director of Scientific Research Initiatives but underneath that it says Pfizer with a listed number of years he's worked under his title there. Whatever will be the case behind this mystery we'll leave it to be solved and move on.
One of the more important notes to take out of all this is that this wasn't a one interview interview. Actually if you want to be truthful, which is hard for the propagandist machine, it was a date and not just one date. How many dates it's hard to know but from my immediate pick up of the situation, as I told someone right off hand before seeing more of the video that depicted the end this looked to be a guy who had one to many drinks and a huge man crush on the person interviewing them. By the time I finally seen all the chosen footage not only was my first observation correct but that man looked gushingly in love. He looked like one satisfied happy camper, overwhelming so, like women who think they've finally found the one. When James O'Keefe of Project Veritas said "in a subsequent interview" that pointed to a high probability this video was spliced to fit a narrative, the interviewee pushing to answer questions in a specific manner. If you missed that subsequent word, which most likely did, people will assume this was a one time date where there wasn't any trust built up between the parties and the guy therefore was just openly spilling the beans on Pfizer more so than putting their trust behind an individual. It's an important attribute to remember because if you have gained trust you don't think if you misspoke or wasn't describing something correctly the person whom you come to trust wouldn't make a fool out of you. You also really wouldn't think they'd splice it up to make an even bigger fool out of you. Chances are that's what happened so it can't be taken that everything said was in the chronological order to which they happened even though it could appear as such.
When asked about Pfizer mutating the virus first thing he said in this instance was "From what I heard is"..
From what I heard is they (Pfizer scientist) are optimizing it (covid mutation process) but they're going slow because everyone is cautious - obviously they don't want to accelerate it to much, he continued. I think they are also just trying to do it an an exploratory thing because you obviously don't want to advertise that you are figuring out future mutation.
"What I heard is" means it's not direct knowledge, possibly hearsay and since there was emphasis added to the conversation it's thus assumed by the interviewer that he was talking about a scientist at Pfizer and he's wasn't engaging in conversation with the cleaning lady. Like the emphasis added for covid mutation process, again the interviewer is placing an assumption on it but this is where I started wondering if he wasn't talking about directed evolution that I had read in that article linked in to another because it sounded similar. He continues on..
This is like one of the things.
I though maybe he was trying to describe directed evolution, directed evolution is observing what type of mutation will occur if any, your hoping for a kill rate but that might not happen. What directed mutation is is taking a part of the original virus that is also seen in mutations, there could be different similarities but you match up the similarities them test them separately to see if you can find a way those similarities would all be inoculated against successfully. If you have isolated a half of dozen similarities from different variants that match the original you test them one at a time with the original. If it succeeds you add another, than another. If it fails you try using a different similarity found among the original and it's variants in hopes you will succeed. The article I read it said they are close to developing a universal vaccine for the flu viruses using directed evolution. It explained it hasn't been an easy task because not only is there an original and variants but originals and variants of different strains. So I move on with my thought processes here..
Journalistic Date: So Pfizer is thinking about mutating covid?
Walker: Well that is not what we say to the public. No, that's why it was, it was a thought that came up in a meeting and we were like, why do we not -- it was like, we're going to consider that with more discussions. that's exactly, actually, we're like wait a minute, like people won't like that.
Now Okeefe appears on the video:
Okeefe: That's right it appears that Pfizer is internally discussing the possibility of mutating the covid virus themselves in order to tailor a vaccine to sell to the public. Watch how Walker details just how they conduct such an experiment. First in living animals.
That's what Okeefe gleaned from what he said. A man whom they've more than willing helped have one to many which probably isn't helping his comprehension spark at a hundred percent and he says that's not what we say to the public before outright telling him no it was just a thought that came up in a meeting. For one mutating viruses in labs happens all the time. That's a scientific fact. Another scientific fact is scientist gather around all the time and say what if we try this or we try that, if they didn't nothing would ever get solved or discovered. Like how does a virus mutate, or how does a virus mutate from animals to humans, or can humans mutate a virus to animals or how does a virus mutate to a more lethal virus. You can do this in one of several different ways, like when you catch the flu you could go cough on a ferret or something else in nature and hope you don't start a widespread breakout of the flu in the forest or you can inject the ferret with the flu virus in a controlled setting in a lab. But that's how stupid O'Keefe thinks you are in his effort of grandstanding, he even goes the extra mile and assumes you've never heard of such a thing as using live animals. Do viruses even mutate in dead animals. To find the answer I'd have to do one of two things. Next time I have the flu I could find some road kill and cough all over it to see if the rest of the wild animals in the neighborhood start dying or I use google to find the answer.
Walker: So the way that we're thinking about - don't tell anyone this by the way, you have to promise not to tell anyone okay?
