C&C. Pfizer 2. Triple Play!
January 28 | Posted by mrossol | American Thought, Big Tech, Censorship, Childers, Health, LawDisclaimer: Evidence is not Proof. My, what a coincidence! Funny how this “just happened.” Well, ‘Where there’s smoke, there’s [usually] fire.’ This smells very smokey to me. mrossol
Source: TRIPLE PLAY ☙ Saturday, January 28, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS
🗞*WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY* 🗞
🔥 Three stories broke within a few minutes or hours of each other late yesterday, all seemingly random and unconnected: Pfizer issued a press release responding to the Project Veritas videos, the Paul Pelosi video and audio dropped, and Memphis released a policy brutality video triggering well-organized George-Floyd-style protests all across the United States.
Apparently all that breaking news was totally unconnected. Curiously, none of the three blockbuster stories was based on anything that HAPPENED yesterday afternoon — all three stories were generated by information deliberately RELEASED yesterday afternoon.
Also yesterday, Youtube removed Project Veritas’ undercover Pfizer video, right as it approached a million views. Of course.
🔥 Last night, Tucker Carlson remarked that Pfizer’s marketing and PR department had refused to comment or even return Fox’s phone calls all day long, while Fox was only trying to confirm Jordon Trishton Walker’s employment with the pharma giant. But Pfizer was quiet as a covid vial freezer.
At this point, I think it is safe to conclude Walker DOES work at Pfizer. That’s been confirmed through Pfizer’s silence.
Pfizer’s late-released press statement yesterday was short, plainly-written, and to the point. It completely ignored Walker, and most of what he said — except for the single most explosive claim: whether Pfizer is engaged in gain-of-function research. And maybe I’m reading it wrong, but the statement does NOT actually deny the things that Jordon said about “directed evolution” in the PV videos.
In fact, Pfizer’s statement is pretty much an admission, if you read it carefully.
Before we look at my marked-up version of Pfizer’s statement, here’s what Jordon Walker told Project Veritas’s actor:
One of the things we’re exploring is like, why don’t we just mutate it ourselves so we could create – preemptively develop new vaccines, right? So, we have to do that. If we’re gonna do that though, there’s a risk of like, as you could imagine – no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses.
A risk! Of what? Well, Walker mentioned Wuhan. So.
Now, here’s Pfizer’s precisely-worded statement issued late yesterday, with my notations and highlights:
 |
Pfizer’s statement was packed with lawyerly sleight-of-hand and misdirection. But there are three key admissions, each successively more damning for the pharma company, but obscured by tricky rhetorical legerdemain. Let’s pull the curtain back.
1️⃣ First, note that Pfizer’s key exculpatory sentence sounds like a denial, but it is so narrow that it doesn’t actually deny anything, not really:
In the ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research.
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.
Here’s another way to look at it. Let’s rewrite that denial sentence as a “real” denial, without the lawyer equivocation. It would look like this:
Neither Pfizer nor its contractors and affiliates have never conducted gain of function or directed evolution research.
See? It’s very easy to write a “real” denial. Pfizer’s lawyers were paid to make the non-denial sound like a real denial, by making it complicated and limited while sounding simple and broad.
2️⃣ Pfizer’s lawyers snuck the real admission in the second paragraph. In two difficult-to-read sentences that also sound a lot like denials, Pfizer actually admitted it is tinkering with dangerous viruses.
In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells. In addition, in vitro resistance selection experiments are undertaken in cells incubated with SARS-CoV-2 and nirmatrelvir in our secure Biosafety level 3 (BSL3) laboratory to assess whether the main protease can mutate to yield resistant strains of the virus.
(The phrase “such virus” proves lawyers wrote this, if you’d doubted me. A dead giveaway.)
You might be tempted just to skim those two sentences and let your brain take a quick nap. That’s what Pfizer wants. I think Pfizer got its wires cross a little, intending this to a limited hangout disclosure, but also not wanting to be too clear about it.
Although seemingly part of the same thought, the two sentences are unrelated to each other. They are two different examples where Pfizer admits to performing GoF work, while simultaneously struggling to make the research sound limited, routine, and professional.
It’s like a teenager giving you a dense, complicated explanation for why he left the car keys outside his bedroom window.
The first sentence starts with the meaningless limiting phrase, “In a limited number of cases.” That’s lawyer-speak for “sometimes.” Considering there are trillions of viruses, this language of limitation means nothing. “Limited” is not the same as “small” or “few.” This phrasing is an intentionally misleading rhetorical decoration, meant to trick you into believing it rarely happens.
If they’d really meant “small,” they would have used the actual number, like: “Only four times since Pfizer was founded….” But they didn’t. So we can assume this happens a lot more than they want to admit.
Next, they admitted that if a “full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations” then “such virus may be engineered[.]” And there you have it. I don’t know how you can say it any more plainly than that.
The rest of the sentence is just an excuse for WHY they do GoF research in that case: “to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells.”
That excuse was supposed to make you think that it is the ONLY time Pfizer does GoF work.
