People need to wake the fuck up. Leftist governments across the globe are using Big Pharma to develop ever more dangerous viruses in the open. We have just learned that even 3 masks and a trillion dollars and even the power of LAW cannot stop the spread of airborne virus. Well, to be honest all thinking humans already knew that, but we just got done pretending for for two years — a large fraction of my life.
I’ve repeatedly shown here the money paragraph from Peter Daszak’s previous research in WUHAN LAB, and reported that the research not only was successful, but it continues to receive NEW FUNDING!!! IN THE WUHAN LAB.
Look at this beauty of a statement, released yesterday by none other than the benevolent leftist fascists darling Pfizer. This is beyond a doubt, one of the dumbest statements that either I or you have ever seen released from a multi-billion dollar organization.
New York, N.Y., January 27, 2023 – Allegations have recently been made related to gain of function and directed evolution research at Pfizer and the company would like to set the record straight.
In the ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research. Working with collaborators, we have conducted research where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus has been used to express the spike protein from new variants of concern. This work is undertaken once a new variant of concern has been identified by public health authorities. This research provides a way for us to rapidly assess the ability of an existing vaccine to induce antibodies that neutralize a newly identified variant of concern. We then make this data available through peer reviewed scientific journals and use it as one of the steps to determine whether a vaccine update is required.
In addition, to meet U.S. and global regulatory requirements for our oral treatment, PAXLOVID™, Pfizer undertakes in vitro work (e.g., in a laboratory culture dish) to identify potential resistance mutations to nirmatrelvir, one of PAXLOVID’s two components. With a naturally evolving virus, it is important to routinely assess the activity of an antiviral. Most of this work is conducted using computer simulations or mutations of the main protease–a non-infectious part of the virus. 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. It is important to note that these studies are required by U.S. and global regulators for all antiviral products and are carried out by many companies and academic institutions in the U.S. and around the world.
Fact-based information rooted in sound science is vitally important to overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic and Pfizer remains committed to transparency and helping alleviate the devastating burden of this disease.
YOU DO NOT NEED A SECURE LAB TO MAKE “SAFE” THINGS. Careful readers will note the switch back and forth between the protease and the full virus in the text. Of note, there are no KNOWN gain-of-function viruses in existence because at that point the function has been already gained.
There is no SCIENTIFIC need to create gain-of-function mutations of a full virus to evaluate an anti-viral. There are concerns that can be expressed to stupid administrators who might think such things are needed but the reality is that >>>>>>SAFETY does not REQUIRE the creation of new and dangerous viruses. I don’t need to make the pipe bomb to see if a pipe bomb is STUPID and randomly dangerous.
What they are doing is trying to find ways to get ahead of drug development by using GAIN OF FUNCTION, to be the first to market. That is what you are looking at, nothing more. Well, after a few billion spent, what happens when the market doesn’t develop because the virus they have the medicine for, never happens naturally?!!!!! Does that mean someone (figuratively) drops a petri dish outside?
It seems to have happened before
in Wuhan
recently
EDIT: And don’t forget for a second that Pfizer and Wuhan are not alone.
the Air Vent 
What kind of people are working there and doing that?
Their statement says everything about development of a virus. That they try to weasel-word their way through it is astounding. It’s truly the worst-written lawyeresque statement I’ve read.
Blowing up everywhere
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/pfizer-responses-to-veritas-expose
Hahahha
https://babylonbee.com/news/pfizer-releases-new-vaccine-virus-combo-pack
Jeff
O/T and FWIW
TAKE NOTICE!
“There’s no way to confirm this, but watching just the same: Multiple reports that Israel(?) has launched military attacks on Iranian targets.”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2023/01/28/developing-3/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/01/scary-dr-naomi-wolf-warns-pfizer-performing-gain-function-viral-research-admitted-latest-statement-video/
Seriously? Naomi Wolf? Hilarious.
