As 33,000,000 people now know, a man named Jordan Trishton Walker was secretly interviewed by a Project Veritas reporter a few days ago. A video of the encounter was posted on Twitter and Project Veritas’ website on January 25th at 7:37 pm EST. Just before it was released, One Twitter user tweeted, “I have seen the material and the video that will come out from Veritas, and it is explosive!” He was right. The day after the video dropped, a second video was posted, this one of Walker’s reactions to the first video. Walker assaulted James O’Keefe and his crew in an effort to obtain and destroy an iPad containing the video of his interview.

This was a normal response, considering the circumstances. Walker, Pfizer’s director of research and development – strategic operations and Mrna scientific planning, had admitted on video that Pfizer was engaged in experiments that he described as “directed evolution”. To anyone who has ever heard of the coronavirus, “directed evolution” sounds a lot like “gain of function”. In general terms, gain of function research is when a pathogen is intentionally made more dangerous. Some scientists, however, look at it differently. For instance, Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, described gain of function as a “proactive” approach to understanding what will happen in nature. That is exactly what Walker said in the video. When pressed on the point, Walker denies they are doing gain of function but then seems to contradict himself by adding, in reference to gain of function, “They’d rather we not, but we do these selected structure mutations to try to see if we can make them more potent.” How is that not gain of function?

Go Ad-Free, Get Exclusive Shows and Content, Go Premium Today – $1 Trial

In the context of Pfizer research, Walker then states, “there better not be any more outbreaks”. That sounds like there has been an outbreak, and the outbreak was connected to Pfizer research. What does he mean by that? At another point in the interview, he hints that this is how the covid “pandemic” was started, “I suspect [this] is the way the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. Like, it makes no sense that this virus popped up out of nowhere.” Does he suspect? Or does he know?

A background check of Walker performed by Brian O’Shea reveals that prior to working at Pfizer, Walker worked for Boston Consulting Group, a 25,000-employee business consulting firm. Their specialty sounds very much like the kind of talk we hear coming out of the World Economic Forum (WEF): sustainability, diversity, and social impact. Walker worked in their healthcare division. While there, and just before the so-called pandemic became world news, BCG sent Walker on a business immersion Chinese language course. Why? Was he dealing with Chinese clients or contractors? Right after this, he went to work for Pfizer.


So what we have here is a youthful-looking 36-year-old man working as Pfizer’s director of research and development. The title places Walker right at the center of covid vaccine research. His title also tells you that when he says they are conducting experiments on the covid virus described as “directed evolution,” he is in a position to know. The way he describes directed evolution sounds so much like illegal “gain of function” research that the two are indistinguishable. He worries about another “outbreak”, meaning there has already been one. Meaning a lab leak. He then shares that he thinks that is what happened in Wuhan. And he happens to have taken an intensive Chinese language course (in China?) at about the time of the outbreak.

This brings us to Pfizer’s response. The first thing of interest is that Pfizer doesn’t mention Walker once in the press release. They don’t deny he works for them, that he has the mountainous title found in his (now-deleted) LinkedIn profile or any of the things he said specifically. Instead, their release attempts to refute the idea that they are performing illegal gain of function research. They are about as successful as Walker was when he said, in essence, “we don’t do that. We do exactly the same thing but call it something else to make it legal.” Ironically, the term “directed evolution” used by Walker in the now-infamous video is also denied by Pfizer.

They write, “In the ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research”. That seems pretty clear but combined with the rest of their response, it is about as convincing as Bill Clinton saying, “I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky”. Just as Clinton’s lie depended on the definition of “sexual relations”, Pfizer’s claim is conditioned by the words “ongoing development of the Pfizer-Biotech COVID-19 vaccine”. That is a highly specific condition. It leaves open the possibility that they have performed gain of function and directed evolution research in every other context but that one. Or that they could make it look that way by shifting attention away from the Covid vaccines. “Oh, you mean that gain of function research. Sure, we did it there, but not here”.

Their document admits “working with collaborators”, which I read to mean contractors like Boston Consulting Group. Those contractors “conducted research where the original SARS CoV-2 virus has been used to express the spike protein from new variants of concern.” Where did the collaborators get the new variants of concern if not through the directed evolution process described by Walker? They say they only do this after public health authorities identify the variant, meaning Pfizer couldn’t have made it themselves.

How do the public health authorities know about it? Is there something that prevents Pfizer from discovering it on its own, telling the public health authorities, and then telling people they are acting on the advice of the authorities? We’ve seen that kind of thing happen before, like with the Hamilton 68 disclosures, where desired information was created for the purpose of broadcasting it from an “independent” source, except in reality, it wasn’t independent.

Pfizer later states that “most of this work is conducted using computer simulations or mutations of the main protease”. To me, this sounds like, “we don’t do gain of function except when we do.” A computer simulation is not the same thing as a mutation. They go on to write, “when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations”, meaning, “we checked beforehand and figured out it is safe and legal to use this virus because it hasn’t already been altered”. In those cases, Pfizer says, “such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells.” I’m not sure that the reason for engineering the virus changes it from gain of function research to something benign. Nor does the fact a virus hasn’t been engineered yet prevent it from being engineered later in exactly the way described in this document.

The entire press release looks very carefully designed to say the same thing Walker admitted on video but to do it in a way that ensures no one understands anything after the first line. After limiting their statement to a specific “vaccine”, they say,  “Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research.” That is what they want readers to remember. The rest of the document appears to describe Pfizer conducting gain of function/directed evolution research at partner labs, possibly overseas, to avoid regulatory oversight.


Add to that Dr. Anthony Fauci’s connection to NIH-funded SARS research in Wuhan, China, Walker’s statement about Wuhan, another “outbreak”, and his consulting job that required Chinese language training, and it begins to look like Pfizer may be one of a handful of partners who are directly responsible for the “pandemic”. Nothing in Pfizer’s recent press release directly refutes this, though they try by saying they haven’t conducted that type of research right before admitting they do research that sounds like the same thing through collaborators elsewhere.

Was the covid outbreak a Pfizer experiment that got out of control? Or was it their version of a product launch?