3️⃣ The suggestion that there’s only ONE time when Pfizer does GoF research was immediately disproved in the very next sentence when Pfizer used the phrase, “In addition…”, showing the preceding example was part of a LIST. In other words, the second sentence is a SECOND example of Pfizer’s GoF work, and ultimately they never explicitly claim that the two examples are the ONLY cases where Pfizer does GoF research.
That is a lawyer trick for making partial disclosure seem like complete disclosure: “Judge, we gave them two examples and we never said those were the only ones.”
So that you don’t have to scroll back up, here’s that second sentence again:
In addition, in vitro resistance selection experiments are undertaken in cells incubated with SARS-CoV-2 and nirmatrelvir in our secure Biosafety level 3 (BSL3) laboratory to assess whether the main protease can mutate to yield resistant strains of the virus.
By including this sentence in the Paxlovid paragraph, you’re supposed to conclude that this research is ALSO limited to Paxlovid. But it is important to note that the statement never actually says that. If you started this line in a new paragraph, it would be a separate logical thought. The sentence’s inclusion in the Paxlovid paragraph makes it ambiguously misleading.
Pfizer admitted this research is being done in a BSL 3 lab, where research on very dangerous pathogens is performed — the standard level for microbes that can cause serious or deadly diseases through inhalation. There’s only one reason to mention that they’re using BSL 3 — because they could deliberately or accidentally create something infectious or worse, resistant.
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.
We’re supposed to think those two admissions are it; that’s all, folks. But Pfizer doesn’t actually say that. It would be trivially easy to add this capstone: “Pfizer does not conduct any other enhancement research.” But they didn’t, and they WOULD HAVE said it, if that were true.
Is this illegal? Probably not. According to Dr. Malone in his Tucker interview, the Biowarfare treaty — which governs “directed evolution” of microbes — has a lot of holes. For one big example, Israel — Pfizer’s covid laboratory — is not a signatory to the Biowarfare treaty. So Pfizer’s research in Israel is unregulated.
We have entered an age where it’s not just large states in control of weapons of mass destruction. Now, CORPORATIONS build and control weapons of mass destruction.
It’s the democratization of doomsday.
For a contrary view, Substacker Eugyppius argues that nature is a far better and more active incubator of antiviral-resistant mutant viruses than Pfizer could ever hope to be, so let them tinker. I disagree. Nature doesn’t stitch DNA together from completely disconnected sources, like these pharma clowns do using their fancy CRISPR tools.
In a tweet this morning, Dr. Malone agreed with my overall take about the statement:
The market isn’t quite sure yet what to make of all this. Pfizer is down about $1.20 on the Project Veritas news. Since Pfizer issued its statement after trading hours, we won’t know how the market feels about the press release until Monday.
 |
My feeling is, Pfizer should be treated like a rogue state that has been caught developing WMD, or a rabid squirrel. Put it down. After a fair trial, of course.
🔥 Last night, remarkably coincident with the Pfizer statement release, Memphis released footage of police brutality, showing excessive force used by five black officers who have been charged with the second-degree murder of unarmed Tyre Nichols, 29, who was also black, and who had been stopped for a routine traffic offense.
All five officers have been fired.
Even though the incident happened weeks ago on January 7th, corporate media fired up all its outrage engines yesterday, for some reason.
 |
According to corporate media, Antifa immediately began organizing riots and protests. Sky News reported that protests occurred in at least nine cities last night, including New York City and Washington, D.C.
Most normal folks aren’t responding with quite the same level of passion as back in summer, 2020.
Maybe that’s because justice seems to be on track. Nobody’s defending the officers. They’re charged with murder. It’s hard to imagine what more the protestors could want, since the five officers were fired and charged with murder. Even the family told reporters it “was satisfied:”
 |
So, what exactly is being protested when the system is working properly? Do the protestors know what they want?
It’s a stark contrast. Unlike the Jordon Walker story, in the past two days nearly every corporate media outlet has run one or more long-form stories about Tyre Nichols, from every angle imaginable. They’ve had them for weeks, but the violent body cam videos were released last night at 6pm, right around the same time as Pfizer issued its press release.
🔥 That’s not all! San Francisco’s DA also released body cam footage of the Paul Pelosi attack along with the 911 recording. I’m not going to link the video; like the Tyre Nichols clip, it’s out there if you want it, but it is violent and disturbing. In my view, the Pelosi video does not fully resolve the questions, and even raises a some new questions, but overall it makes it more likely the two men did not know each other.
Here are two takes:
Glenn Beck asked a terrific question: why wasn’t this video released before yesterday? Overall it helps the official narrative. Is it possible these salacious Pelosi materials were being saved up for later, to create or distract a future news cycle when needed?
Whatever the truth is, between the Tyre Nichols bodycam-generated “protests,” and the Paul Pelosi hammer-time blockbuster video, Pfizer sure is benefiting from a lot of distractions.
Let’s keep our eyes on the ball.
Have a wonderful weekend, and I’ll see you back here on Monday with, I’m sure, lots of updates.
Join C&C in moving the needle and changing minds. I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-learn-how-to-get-involved-
Twitter: @jchilders98.
Truth Social: @jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com
Emailed Daily Newsletter: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.