PFIZER Exclusive: Rep. Ronny Jackson Blasts Pfizer Denial of Gain-of-Function Accusations as ‘Woefully Inadequate’


Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX) called for an investigation into if Pfizer conducted unethical gain-of-function research, calling the pharmaceutical giant’s response “woefully inadequate,” Breitbart News has learned exclusively.

Jackson said in a statement to Breitbart News, “Pfizer’s response to me was woefully inadequate and continues to show that big pharma is prioritizing its profits over the safety of the American public. I’m highly disappointed that their response came almost a month late and failed to answer many of my questions.”

Jackson, a physician and a member of the Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, sent a letter to Pfizer in January, demanding answers on if Pfizer engaged in gain-of-function research by intentionally mutating the coronavirus.

In Pfizer’s response letter, which was exclusively obtained by Breitbart News, Pfizer strongly denied that the company would engage in gain-of-function research.

“To be clear, we do not, and never would, engage in research to create or adapt viruses with the intention of making them more contagious or harmful to people,” Pfizer claimed.

“In the ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer has not conducted gain-of-function research with SARS-CoV-2 for any potential use in humans, laboratory animals or to use as a vaccine,” the pharmaceutical stated.

A nurse reaches for a vial of Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine at a pop up vaccine clinic in the Arleta neighborhood of Los Angeles, California, August 23, 2021. (Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images)

ackson contended that Pfizer failed to clarify many details surrounding the claims that it conducted gain-of-function research. He charged that the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic will investigate these claims, which may include bringing in pharmaceutical executives to testify under oath.

“Among other things, I demanded Pfizer clarify the difference between directed evolution and gain-of-function research, however, their response did not address that,” Jackson noted. “This raises major red flags that must be immediately addressed and brings more questions than it answers.”

“The American people have the right to know if Pfizer has been manipulating the COVID-19 virus since the pandemic’s beginning for their financial benefit,” he continued. “This Congress, I will work to ensure the American people get the answers they deserve. The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic will investigate, and I believe we need to hear from pharmaceutical executives about this under oath.”

Jackson wrote, “Why was this response nearly a MONTH late? Why wouldn’t they clarify the difference between directed evolution and gain of function? MAJOR red flags. I believe we need to hear from these executives UNDER OATH!!”

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) also said Pfizer’s response was not convincing. She wrote, “We’ve all seen the confession tape. Your denials are no good here.”

The claim that prompted Jackson’s inquiry came from a Project Veritas video in which Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer Director of Research and Development, Strategic Operations, mRNA Scientific Planner, claimed that the company was engaging in what he described as “directed evolution.”

The Pfizer executive concluded in his letter to Jackson, “Pfizer is dedicated to conducting research in an ethical and responsible manner. We have an unwavering commitment to keeping high standards of safety, quality, and compliance at the forefront of all we do.” Source
LETHAL INJECTION -Wuhan Connection: Washington Post Columnist Describes Dr. Fauci as “Godfather of ‘Gain of Function Research’

Wuhan Institute of Virology to Receive Funding from U.S. Through 2024 Read My Article from May of 2020 About How Much $$ Was Sent to Wuhan by NIH (Fauci) Since 2012 For Gain of Function Research on China Plague

FAUCI FUNDED GOFR (Gain of Function Research) at Wuhan Institute of Virology WHEN Moratorium on this Risky Practice Was Called in U.S. in 2014

They continue to lie and those on the left are oblivious to truth because they watch news stations like CNN all day long. And what do they get from CNN? They get scripts of lies which are sent out to all of the LEFTIST LYING LOONIES.


Greenwald: NYT Finally Admits “The International Community” Does NOT Stand With US On Ukraine


A typical consumer of Western and especially American media over the past year of war in Ukraine might be forgiven for assuming the so-called international community is fully in Washington and NATO’s corner. But a detailed tally of nations and where they stand shows otherwise.

This week, two somewhat surprising reports out of the most prominent and visible newspapers in the US have much belatedly set the record straight. Journalist Glenn Greenwald has pointed out that finally The New York Times has acknowledged the reality that the majority of the globe does not in fact “stand with the US” in its approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Greenwald sounds off in a Twitter thread as follows…

Greenwald then directs the reader’s attention to statements from the Times report which proves long-standing media assumptions in this regard were nothing but ‘false fairy tales’.

No, there was never any kind of “united” global stance, per the report (emphasis ours): 

But the West never won over as much of the world as it initially seemed. Another 47 countries abstained or missed the vote, including India and China. Many of those “neutral” nations have since provided crucial economic or diplomatic support for Russia.

And even some of the nations that initially agreed to denounce Russia see the war as somebody else’s problem — and have since started moving toward a more neutral position.

And more from the Times:

A year on, it’s becoming clearer: While the West’s core coalition remains remarkably solid, it never convinced the rest of the world to isolate Russia.

Instead of cleaving in two, the world has fragmented. A vast middle sees Russia’s invasion as, primarily, a European and American problem. Rather than view it as an existential threat, these countries are largely focused on protecting their own interests amid the economic and geopolitical upheaval caused by the invasion.

Greenwald points out that The Washington Post has also made a similar concession…

Greenwald continues his commentary:

A staple of left-wing foreign policy is the valorization of the “Global South” (for good reason: I share the view that they matter more than is recognized). Yet as both papers say, the “Global South” rejects support for the US view of Ukraine, yet the US left ignores this.

A major reason the US liberal-left in DC is *unanimous* in support of Biden’s war policies — even as the left all over the world is divided to hostile — is lingering anger toward Russia because of the view they helped defeat Hillary

Greenwald concludes: “It’s utter madness but it’s how they think.”


There is a saying “The truth will out.” And hopefully that is true. But in our insane world, the truth is often buried beneath the mindless drivel of Leftists, Wokesters, Globalists and the like.

