In this video, we're going to break down my reaction to the project Veritas a Pfizer elique We're going to identify potential holes, but we're also going to identify the most concerning issue out of all of this in this video. Let's get started. That's that's like lying to you, right? I mean that's straight up lying to you. It's like, no, we don't do that, but we do that.

It's gotten a lot of attention. but I'm actually extremely frustrated by where it is not getting the attention that it actually rightfully deserves and it has to do with project Veritas and the Pfizer story. Now in the past, Project Veritas has done both great things and not so great things. I Say that up front because I want to be very clear here that even though in what I'm about to say, I I support what Veritas is doing, I think there are some things that they could do better uh, even in this case here and hopefully uh, some of that advice will will translate over to them.

But in addition, uh, I if what, what they've uncovered is true I really support what they're doing uh and I want to be clear that my goal is to go into this as neutrally as possible. So basically Project Veritas set up uh, the potential grinder date between an unnamed reporter and this individual here, and this individual on camera here is allegedly a director of research at Pfizer and the reason I say allegedly is actually because Project Veritas gives some limited information proving that this person works at Pfizer. But I think we need a little bit more confirmation now. I'm going to go through some of their evidence and it's a bad look that Pfizer has not actually come out yet to say that this person either does or does not work for Pfizer Because if the person didn't work at Pfizer wouldn't Pfizer come out immediately and go.

We don't know who that is. This is staged right. So so far I'm heavily leaning in the direction of suggesting project Veritas is probably right and suggesting this is a Pfizer employee and and again we're going to go through their evidence in just a moment. Uh, and what really shocks me and I want to say this up front.

What really shocks me is that the mainstream media is not covering this. The only people covering this are small media channels. The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times The Washington Post none of them are covering Project Veritas's work on this and I think that's a disgrace because at bare minimum, cover it and and address where the potential holes are right and I've already kind of given the biggest pull. The biggest hole is.

Do we for sure know that this person did indeed work at Pfizer We know that they end up labeling that this person works at Pfizer but we we don't have that fact right. We don't have that uh uh, that that that uh that absolute proof. And but I do think that mainstream media should be covering this, but they're not. And that makes me very concerned that we need to be even more skeptical of mainstream media.

Why is it that and I'm not tinfoil hat? Okay, I'm like, like, definitely I don't think I'm tin foil hat. But why is it not being covered? That makes me concerned and it makes me skeptical. At least Again cover it and then say like, hey, these are unsubstantiated but this is what they're saying. but there's zero coverage at all and we know Pfizer's got lots of money.

We also know that, uh, the Wall Street Journal uh editorial board just had one of their members. not even the full Wall Street Journal editorial board, but just one of their members came out and talked about, hey, maybe the bivalent booster shot is not a good idea. Maybe the bivalent booster shot is not safe and maybe it's way less effective than the CDC and FDA actually suggested it would be. And then they ended up themselves proving it's not that safe and effective, right? Only one member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board got published saying that.

so I think there's a really big issue with mainstream media remotely criticizing Big Pharma And that's bad because if mainstream media is scared of big Pharma then then we don't get the coverage we deserve. As Americans or people in the world really, everybody would benefit from that. So I'm not going to go through all of this, but I'm going to play a little bit of this. uh.

and then I'm going to add some of my reactions and commentary so we'll jump around a little bit in this. Let's go ahead and play some of it talking about mutating covet. Well, that's not what we say to the public. no, don't tell anyone Yeah.

First story like no, you know the virus keeps mutating Yeah, Well one of the things we're explaining is like, why don't we just mutate it ourselves so we could work on quickly develop new vaccines, right? 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 farmer company like very controlled to make sure that there's virus. It doesn't create something like you know, it still is everywhere. Something crazy to be honest, like.

it makes no sense that these eyes walked out of nowhere. All right. So let's let's break this down because there's a lot of information to break down here and there's a lot to understand. uh, about uh, how how well some of the science involved.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm going to do my best. So the first thing that you have to understand is the difference between genetic engineering and gain of function. This becomes very, very important because uh, fauci for example said uh in a video uh in Congressional testimony that no, we don't use gain of function research but then there have been links to fauci uh, actually potentially being aware of gain of function research happening at Labs like the Wuhan lab in in China which some say there are links and there may be I didn't research this part so I want to be clear about that, but there may be links to U.S funding to that Wuhan lab, right? Anyway, this is also where Elon Musk has come out and suggested Oh Fauci New Fauci lied prosecute Fouche Elon suggested that I don't think Elon should really be like going that far in terms of making those allegations. Let other people make those allocations allegations and then maybe reply like oh, like he does with the Curious face or like this deserves investigation like that's fine.

like bring attention to it. But you know, when you go too political, especially when you're trying to attract advertisers from a business CEO point of view. bad idea for the purposes of business. That's not saying it's a bad idea for the purposes of humanity, right again? I'm a big fan of Elon bringing attention to things.

