What To Do With Jordon Walker?
Can He Be Taken Seriously? Or Is He Just A Midwit Dimwit?
It is the acme of understatement to say that Project Veritas created yet another storm of controversy with their video of (ex?) Pfizer Director, Worldwide R&D Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning Jordon Walker casually discussing Pfizer’s either contemplated or ongoing efforts to actively mutate and alter the SARS-CoV-2 virus, seemingly oblivious to the ethical minefields surrounding what he attempts to describe.
As I said the other day, Jordon Walker ultimately said the quiet part out loud: Big Pharma researchers think nothing at all about “playing God” with viruses.
Jordon Walker merely said that quiet part out loud. He merely confirmed that this is what Big Pharma does—and you can be sure they are doing it with more than just SARS-CoV-2. This is what university researchers do. This is what Big Government does.
That is by far the most terrifying aspect of Jordon Walker’s reveals: the “normality” of it all.
As I have outlined in numerous other articles, the casual manipulations of viruses is the disturbing and ethically questionable research status quo for modern virology.
However, other writers—whose work I respect and have recommended more than once—have expressed skepticism about Jordon’s statements, their veracity, and the level of credibility we should assign to them. They raise a number of points that warrant consideration and reflection, which I shall attempt to begin herein.
Brian Mowrey of Unglossed took issue with Walker’s notion of preemptive vaccines.
CATFISH: Pfizer ultimately is thinking about mutating Covid?
WALKER: Well, that is not what we say to the public. No. Don't tell anyone this by the way. You have to promise you won't tell anyone. You got to promise you won't tell anyone, okay. You know how the virus keeps mutating?
CATFISH: Yeah.
WALKER: Well one of the things we're exploring is like why don't we just mutate it ourselves so we could preemptively develop new vaccines, right?
This cannot be true because:
Walker’s formulation of the “scheme” lacks regulatory and marketing executability. There is no system for putting “future” variant mRNA injections on the market. Can you go to Walgreens and ask for the Pfizer Fall 2023 vaccine? No? Oh, that’s weird. Because Jordon Trishton Walker said you could on a date! Robert Malone said he’s a senior emissary! Nobody leaves this Walgreens until the cops get here!
What must be said on this point is that pre-emption is an explicit goal of current mRNA “vaccine” research (emphasis mine).
BioNTech and Pfizer say they could begin shipping vaccines that target Omicron within 100 days if protection from their existing vaccines declines substantially against the new variant. Moderna has already started testing booster shots designed to anticipate mutations. It also says it would rapidly advance an Omicron-specific booster shot, which could be available early next year.
This is what Stéphane Bancel, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna, had to say in a press release outlining their COVID-19 booster strategy (again, emphasis mine):
As we seek to defeat COVID-19, we must be vigilant and proactive as new variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerge. Leveraging the flexibility of our mRNA platform, we are moving quickly to test updates to the vaccines that address emerging variants of the virus in the clinic. Moderna is committed to making as many updates to our vaccine as necessary until the pandemic is under control. We hope to demonstrate that booster doses, if necessary, can be done at lower dose levels, which will allow us to provide many more doses to the global community in late 2021 and 2022 if necessary.
Separately, Eugyppius offered up this observation on Walker’s comments.
What this actually reveals, is that the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent vaccine has been a total flop. Uptake is lower than ever, and within months of its rollout, BA.5 infections receded in the face of what will probably soon be the new dominant lineage, XBB.1.5. Because it takes so long to research and produce updated vaccines, you’re always vaccinating against yesterday’s variant. Vaccinator hysteria, however, has created an enormous global market for on-target Covid boosters, so you’d better believe that there are people out there right now trying to get ahead of the evolutionary curve. One way to do this, would be to infect bivalent-vaccinated animal models with current virus lineages, and observe which escape mutations emerge. Walker appears to say that Pfizer is considering a research programme along these lines, and that other scientists are already doing this work.
“Preemptively develop new vaccines”, “anticipate mutations”, “vigilant and proactive”, and “get ahead of the evolutionary curve” are little more than different articulations of the same overall objective. Whether the objective is realistic and achievable is a relevant question—and I share Brian’s skepticism on that point—yet we should not presume that mere impossibility fully discredits the notion of there being any attempt to achieve it.
As regards regulatory protocols arguably standing in the way, we must also pause to consider the import of Walker’s commentary about Big Pharma’s regulatory capture, as well as the reality that Pfizer’s bivalent Omicron booster was submitted for Emergency Use Authorization without any testing on human subjects.
I submit that regulatory protocols are not the disqualifying barrier we might hope them to be. Theoretically, Pfizer could have had the bivalent vaccine on the shelf waiting to be used, and only needed the emergence of a qualifying strain for Pfizer to proceed with releasing it for use.