But let us give thanks when Leftwing news sources finally get some of it right! It doesn’t happen often but it is certainly sweet when it does!



“I Stand with James O’Keefe” – Exclusive: 14 Courageous Project Veritas Whistleblowers Release POWERFUL VIDEO and LETTER in Support of James O’Keefe – MUST SEE


This is so powerful!

14 former Project Veritas whistleblowers and insiders cut a video that was released minutes ago in support of James O’Keefe.

James O’Keefe was removed from the Project Veritas Board, a company he founded and led for over a decade earlier this week.

This video is a collection of courageous Americans who step out of the shadows to show their support for James O’Keefe.

Warning: This is a very moving video!

Here is the letter released this morning by the whistleblowers and insiders.

Via Ryan Hartwig.




REPORT: LAB-GROWN MEAT Pushed by WEF and BILL GATES as a Remedy for Climate Change is Made of ‘Immortalized’ CANCER


Technocrats appear keen to preclude the masses from eating real meat in hopes of combatting the specter of climate change and making more money. While there is a significant push under way for people to surrender steaks, burgers, and hot dogs and instead eat bugs and algae, climate alarmists and elites alike are also hyping so-called synthetic “meat.”

This alternative may prove too much to swallow for many consumers in light of the present lack of health data about what such laboratory productions might do to consumers, as well as Bloomberg’s recent report underscoring how synthetic meat is, in many cases, cancer. 

What’s the background?

When peddling his book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster” in 2021, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told the MIT Technology Review that “all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”

Although Gates contends that fewer methane emissions from livestock flatulence will help combat climate change, it won’t just be the planet that will allegedly benefit. He seeks to turn a significant profit, having invested in various companies that create faux meat and plant-based meat substitutes.

In his discussion of cancerous lab meats, Igor Chudov noted on his Substackthat the World Economic Forum has also championed the replacement of real meat.

The WEF ran an article in 2019 — the same year Israeli start-up Aleph Farms claimed to be the first company to produce a steak in a lab — entitled, “You will be eating replacement meats within 20 years. Here’s why,” which claimed lab meats could be created more efficiently and had “fewer product risks than conventional meat.”

Again, in 2020, it ran a piece claiming that lab meat was a “more sustainable solution” that would reverse deforestation and help limit global temperature rises.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said select lab-grown meats were safe for human consumption for the first time in November 2022, two years after Singapore became the first country to permit their sale.

Upside Foods, a California-based and Gates-backed company that makes so-called meat from chicken cells, was subsequently cleared to begin selling its product as soon as the U.S. Department of Agriculture inspected its facilities, reported CNN.

Reuters reported last month that Upside hopes to bring its doctored meat to restaurants as early as this year.

Another California-based lab-meat company, Good Meat, has an application pending with the FDA. The Netherlands-based Mosa Meat and Israel-based Believer Meats reportedly are also in talks with the FDA to bring their vat-grown meat simulacrum to American tables.

In addition to surmounting regulatory hurdles, Reuters noted these companies will also have to lock down the supply chain for the “nutrient mix to feed cells and for the massive bioreactors required to produce large quantities of cultivated meat.”

A cancerous knock-off

A recent Bloomberg report noted that for decades, “companies such as Pfizer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson have cultured large volumes of cells to produce vaccines, monoclonal antibodies and other biotherapeutics. Now the idea is that we might as well eat these cells, too.”

While lab-grown meat advocates contend their product is, at least on the cellular level, no different from real meat, the report stressed that “normal meat cells don’t just keep dividing forever”; normal cells will only divide a few dozen times.

In order to get the cell cultures to multiply at the rates necessary to keep these doctored meat companies afloat, “several companies, including the Big Three, are quietly using what are called immortalized cells. … Immortalized cells are a staple of medical research, but they are, technically speaking, precancerous and can be, in some cases, fully cancerous.”

The first immortal cell line came from Henrietta Lacks, a black tobacco farmer from southern Virginia who had cervical cancer. The cells were taken and used without her knowledge or consent. Smithsonian magazine reported that her cancer cells have been used many times over, including in space for zero-gravity tests, in the polio vaccine, in cloning, in gene mapping, and for in-vitro fertilization. 

These so-called immortal cells — modified to divide forever, thereby “defying the normal limits of growth … mak[ing] them unmistakably more like cancer cells” — are grown in vats called bioreactors, where they ultimately generates tons of “cell mass.”

The report indicated that some cancer researchers have downplayed the risk of consuming this cancerous lab meat, noting that “because the cells aren’t human, it’s essentially impossible for people who eat them to get cancer from them, or for the precancerous or cancerous cells to replicate inside people at all.”

Joe Fassler, the author of the report, suggested that the real meat industry may weaponize the doctored meat’s cancerous composition in a public-relations war, adding, “It’s all too easy to imagine misleading Fox News chyrons about chicken tumors and cancer burgers.”

While Fassler prejudged such hypothetical reports as misleading, he conceded that even “the cultured meat industry is anxious about its use of immortalized cells and is doing what it can to avoid the subject. In part, this is because scientists aren’t as quick as journalists to use the words ‘essentially impossible’ in writing.” 

“Despite the informal scientific consensus around the safety of immortalized cells, there just aren’t any long-term health studies to prove it,” he wrote.

This may account for why Upside has investors and reporters who taste the company’s pseudo-chicken sign a “creepy waiver,” which reads, “The cultured meat and related food products in the Tasting are experimental. … The properties are not completely known.”

The hypothetical concerns about “chicken tumors and cancer burgers” may ultimately be discounted by climate alarmists and journalists, but scientists and industry legal teams are evidently reluctant to dismiss them altogether. Source