Uh, but but he's also kind of got to consider that hey, wait a minute. like we don't want to bankrupt Twitter because guess what if you bankrupt Twitter And this is where I know a lot of people like Kevin If the most powerful person in the world can't say it, why should he self-silence himself? I'm like I'm not I'm trying I want I want Twitter to be preserved because Google actually and YouTube are removing this content from the internet. That's why I'm not gonna play all of it because they're removing this. they're censoring this and I don't think that's right.

Uh, and so I'm not I'm not gonna play the whole thing. uh uh, obviously. but I want to comment on it and and bring it to the attention of everyone? Uh, but I believe that if Twitter goes bankrupt, you actually lose more free speech than if it stays alive, right? So I think there's there's like this duality of like, bring attention to issues and let them share or get shared. But but don't make advertisers run away from you Elon because we need Twitter right? So big fan of free speech? Obviously, we need Twitter Okay, so now we have to understand a little bit about the difference between gain a function and genetic engineering.

So genetic engineering is pretty simple. Uh, genetic engineering can be done through cross breeding. for example, watermelons. Where to some degree you want seedless watermelons.

You just basically only breed watermelons without Uh uh, the big black seeds and they get smaller and smaller and smaller over time. It's how you get sort of seedless watermelons, right? But that's sort of more like some people would say, that's not even genetic and Engineering anymore another form of genetic engineering would be you. Actually, this is probably more genetic engineering for the main purposes here is you take DNA and then maybe you, uh, slice out a uh, a corrupt portion of DNA that maybe gives a person asthma for example, and instead you insert the proper base pairs that remove that defect strain of DNA the defective strain. and now maybe somebody's asthma is cured that has not actually happened yet in humans.

But those are the goals of genetic engineering. Uh, obviously, humans and human biology is substantially more complicated because your DNA is replicating thousands of times, probably per second in your body. Uh, and uh. this is very complicated to try to reprogram your whole body.

It's kind of like once you have it, you're probably stuck for a while. Uh, at least into the future with a virus. It's a lot easier because you're talking about essentially a single cell organism and you can manipulate the DNA of a virus to maybe do different things. Now, it's one thing.

if you manipulate a virus and you take out its ability to infect other things. Right now, what you're actually doing is, you're reducing the virality of a virus. You're making that virus less capable. Well, that's different from gain of function.

So you can do genetic engineering without making a virus worse right now. to some degree. Uh, genetic engineering is used to manipulate viruses, so that way. Okay, maybe if you evolve into this, we already have a vaccine.

for that, you evolve into that. We already have a vaccine for that. Obviously, there's a profit motive to genetic engineering because if viruses can be engineered uh, in such a way that we kind of know which way they're going to evolve and you can create vaccines for those the people who want to take those well then and end up taking those and buying those, then Pfizer could potentially make more money, right? Ultimately, it all goes back to money. That's obvious.

And and I Don't think anybody who's a capitalist is opposed to people making money. We're opposed to people lying to us. Okay, that's bad, or doing really bad things like potentially potentially gain a function. So what is gain a function? gain a function is also a genetic modification.

But it's a genetic via a genetic modification that allows a virus to literally gain a function. So think about like a tool that it didn't previously have. So think about that. kind of like a human virus that doesn't infect cats.

but it's now genetically modified to where it and all of a sudden it can infect cats. Now the virus has gained a function, it can now infect something it previously couldn't And the belief is that through the Wuhan lab League theory of how covet got out that gain of function research was being used and this this basically covet the original strain of Covid and and Delta or whatever all stem from a lab leak because Gain of Function research was maybe being operated on viruses that only affected bats, but now was engineered to infect humans And then it got out. Oops. Now you have a coveted pandemic in a disaster.

So this is why Gain of Function has received a really, really, really bad reputation. And uh, everybody pretty much politically says it doesn't happen. It probably does happen. And that could be intentional or unintentional.

Because again, if you're genetically engineering at some point you're going to accidentally create gain a function. It's in my opinion, it's kind of like like saying like oh yeah, no, we don't do gain a function, we just do genetic modifying. But then oops, we absolutely accidentally happen to provide a function gain to a virus. So I think that's kind of useful to know I Think It's also also useful to know that in 2010, a Federal jury awarded 1.37 million dollars in Damages to a former Pfizer scientist who claimed that she was sickened by genetic a genetically engineered virus at a company lab.