To be clear, there is no evidence that is actually what happened, and I am not suggesting that this is indeed did happen. However, Pfizer’s ability to persuade the FDA to approve the booster without full testing itself is evidence that Pfizer views regulatory protocols as a solvable problem, not an unsolvable barrier.
As for why this is a problem, we need to consider another point Brian asserts.
Gain of function, i.e. modifying virus tropism in a lab through serial passage, is real. But it has been taking place in science for over a century, with little apparent consequence.
There are some historical data points that serve to rebut (or at least contextualize) this assertion:
The 1977-1979 “Russian Flu” pandemic1 has been identified as a lab-released strain of H1N1 Influenza A virus, which killed 700,000 people. While there is not any assertion the virus was the subject of specific Gain-of-Function experimentation so far as I am aware, it does prove absolutely that viruses can escape the lab environment and spread like any other pathogen.
Martin Furmanski, of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, later argued in an op-ed letter in mBIO2 that the 1977 pandemic was prime evidence of why GoF research should not be accepted ever.
Furmanski further argued that accidental releases of dangerous pathogens are more likely and more common than most would like to believe.My review of 11 relevant events (2) found that escapes of high-consequence pathogens causing community infections typically occur from state-of-the-art laboratories, including six outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome and one of foot-and-mouth disease since 2003.
Furmanski also points out that four of those events occurred here in the US.
The post-9/11 anthrax attacks, in which letters laced with anthrax were sent to multiple individuals around the US, killed five people. What is notable about these attacks for this discussion is that the strain of anthrax used was a laboratory strain known as the “Ames strain”.
We were surprised it was the Ames strain. And it was chilling at the same time, because the Ames strain is a laboratory strain that had been developed by the U.S. Army as a vaccine-challenge strain. We knew that it was highly virulent. In fact, that’s why the Army used it, because it represented a more potent challenge to vaccines that were being developed by the U.S. Army. It wasn’t just some random type of anthrax that you find in nature; it was a laboratory strain, and that was very significant to us, because that was the first hint that this might really be a bioterrorism event.
While not causing a death toll in the hundreds of thousands such as the Russian flu pandemic, this warrants mention because it is an act of bioterrorism—a pathogen developed in a lab for the purposes of “threat reduction” became a deliberate example of “threat creation.”
Thus, even without the arguable inclusion of SARS-CoV-2 in this list, we have conclusive evidence that laboratory strains of pathogens do escape, do get in the wild, do cause death, and do cause pandemic disease. This much is documented history, not any form of “conspiracy theory.”
Regarding Pfizer’s non-denial denial, Modern Discontent raises an intriguing question:
This is why this recent post from Pfizer elaborating on their work with PAXLOVID may not be the bombshell reporting that it may seem (emphasis mine):
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.
If we are looking for consistency, wouldn’t any study using PAXLOVID to find resistant strains of the virus be considered GOF based on this metric? The same goes for Remdesivir, Molnupiravir, Ivermectin, HCQ, or really any antiviral that has ever been on the market.
The short answer, I believe, is “no”. Simply testing existing variants to determine which, if any, have a capacity to develop resistance to an antiviral would not be “gain of function”, as such tests merely reproduce within a laboratory setting phenomena which occur in the wild already.
Stephanie Brail, over at Wholistic, offers this assessment of the same text:
Wow. This is bad. They are basically saying they conduct gain of function research when computer models won’t suffice, and they are also performing “in vitro” (petri dish) experiments on resistance selection, which could create a virus that is more resistant to treatment.
I agree with her view of this. The problem is not that Pfizer is culturing SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures with nirmatrelvir (PAXLOVID) to see if resistant strains will emerge, but that they are, by their own admission, engineering viral strains with known gain of function mutations for use in the cell cultures, as opposed to using currently circulating variants (XBB.1.5, anyone?). It is one thing to test for resistance using known viral strains, and it is quite another to create a previously non-existent strain on which to test.
My question to Pfizer would be whether or not current regulatory protocol calls for the use of such “chimeric” viral constructs in testing, or if known strains in the wild will suffice.
We should not forget the dustup a few months back when researchers at Boston University spliced some Omicron RNA onto the ancestral Wuhan strain to create a “chimeric” strain that killed 8 out of 10 “humanized” mice.
Nor should we blithely assume that such research is intrinsically necessary or even informative. As the recent example of the University of Glasgow virology team that mixed influenza A and RSV viral strains together to study whether or not the viruses can “coinfect” the same host—a question with an already known answer3.
Which brings me back to my core problem with Jordon Walker’s statements: it’s not the details of what he said but the offhand “business as usual” way in which he said it. We are presented with a person casually talking about mutating a virus as a protocol for researching vaccines—and, as I detailed the other day, we already know that is the status quo within viral research.
