January 30, 2023

Nothing to See Here! This is NOT Happening!

So.  Note the grammatical error to prove an AI didn't write this

Last week Project Veritas released footage of the number 4 man at Pfizer Pharmaceuticals talking up a Grinder date and attempting to impress said date by displaying a knack for psychopathy and mass murder. Specifically, he was talking about Pfizer mutating COVID 19 and releasing new variants into the environment in order to create a market for new vaccine boosters...that would presumably be made to order by Pfizer before hand.

 Reaction Image Goes Here

Of course, WHY, exactly, he thought that revealing that he was working in the proud traditions of Vault Tech, Umbrella Corporation, and Weyland Yutani was gonna get him some sexy-fun-times is unclear. I'd think that anyone turned on by this is probably a bug chaser. 

Additionally, what he was boasting about is not just a summer movie plot, it's an atrocity that if true has resulted in upwards of a million deaths. This is beyond even most of the more lurid conspiracy theories.

Veritas attempted to follow up with the fellow who went kind of bonkers...

He claimed that he had lied....please believe him, he was a liar, and he didn't even work for Pfizer (shockingly that last bit was a lie, as he is an executive at Pfizer meaning that, he is indeed a liar, just as he said he was before he attacked James O'Keefe. So I guess we should believe him...no wait). 

Now as I write this, there seems to be a huge effort to bury this story. Uh...which does not engender the skepticism I wish to feel at this point.

And of course that proves that there's nothing going on. Because such coverups only happen in movies. 

Reaction Image Goes Here

This is how you get clickers. 

I don't know what to believe about this. But given the craziness of the last few years, I'm not nearly as skeptical as I ought to be.  

Posted by: The Brickmuppet at 10:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Slight correction..  The mental meltdown only admitted that Pfizer was conduction gain of function research on COVID to develop vaccines against more virulent forms, he never stated they were releasing it.  Of course, Pfizer doesn't have any legal BSL-4 labs and would be doing this in BSL-3 labs or below.  Introducing gain of function to COVID to make it more virulent makes this decision questionable at the least; Musolini treament in a worst case.

Posted by: StargazerA5 at Mon Jan 30 21:01:29 2023 (zTmRe)

2 Not nearly as skeptical as you wish you could be, I think.

I'm not as skeptical as I wish I could be. 

The basic issue is that we do have a massive problem of betrayal by experts. 

However, I have every reason to believe that PhDs can be gross idiots lacking basic competence in their nominal field.  I do not have to believe that a company employing PhDs means that the PhDs can even do what they want to do, and say that they can do.

You would need some sort of cells to culture the virii in, and that is almost certainly a paper trail, and a more risky one if the work is being done in the US. 

Furthermore, there are the questions of inference about 'Covid 19'.  We have anecdotes, but the only real conclusive evidence that it even exists would have to be statistical, and the basis for the stats has clearly been boogered by the information war.

Basic detection hypothesis for anythign has a false alarm rate.  Our folks leaped to declaring that the PRC claims were totally unimpeachable, while ignoring that the PRC had also claimed that it could have come from the US Army bio weapons place. 

There's a bunch of stuff that publicly available information cannot rule out after you try to sort for the lying.  a) US bioweapon b) it doesn't exist, there were only ordinary colds c) naturally occurring, but did not have the claimed properties, which were of the holy grail of respiratory viral bioweapons d) naturally occurring, but for the first time in human history with the claimed properties  e) unnaturally occurring, without claimed properties  f) unnaturally occurring, with claimed properties. 

The ordinary situation with respiratory virii should be a lot of strains infecting various populations, with a fair rate of mutations and cross overs from animal populations. 

Unless you had engineered a new type of virus entirely, a coronavirus based bioweapon should mutate like a coronavirus, IE, rapidly.  Because mutation should be somewhat statistical and tied to structure of the genetics. 

If your engineered bioweapon is initially distributed in a very lethal configuration, a general prediction is that further mutation is going to break stuff, and result in less lethal strains.  The major reason to expect it to grow more lethal would be if you knew that the point on the genetic space that you release is very close to several other much more lethal points.  But, if you know that, why not release one of those instead?

Mutating stuff in the lab is probably going to get strains that are less effective, unless you also have a lot of informed and skilled manpower trying to find the rarer mutations that improve effectiveness as a weapon.  Less effective strains would still be effective at selling vaccines, as long that you had media allies to provide information warfare support. 

I tend to figure that the most dangerous strains probably died out prior to the lcokdown, that the post lockdown strains were probably mostly nothing, and I am not sure that the lunatics have the resources to produce a strain worth worrying over. 

We recently had a Speaker election go for four or five days, and fifteen votes. Federal funding now is not necessarily stable.  The guy's federal program could have gotten cut off, and he could have had a psychotic break just prior to the date. 

The expected peaceful path out of the political mess involves a lot of leftists having psychotic breaks.  They were never really sane, but were stable, but current circumstances will be pretty hard when it comes to a lot of them and their mental health.

Posted by: PatBuckman at Mon Jan 30 21:27:48 2023 (r9O5h)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What colour is a green orange?

37kb generated in CPU 0.0204, elapsed 0.2536 seconds.
71 queries taking 0.2438 seconds, 357 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.