Uh, the closing facts of that case actually were pretty damning. Showing that she was basically ignored. Her concerns about health and safety and improper ventilation and a broken vent Hood were ignored and that now she suffers from uh, partial paralysis occasionally. Uh, the potassium disorder.

Uh. And that when she addressed this issue with her bosses and supervisors, she was threatened that if she brought light to these issues, she would just receive bad performance reviews. She ended up getting fired, didn't return to work. Sued one one point three, seven million dollars in Damages over this.

So Pfizer has not had the best reputation for, you know, health and safety over profit. which again, not a surprise. I Think the biggest surprise is the mainstream media's unwillingness to cover, uh, this sort of story. So what we have here is the title of this: Jordan Tristan Walker Guy Pfizer Director of Research and Development Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning.

That is Veritas's claim, right? The big concern that I have Uh is is where how do we verify that that the person acts actually worked at Uh Fertilizer and Uh project Veritas has started releasing some of that evidence. For example, this breaking a new Pfizer Insider just sent me an image of Jordan Trish and Walker's internal Microsoft teams profile showing he's still an active employee of the pharmaceutical giant. If you have any more information, contact us. Now as an outsider, this looks pretty damning right.

We see the advisor. If you see the prior screenshots project Veritas has put up as well like uh, spookio profiles showing the potential for an At Pfizer Uh, you know it, it all kind of aligns that this person probably did end up working at Pfizer Uh, the person's LinkedIn profile has disappeared. But what bothers me a little bit and I just want to make it clear is I wish that before project Veritas released, uh, their video I wish they would have fully documented everything they could have gotten their hands on about the person and how they're linked to Pfizer like full LinkedIn profile. you know any kind of documentation that this person works for Pfizer and put a little bit more effort into that because then I think it would have.

if they could without a doubt prove that this person actually worked for Pfizer which so far I'm inclined to believe, then maybe it could have finally gotten the mainstream media to wake up and cover this because I think that's sort of the biggest crime is that the mainstream media isn't covering this and instead it's it's basically being censored and buried. So I'm concerned about that story and I'm most concerned about the fact that this individual which I won't play that part of the video. but when when it sort of gets discovered uh that he's being filmed, he freaks out, there's a tussle he grabs uh uh, O'Keefe's uh, um iPad when when Okie fends up uh, confronting him as the the person on the date goes away, grabs the iPad throws it gets locked in the police got it's just a complete disaster. We're not gonna play all of that Uh, but but my bottom line take out of all of this is uh that I actually think it's a great thing that there are companies like Project Veritas that are covering this sort of stuff.

Uh, because now it's going to push for more transparency. First of all, it demands responses from Pfizer and Pfizer has two choices. They can either. Well, actually, they have three choices.

They can, uh, address it and admit the person worked there and fire them. uh and and then say that, hey, like you know, clarify like this is what we do. Maybe we do engineering, but we don't do gain a function right? like that's really all they'd have to do and at least it would do some damage control. But right now they're completely silent.

They're silent because the mainstream media isn't covering it and that's the scariest part is that the mainstream media isn't covering it and their silence is kind of like. so he does. and you do right like that's that's bad. Uh, and then of course the other option is saying No this person doesn't work here.

we're being set up. That person's never worked here. Those are fake screenshots or whatever. That's the other option too, right? And so that's why I'm I'm trying to take as much of a neutral POV here because you've even got Marco Rubio sending like demand letters now.

uh, saying? look Pfizer you need to respond to this Which they should. They should respond to this, but I understand, they might also have that POV of like, oh well, you know if we respond to it, it's going to bring more attention to the issue personally. what I'm seeing here does not look good. It first of all looks very bad for how embed the mainstream media and Pharma probably is almost certainly is.

Uh, and it certainly doesn't look good that there hasn't been a response from Pfizer yet because it does sort of imply that yeah, the problem person probably did work at Pfizer or maybe still does and uh, and you know, what the person was saying was kind of alarming. So it'd be nice to have a little bit more insight into that because I think the biggest allegation out of all of it was and even though it was cut up in in a way where it probably seems a little bit more damning, you can't cut up the part where he says well, that's not what we say publicly, right? people don't want to hear that. That's scary. That's kind of like Twitter saying oh, we don't Shadow ban people, we just visibility filter people.

That's that's like lying to you, right? I mean that's straight up lying to you. It's like, no, we don't do that, but we do that and that's the biggest concern. Uh, and and so I'm glad that more attention is coming to this and there's certainly more uh to come on this. but I I Absolutely wanted to bring attention to this because I think it's very important.