Her conspiracy theory lunacy goes way back:
https://www.vox.com/2014/10/5/6909837/naomi-wolf-isis-ebola-scotland-conspiracy-theories
Never the data, always the person.
I mean seriously, bro – she thinks the vaccines are a software platform that can receive uploads. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
“The data.”
Hilarious.
REPLY: Link?
I have to say, I thought referencing Huff as a source was over the top – but apparently with you there is no top.
REPLY: Always the source, never the content.
What is your vox link actually relating to?
Wolf has tweeted that she overheard an Apple employee (who had attended a “top secret demo”) describing vaccine technology that can enable time travel. She has posited that vaccinated people’s urine and feces should be separated in our sewage system until their contaminating effect on our drinking water has been studied.
I love you, bro.
My man, seriously. Just give it up
Any link other than your own nonsense bro?
Most of her lunacy isn’t up any more. But plenty of it still is.
I gotta admit that she sounds crazy.
She has a long history of factual errors and being a kook.
It would be nice to see it in her own words.
Sure, I get that.
But we some point you get enough indirect evidence to make an assessment probabilities.
As it happens I saw her Twitter nuttiness before she got booted. And she also has a long and well-documented history of just being wrong, which is easily available.
But seeing Huff’s nuttiness in his own words seemed to have no effect on you whatsoever.
The person is never the message to me. Even you may be right someday.
> The person is never the message to me.
You keep erecting that straw man. I knocking it down. And you just pick up the pieces and erect it again.
“The person” isn’t “the message.”
But if someone has lunatic beliefs it’s informative as to the probabilities.
You keep repeating the same thing Josh. You attacked Naomi, not the message.
You only reinforce my statement. It’s the leftist creed almost.
She may suck, so does MSNBC, but when MSNBC reports stupid, I will look at it anyway. I guarantee that MSNBC has lied to you tens of thousands more times than Naomi. I still consider it, leftists only see the person.
I nirs that she has a king history of professing nutty beliefs. She has a history of believing batshit crazy conspiracy theories.
Make of that what you will.
It doesn’t mean that she can’t get anything right.
I think it’s relevant. It’s information about the rationality of her thinking process.
It informs on the probabilities. It doesn’t obviate the importance of evaluating any given claim that she might make.
And wtf does MSNBC have to do with any of this? It’s like uyou have a one track mind.
Josh: “You might rant to consider that Wolf has a history of batshit crazy beliefs when you post to her talking about conspiracy theories.”
Jeff: BUT MSNBC!
AND MSNBC!
OH, AND MSNBC!
Jeff: I personally worked on the development of new antibacterial drugs and in close contact with others developing new antiviral drugs. Leaving that job was an unpleasant experience. I can personally GUARANTEE that the statement released by Pfizer about resistant mutants in antiviral drug development is totally correct.
When AZT was the first and only antiviral drug for HIV, patients taking it would see HIV levels in their blood drop below detectable after a week or two of treatment and remain undetectable for another month or so. Then HIV would reappear, with a single mutation in the active site of the viral polymerase where the drug bound. Over the next year, another three mutations would be appear (usually the same changes or similar in the same order). The drug would become much less active cell culture at inhibiting the mutated viral and its mutated polymerase, and was no longer able to control the mutated virus in vivo. In less than one year, a drug that could make HIV undetectable was becoming worthless. At my company, the goal was to identify a drug candidate that would completely suppress the growth of all viruses with a single amino acid change in the active site where the drug bound – at the “trough” concentration between doses. Those mutant viruses were identified by what you are calling “gain-of-function” experiments in vitro, but that gain of function was usually only useful when the virus was growing in the presence of drug and could be a handicap when growing in the absence of drug. Many experiments can be done in what are called pseudoviruses – a chimera composed parts of two viruses – for example a non-pathogenic virus modified to produce the spike protein or protease from SARS2.