Walker: So the way it would work is like we put them in, the virus in these monkeys and then we successively, like cause them to keep infecting each other and we collect serial samples from them, and than the ones that are more infectious, the virus we'll put them in another monkey and you just constantly actively mutate it. That's one way or we could do like direct simulation which like we tend not to prefer. And they just sample what the different proteins on the surface of the virus look like over time. So than you can see the mutation. You can now force it to mutate in a certain way you want it. But you have to be like very controlled to make sure that this virus that you mutate doesn't create something else, you know, goes everywhere. Which I suspect is the way that the virus started in Wuhan to be honest. Like it makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere. It's bullshit.
O'Keefe appears in the video: Covid experiments on live monkeys? This is unethical at the least and Walker describes those experiments as if they are ongoing and not simply a hypothetical discussion.
No what is unethical is the global human population being used for experimental vaccines and getting to the answers of why people are being harmed and dying from the vaccines instead of worrying about monkeys would be a better use of his investigational skills if you ask me. Come on O'Keefe lets get some close up shots during an actual autopsy that embalmers are saying they are pulling white stringy clogs out of their veins before they can embalm them. They are so full of clots embalmers say they can't embalm them. As gross as it sounds it would no longer be deniable, right?
Journalistic Date: So I mean, when is Pfizer going to implement the mutation of all these viruses?
Walker: I don't know, it depends on how the experiments work out because this is just like, something we're trying, right?
Journalistic Date: It sounds like gain of function.
Walker: I don't know, it's a bit different. I think it's different. It's like this, it's definitely not gain of function.
Journalistic Date: Sounds like it is, I mean, it's okay.
I mean, it's okay. He's baiting him like the police trying to get someone to confess to something they didn't do. He already told him early on that the discussion to mutate viruses for the sake of mutating viruses was out of the question and that what they were working on was something new for the future, like maybe a universal covid shot for all the covid variants past, present and future. Seems like he gets a bit perturbed at his constant probing and he than makes it perfectly clear this is something different.
Walker: No, no, no, but directed evolution is very different.
Journalistic Date: Direct evolution?
Walker: Directed evolution.
Journalistic Date: Directed evolution, okay. Well, so, I mean, is that what it is?
Walker: Maybe, I don't know. Well you're not suppose to do gain of function research with the virus. They'd rather we not, but we do these selected structure mutations to try and see if we can make them more potent. So there is research ongoing about that. I don't know how that's going to work, there better not be anymore outbreaks, cause, like, Jesus Christ.
Journalistic Date: So tell me more, what's developing with the whole, you know, virus mutation process.
Like I said it begins to read like a police interrogation. So tell me again how the monkey died. Did you gargle before you coughed on it or was it humanly done by injection.
Walker: Well they are still kind of conducting the experiments on it but it seems like, from what I heard, they're kind of optimizing it but they're going slow cause everyone's very cautious, like you know, obviously they don't want to accelerate it to much. But I think they're also just trying to do it as an exploratory thing because you obviously don't want to advertise that you are figuring out a future mutation.
Again this goes back to the beginning, which was highlighted at the beginning also in the video. It is an exploratory thing similar to what they are doing with the flu viruses. Not that I agree with it, I am not ever going to take it but the plain matter of the fact is that it's how science works, mutating viruses happens all the time in labs. They are not using gain of function, gain of function would entail taking a trait from a totally different virus family and inserting into another virus family to perform whatever trait was desired. If you wanted to make it more transmissible than you'd isolate that from a virus that was highly transmissible, like small pox and insert it into the covid virus for example. That may have actually happened in that lab in Wuhan if this, as many suspect, was a lab made virus and the vaccinia vaccine was one of the mechanism used in that lab. That's the difference from using mutating viruses for scientific research to learn how viruses mutate for various reasons already mentioned compared to inserting something into a virus to add a function to the virus.
Journalistic Date: So did that - did the whole virus mutation thing come from your executive Sarah (Wu)?
Walker: No that came from - we have like chief scientific officer in the other divisions.
Like I said earlier as far as we know he heard it from the cleaning lady. I also stated that this is his admission that he doesn't even know what's going on in those labs because he doesn't even work in them. It's not like just anyone can walk into labs. This guy, as I also said to someone else earlier could probably point you in the direction you need to go if you ask for directions but probably couldn't tell you the exact floor or door you need to go through. Scientist work under no disclosure contracts so it highly doubtful they are walking around discussing the exact details of what's happening inside the labs. Which is why he can't explain it in great detail enough to satisfy the narrative Project Veritas is trying to set. That being an admission that Pfizer is trying to make more transmissible viruses, which at this point we all know if that was an Pfizer objective it was already met a long time ago or that Pfizer is doing gain of function research which isn't being proven and is continually denied by Walker.