Yes, the use of chimeric viral constructs and other exemplars of what could be considered gain of function research under an expansive definition of the term is nearly ubiquitous within Big Pharma. No, this research is not necessarily secret (except in the manner of most trade secrets), nor is it covert.
Yet this research is also not necessarily established as being ethical and proper. Jeff Goldblum’s classic quote from “Jurassic Park” is a pithy framing of this issue:
Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
Our concern should lie not in what Jordon Walker said but in how he said it, and why.
Exactly how does one justify research if we have no clear limits and no clear boundaries between the permissible and the impermissible?
Is it normal and ethical to discuss in a crowded bar or restaurant details of your employer’s work that is covered by a Non-Disclosure Agreement?
Is it normal and ethical to discuss with anyone, but particularly a relative stranger, topics that you do not want being discussed elsewhere?
Ultimately, the relevant questions the Project Veritas video calls to our attention arise not because what Pfizer is or may be contemplating doing is extraordinary or unusual, but because it is, in every sense, the “old normal.”
Michaelis, M., Doerr, H.W. & Cinatl, J. Novel swine-origin influenza A virus in humans: another pandemic knocking at the door. Med Microbiol Immunol 198, 175–183 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00430-009-0118-5
Furmanski, Martin. “The 1977 H1N1 Influenza Virus Reemergence Demonstrated Gain-of-Function Hazards.” mBio vol. 6,5 e01434-15. 29 Sep. 2015, doi:10.1128/mBio.01434-15
Franz, Anna et al. “Correlation of viral load of respiratory pathogens and co-infections with disease severity in children hospitalized for lower respiratory tract infection.” Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology vol. 48,4 (2010): 239-45. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2010.05.007
The Pfizer exec who confessed to Project Veritas now tells me the whole truth
And nothing but the truth about the virus and the vaccine---in the back room of an Irish bar after a few Bushmills
Jon Rappoport
3 hr ago
Last Saturday, I woke up to the sounds of my pigs squealing out on the land. My wolves were herding them back into their pens.
I struggled out of bed and plowed through the 16 messages on my cell. FOX, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. They somehow knew I was on to The One, and they were clamoring and pleading for an exclusive.
No dice.
My agent and lawyer, Gloria Torquemada, showed up as I as was downing my 4th cup of coffee. Her CIA contacts had located Jordan Walker, the suddenly infamous Pfizer exec. He was now waiting in Mick Flaherty’s bar 16 miles away from my farm. I called Tucker and told him to hold on, I’d get back to him by nightfall.
I donned my white coat, hung a stethoscope around my neck, pinned an old Blockbuster member card to my chest pocket (“Jon Rappoport, MD”), and we were off in the Bentley.
An hour later, Jordan and I were sitting in Mick’s back room. We had a few drinks and chatted. Maybe more than a few.
Then this is what followed:
What about the virus, Jordan?
What about it?
The isolation problem.
Oh, THAT.
Yeah.
You get right down to it, Jon.
Time is money.
Of course. Well, you have to promise, first, that none of what I tell you in this conversation will go public. This is on background only.
Of course. I would never reveal your comments.
OK, good. So, the virus. Well, scientists never actually FIND a new virus. They INFER its existence.
Infer it from what?
A bunch of presumptions about their own lab procedures.
What they’re doing in the lab—
Is really just a hodge-podge of mumbo-jumbo. They don’t isolate anything. And then, using computer programs, they stitch together genetic sequences for “the virus.” These sequences are metaphors.
Metaphors?
Mythical science.
So there is no proof SARS-CoV-2 exists.
No more proof than, say, “demonstrating” there is a bath house on Mars. Or a gay caballero is roaming the galaxy singing Country and Western.
But—
But we need these metaphors. They satisfy so many interests.
Not least of all, vaccine manufacturers.
Right. If there are no viruses, why would we produce and sell vaccines?
Then all this talk about Pfizer intentionally mutating the virus and giving it more power…which is what you told Project Veritas…is sheer nonsense?
No, not nonsense. High level bullshit.
Explain.
It’s simple. 99.999 percent of virologists in the world believe their own bullshit. They really think they’re discovering new viruses. They really think they can increase the power of those viruses. They’re actually doing METAPHOR, but they think they’re doing LITERAL.
My, my.
Yes. It’s a WOW. And it works brilliantly. No one wants to rock that boat. Too many people are making too much money and exerting too much political power.
So there is no need for a COVID vaccine.
No. And it’s not actually a vaccine. It’s a shot of nanoparticles. They supposedly instructs cells of the body to produce a spike protein. The nanos contain RNA, which does the instructing. So I’m told.
A lot of rigmarole.
Right.
So why is the injection injuring and killing so many people all over the world?
I don’t know. There are all kinds of theories. The point is, when you screw around with the human body, forcing unnatural processes on it, with genetic material [RNA], there is a ripple effect down the line. Things happen.