Today, HIV patients are treated with a cocktail of three anti-HIV drugs that act by three different mechanisms and have good activity against any single amino acid change in those three drug binding sites. The cocktail often includes a small amount of an inhibitor of drug metabolism that boosts the level of drug in the blood. That same inhibitor is used in Paxlovid. These treatments have kept HIV patients from developing full blown AIDS and alive for nearly three decades. Today the best treatments even prevent sex partners from becoming infected. However, if patients fail to take their drugs regularly, viruses with mutations that cause resistance take over and a new drug cocktail needs to be used.
The minute Paxlovid was announced, I immediately looked up the blood levels between doses and how well the drug inhibited viral growth in cell culture using the most resistant virus with a single amino acid change in the virally encoded protease gene. Pfizer has made an absolutely superb drug, but resistance almost certainly will develop (if it hasn’t already) unless it soon can be given with at least on other drug that works by a different mechanism.
Hepatitis C can now be cured with a combination of two drugs take for about one month. Herpes virus can be controlled with a single drug, but resistance is being to becoming a problem
Antibacterials (which is what I worked on) have much the same resistance problems, but resistance has developed more slowly. There are multiple proteins that are inhibited by penicillins and other beta-lactams and two protein targets for fluoroquinolines, so a single mutation where the drug binds doesn’t produce much resistance. The largest number of antibacterial drugs bind to ribosomal RNA – the machinery that translates RNA into proteins. Most bacterial have multiple copies of their ribosomal RNA genes (7 copies in Staph aureus), so a single mutation in Staph aureus makes only 1/7 of their ribosomes resistant to a drug. However, Helicobacter pylori (the bacteria that cause ulcers) has only two copies of their ribosomal RNA genes. Helicobacter pylori infections can’t be eradicated with a single antibiotic, combination therapy is essential. In one case, I heard of a patient with a Staph aureus bone infection that was being treated with a competitor’s drug. Since circulation in bone is limited, treatment was able to suppress the infection but not eradicate it. The infection would rebound and the patient would need to be treated again. And with each round of treatment, the same resistance mutation would be found in more and more of the bacteria’s 7 copies of the ribosomal gene.
Much of the resistance to antibacterial agents is actually mediated by production or overproduction of enzymes that metabolize drugs, not mutations in the proteins targets of drugs. However, the name of the critical game in both antivirals and antibacterials is overcoming resistance. Thousand of people die in hospitals every year of resistant bacteria from strains that were always cured thirty years ago. The problem has been made much worse by the large number or immunosuppressed cancer, HIV and extremely old patients who fill our hospitals.
And please, if you are vulnerable to COVID, take advantage of Paxlovid if you get infected – while it is still working. The standard 5-day treatment is a little too short and many people suffer very mild viral rebounds after they stop taking the drug (and before their immune system is fully capable of eradicating it). However, completely halting a COVID infection for five days with Paxlovid while your immune system is gearing up to fight it is a tremendous advantage compared with waiting to see if you need hospitalization. (I don’t know if the treatment period is too short for a good reason or because a sub-optimal choice was made in development.)
Best wishes in controlling your paranoia about everything. There are plenty of real problems to worry about: CRT, gender dysphoria, the 1619 project, a half-trillion give away to student loan recipients, one trillion dollar annual deficits, the debt ceiling, when China will invade Taiwan and whether we will elect either of two men who are too old to serve anymore – one of whom thinks it is OK to suspend the US Constitution whenever he thinks it is necessary. I’m sure your list is much longer, but it doesn’t need to include Pfizer performing unnecessary “gain of function” experiments. We’ve been studying resistant viruses and bacterial for almost 50 years. You can’t make effective antiviral and antibacterial drugs without understanding the resistance mechanisms that can render them useless. It was almost 50 years ago that genetic engineering experiments were temporarily scaled back and their safety better assessed when we became paranoid someone would make a strain of E. coli that could cause cancer.
“Best wishes in controlling your paranoia about everything.”