O'Keefe on video: In a subsequent meeting our undercover journalist ask if this type of gain of function research is already being studied at Pfizer. No, but long as it's called "directed evolution" Pfizer is in the clear.
Except, as already described there is actually a thing called "directed evolution" and it, again, involves using viruses from the same family of viruses for scientific research and does not involve gaining another virus to enhance another. At this point O'Keefe is showing his desperation to put something out there for all the time and effort he's spent deceiving this man.
Journalistic Date: What's the goal for Pfizer doing that (covid mutations)?
Again it's explained in a not so coherent manner to the facts because he's not someone at Pfizer's who's considered to be in the whole loop of things. Like he said he was trying to impress a date, now that we know that, we can clearly see he was counting on the man not knowing much more than he knew.
Walker: So part of what they want to do is to try to figure out - to some extent - try to figure out like, you know, know how there's all these new strains and variants that just pop up. Why don't we try to like catch them before they (variants) pop up in nature and we can develop a vaccine prophylactically before like new variants. So that's why they're thinking like, if you do it controlled in a lab than we say this is a new epitope, and so if it comes out later on in the public than you already have a vaccine kind of working.
Like you know, all great scientific minds, you know, like you know, talk like that. He can barely, you know, like, you know, describe it to you but he finally, you know, like hits the nail on the head, you know, like he finally says the word, you know, like a common, you know, epitope they could apply to all the variants, you know, like even in the future variants.
Journalistic Date: Oh my god, that's perfect. Isn't that the best business model though. Like just control nature before nature even happens itself right?
Walker: Yeah if it works.
Journalistic Date: What do you mean if it works?
Walker: Because some of the times there are mutations that pop up that we are not prepared for like the delta and omicron and things like that, so, who knows? I mean, either way it's going to be a cash cow. Covid will probably be a cash cow for us for awhile going forward. Like obviously, like
Journalistic Date: Well I think the whole, you know, research of the virus and mutating is, (them) like, would be the ultimate cash cow.
Walker: Yeah it'd be perfect.
From the overzealously gleaming smile on Walkers face, the chances the video is heavily spliced this could have been the answer to an invite to his pad for all we know.
O'Keefe in the video: Now you know that creating viruses to sell the vaccine would be illegal but no the pharmaceutical company like Walker puts it is a revolving door for government officials.
Well the last part don't matter because if the objective was to create a virus to sell vaccines mutations are an expected phenomena of how a virus works, the functionality was already gained, that was the original intent. If they want to find a common epitope and try develop a vaccine that works on all corona viruses, at this point it'd be a hard sell to the vast majority of the global population. They've done lost scientific trust. The harder sell is O'Keefe trying to sell us on something that's been happening for quite awhile now. They've already been there and accomplished that but that's how naïve he thinks we all are. There's a real lack of investigative journalism and this video proves that beyond a doubt. Real investigative journalism would be out there finding out what's in the vaccines that is injuring and killing people instead of ruining some poor saps career and informing Americans about what they already know. If adding insult to injury wasn't already enough he has to bring Patsy Malone into the picture.
Robert Malone aka Patsy Malone: Serial passage - infecting one monkey with another monkey - that appears to have been one of the technologies deployed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology with the humanized mouse strain. That, I believe were obtained from Eco Health Alliance, that's an example of directed evolution. The gentlemen seems to have no moral compass about he's doing. The hubris, arrogance and immaturity, if this is the quality of individuals that are within Pfizer that are making these huge decisions that risk global public health, with such a casual disregard for the human toll, profoundly corrupt, in terms of would it be feasible for Pfizer to circumvent international or international law, I think that is undeniable and the gentlemen in your investigation work has clearly indicated that Pfizer believe that it has successfully captured the regulatory apparatus of the United States government and presuming worldwide, Pfizer has completed regulatory capture, is quite prove of it.
That last sentence is the truest thing that man has come even close to as a truth in the last two years. He's not the inventor of the mRNA technology used in the vaccines. It's him who has the hubris, arrogance and immaturity to come to terms with that. Serial passage is what I spoke of earlier, learning how viruses transmit, how they mutate, how they can pass from humans to animals or animals to humans, if they transfer from one species to another and other similar traits. It's not gain of functions like he claims, it's been around since eighteen hundred and in the nineteen forties when they figured out it was actually a thing it got it's name. I've already described what directed evolution is and it doesn't even come close to being serial passage. I am sure if he knows what was going on in that lab in Wuhan and what Eco Health Alliance was doing Mr O'Keefe would just love doing a headline news breaking report on that. No if there's people out there with no moral compass and casual disregard for the human toll you wouldn't have to look any further than a patsy and and a propagandist to find your answer.