Unpredictable things.
Yes. The processes of the body are interlocking. Disturb one process, and you get bad reverberations.
Does Pfizer understand this?
All legitimate researchers realize it. It’s not a secret. The COVID injection is experimental. The open medical literature is very frank about the dangers of putting nanoparticles in humans.
In a sense, Pfizer is a marketing firm.
I would call it a PR firm that is also injuring and killing huge numbers of people. We front for an operation that aims at political control of populations. Hence the lockdowns. The lockdowns were a prime political objective. The fake science—which Pfizer peddles—was the cover story.
So you’re personally corrupt.
Of course.
You don’t care?
I’m just trying to make a good living.
With no conscience.
Having no conscience helps.
It occurs to me that this claim Pfizer is doing gain of function research on the virus could send people up a blind alley.
Well, sure. Because legally, Pfizer can quite probably get off the hook. They can say they’re protecting the public by mutating the virus and developing new vaccines that prevent these more dangerous variants from harming everybody. Whereas, a real court case that attacks the VACCINE for the harm it’s causing…that would be a jackpot. A verdict against Pfizer THERE would be devastating. If you could ever get the case into court…
Then why did you tell Project Veritas about Pfizer mutating the virus?
I was speaking metaphorically.
In what sense?
I was telling Veritas what Pfizer is doing with an imaginary virus. Think of it this way. This is a rough analogy: At the end of World War Two, an exec at a major American corporation tells the New York Times his corporation supplied badly built weapons to US troops in Europe. There is no truth to that, because his company didn’t make weapons—but the real story is, his corporation was supplying vital parts to the US AND Germany. Parts used in factories that manufactured planes. Making money from both sides. But the exec says nothing about THAT.
He pointed the finger at his own company. But for the wrong reason.
Yes.
And that’s what you did when you talked to Project Veritas.
Sort of. Yes.
Why?
I was pissed off about a few things at work I don’t want to go into. And I might have been a little high.
On drugs?
Absolutely not. On one drug. Maybe.
You fucked up.
Obviously.
So what are you going to do now?
I think the question is, what are they going to do to me?
Will you testify in front of Congress?
I doubt they’ll invite me. Pfizer has a lot of clout. And several hundred Congressional legislators and other federal officials don’t want me in public under oath. But if I had to appear, I’d lie. I’d say my comments to Project Veritas were misinterpreted, with no context.
You’d try to bullshit your way out of trouble.
Yes. It’s a time-honored tradition. And think of how many journalists would come to my aid.
Pfizer is evil.
I thought we’d already established that.
Why do so many people work there? Some of them must know it’s a nest of evil.
They have bills to pay. They want to live a comfortable life.
It’s that simple?
For most people, it always is. Look, there’s a guy at Pfizer. He knows everything I’ve been telling you here today. He makes about 700K a year. He snitched to the head of security about a woman in his department who was about to go all whistleblower. He snitched because he wanted to protect Pfizer, the cash cow, who hands him his paycheck every month. That was the long and short of it for him. His paycheck. His standard of living.
The truth, the facts, the crimes meant nothing to him.
Less than nothing.
Were you always corrupt?
I’d say I went through three stages. As a child, I was pretty much like other children. After I went to work for Pfizer and gradually saw what was really happening there, I was troubled. But when I was promoted and got a substantial raise, I settled in. I experienced the perks of my new life.
“The banality of evil.”
Yes. Hannah Arendt’s phrase. To describe the Nazi bureaucrat, Adolph Eichmann.
Didn’t Arendt say Eichmann was unaware, detached? He was following orders in order to advance his career. You’re aware.
I am, but it doesn’t SINK IN. I’m like a researcher who’s designing a death ray shot from space, but focuses on the MATH problems in front of him. In a sense, he knows what he’s doing, but it doesn’t bite him.
The vaccine. It’s a killer.
Yes. But you have to remember, it’s the first vaccine given to so MANY people. I dare say if this was, say, the HPV [Human Papilloma Virus] vaccine, the results would be even worse.
If nobody from the company goes to prison—
We never do. We’re aliens.
Excuse me?
When you settle into one of the big pharmaceutical companies and work there for a decade or more, you’re not quite human anymore.
Is it cold in here? I just felt a chill.
You’re not the first person I’ve talked to who’s told me that.
-- Jon Rappoport
Episode 34 of Rappoport Podcasts—“We Are Living In the Era of Nanotechnology, Science Beyond Our Control; A Clear and Present Danger”—is now posted on my substack. It’s a blockbuster. To listen, click here. https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/elon-musk-neuralink-we-are-living#details To learn more about This Episode of Rappoport Podcasts, click here. https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/new-podcast-elon-musk-neuralink-we?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
You raise some good questions, Peter. Linking as usual today @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/