You did really well until there and it makes me want to be mean but I wont. Best wishes to you as you leftists relearn in the next 10 years that the government is not benevolent and I hope you can someday figure out that Trump followed the constitution while leftists ignore it. Contrary to your immigration claims Trump had every right to hold back any class he wished.
Oddly enough, despite your experience, gain of function is NOT required to evaluate medicines. (EDIT: To be very clear, required is not the same as regulated – this is in the main post) I’m impressed that you understand a bit of the evolutionary math though. You might be the first to articulate it correctly that I’ve witnessed. A piece of a virus is mathematically guaranteed to have faster adaptation than something as complex as a bacterium. Beyond simplicity, error correction in bacteria creates stability as well. The mRNA attacked such a small piece of the virus that it was forced to have immediate mutations. Had we distributed to only the high risk group, the vaccine would still be working.
I am not alone in my interpretations of this obvious Pfizer message. Many physicians have come out saying the same thing.
> Had we distributed to only the high risk group, the vaccine would still be working.
Hilarious. Amazing how someone can be so certain about things they clearly know nothing about.
We already know that, you are a know-nothing. You’ve read no papers. You did not predict the problem, you did not watch the problem get reported on the CDC and you refuse to learn.
Your conception of how vaccine immune evasion evolves is woefully simplistic.
You have an opportunity here to learn from Frank. Take it (but you won’t).
Grab a friend if you can chicken brain. Good luck.
> The standard 5-day treatment is a little too short and many people suffer very mild viral rebounds after they stop taking the drug (and before their immune system is fully capable of eradicating it).
Wrongly often called a “Paxlovid rebound,” as if the Paxlovid is causing the rebound.
State sponsored attacks on our infrastructure.
Get the chickens into the bunker.
you buying this one?
From Naomi’s website:
https://dailyclout.io/covid-vaccines-killed-278000-americans-by-the-end-of-2021-peer-reviewed-study-finds/
do you disagree with the paper linked?
Did you look at the methodology?
My question first.
I don’t agree or disagree as I think that the methodology isn’t likely to net anything of value outside the scope of the data itself. The headline is ridiculous
I mean seriously….this is what the authors conclude:
The evaluation also showed that those who perceive that loved ones were harmed by the COVID-19 illness were more likely to be vaccinated, but the opposite was true for those who knew someone who had been injured by the COVID-19 vaccine.
I’m not saying don’t conduct the study but the findings are easily predictable.
In no fucking way can the study be used to justify the headline or the article at the dailyclout. This is exactly like those speciously edited videos you put up.
I mean seriously, dude:
A recent Rasmussen survey shows that 28% of all adults know someone who died due to Covid vaccines.
You crack me up.
I mean wow! You looked at the methodology and aren’t laughing uncontrollably at the headline?:
Covid Vaccines Killed 278,000 Americans by the end of 2021, Peer Reviewed Study Finds
No wonder you live in a bunker with a bunch of chickens!!!!
Dude,
YOU linked the paper. Not me.
I linked the paper as an example of the nuttiness of Wolf. You apparently thought the article at her website had some value – and so asked me what I thought, as if it wasn’t obviously complete nonsense.
“You apparently thought the article at her website had some value”
Nope, just you big dog. I’ve been teaching you the same point for months now. You go for the person, not the message.
I do admit that your stories do make her sound crazy though.
Her website is characteristic kid the nonsense you go with. Same quality as Andre Huff’s stuff.
I posted the link to at the nonsense propagated by an individual and a collection of people who put out similar crapola.
You asked if I disagree with the paper – when it’s not the paper that’s relevant, it’s the asinine way that your buddy’s website interpreted the paper.
Show some class and accountability.
Oh, and this;
> You go for the person, not the message
Is also bullshit. My whole point was that the “msssage” from that link is total nonsense.
I was talking about the message and how the nuts you reference are tangled up in complwte nonsense.
I’m going to be inherently skeptical that there are “state-sponsored” attacks on our infrastructure.