Live data from Hacker News

Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims

pfizer.com

61–70 of 79 posts

Re: Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims

#61
post #42

So the way I read this statement, they explicitly say state "Pfizer has not conducted gain of function." Then they later admit, " 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." (I'm not exactly clear what that means, but it reads like they do gain-of-function to me. I've learne…

> Then they quickly defend "It is important to note that these studies are required by U.S. and global regulators"

Right before that claim, they mention another set of studies that don't require gain-of-function engineering. The regulations probably refer to those, and Pfizer is hoping we'll misinterpret their statement and think the regulations demand gain-of-function.

I would be very surprised if regulations required genetically engineering more dangerous virus strains.

Re: Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims

#62
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here is their agenda in their own words Despite the group's self description, Veritas are not (only?) journalists, they are also a political spying operation. But don't trust me on that -- instead review the submitted evidence that convinced the DC Circuit Court to permit describing the group in those exact terms. Start at page 14 of Democracy Partners v. Veritas (PDF): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-…

Yeah that's interesting but seems like an incredibly technical reading of the term "political spying operation". They argue that it's an operation because it was planned. It was spying because the undercover journalist was recording everything secretly. And it was political because: > Defendants make clear that they researched plaintiffs and developed the plan for this operation in response to plaintiffs’ activities…

I disagree with your reading of the evidence and agree with the reading of the presiding judge. But I included the root document so that the rest of the thread can form an opinion.

In all, starting from the court's high bar of impartiality then continuing to the many, less impartial resources on the Internet which nonetheless largely support the point it feels like a situation of: "Who will you trust -- Veritas or your lying eyes"

Re: Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims

#63
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that's interesting but seems like an incredibly technical reading of the term "political spying operation". They argue that it's an operation because it was planned. It was spying because the undercover journalist was recording everything secretly. And it was political because: > Defendants make clear that they researched plaintiffs and developed the plan for this operation in response to plaintiffs’ activities…

I disagree with your reading of the evidence and agree with the reading of the presiding judge. But I included the root document so that the rest of the thread can form an opinion. In all, starting from the court's high bar of impartiality then continuing to the many, less impartial resources on the Internet which nonetheless largely support the point it feels like a situation of: "Who will you trust -- Veritas or yo…

There isn't any evidence to disagree over. It's just a dispute over whether "political spying operation" is a reasonable description of what they do or exaggerated. I don't think it's reasonable unless all undercover journalism about politicians gets described that way, which it isn't, and you do think it's reasonable. Don't think there's much that can be debated there.

Re: Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims

#64
post #47
post #42

So the way I read this statement, they explicitly say state "Pfizer has not conducted gain of function." Then they later admit, " 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." (I'm not exactly clear what that means, but it reads like they do gain-of-function to me. I've learne…

Engineering the virus doesn’t mean making gain-of-function mutations. “Function” has a specific meaning and it’s not a synonym for “does anything.” Instead, in broad strokes, think of “function” as referring to biological activities that give the virus some advantage over its host. To make a simplistic analogy (necessarily imperfect but sufficient for these purposes), consider instead a computer virus. If an antiviru…

That interpretation makes sense.

One interesting thing to note is another weasel word "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." It sounds like they're saying "We might do gain of function without knowing it."

Obviously this shouldn't be interpreted as some tinfoil-hat "making a supervirus." But given lableaks have happened 50 or so recorded times[1], scrutiny is obviously warranted. I'd be cucious exactly what the oversight is at such labs, and whether there are whistle-blower protections/policies should anybody witness anything dangerous (be it deliberate or simply failing to follow safety procedures).

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...

Re: Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims

#65
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your reading of the evidence and agree with the reading of the presiding judge. But I included the root document so that the rest of the thread can form an opinion. In all, starting from the court's high bar of impartiality then continuing to the many, less impartial resources on the Internet which nonetheless largely support the point it feels like a situation of: "Who will you trust -- Veritas or yo…

There isn't any evidence to disagree over. It's just a dispute over whether "political spying operation" is a reasonable description of what they do or exaggerated. I don't think it's reasonable unless all undercover journalism about politicians gets described that way, which it isn't, and you do think it's reasonable. Don't think there's much that can be debated there.

The court disagreed that the term was an exaggeration, and the fact that, as you note, not all undercover journalism is called this way in court should hopefully send a signal that there's something real you are choosing not to see that distinguishes Veritas from more honorable investigation journalism.

But I can't make you see what you choose not to see.

Re: Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you then classify Epstein as on the right? Certainly he had some power, but I’d classify him more as a toady of people like my ultimate boss for a time, Leon Black, the president of Apollo Private Equity. My own experience with these people would call them extremely right wing - I suspect that if they could abolish all government and install themselves as permanent monarchs, they would see it as a reasonable st…

Don't know much if anything about Epstein so couldn't try to classify his politics. "I suspect that if they could abolish all government and install themselves as permanent monarchs, they would see it as a reasonable start" We are likely talking at cross purposes then because that's the exact opposite of what I consider right wing. Abolishing democracy and becoming dictator for life is something associated with hard…

>> Abolishing democracy and becoming dictator for life is something associated with hard left revolutionaries. Stalin, Mao, North Korea that sort of thing.

Left + Right in modern discussion are non-descriptive words and as such tend to vary widely in definition. The classic definition comes from european parliaments. In previous centuries, when monarchy was far stronger and the established power, in those lands where a parliament or senate existed, those who wanted to abolish monarchy and establish democracy sat left. The monarchists who wanted to keep or strengthen the established power of the king sat right. Keep slavery on the right, establish universal suffrage left. Liberalism demanding basic human rights was a far left concept for a very long time, and authoritarianism a far right concept. But it is not all about progressives and conservatives.

To understand "Left+Right" ask the question: if we seat these people next to each other on thanksgiving (or in parliament) how likely is physical violence.

In the early 20th century in Germany, in the Weimar Republic to be precise, monarchy has been abolished and democacy established. The monarchists were still sitting at the right in parliament, and they wanted to abolish democracy and establish a kingdom. At the far right sat the fascists. The monarchists and fascists both were nationalistic, authoritarian and somewhat accepting of capitalism.

At the far left sat the communists, who were about international communist revolution and abolishing capitalism. The communists themselves were split in liberal communists and authoritarian communists. The later took power in Russia and later Stalin became their dictator, and the european communists faced a dumb choice between "international communism" and "liberal-democratic communism". The Stalinists sat far left and the those favoring liberal democratic communism sat between them and those favoring democratic capitalism with social benefits within the current nation. Then the far right abolished democracy in Germany and established a dictatorship.

In early 20th century "liberalism and democracy" became a center opinion, because both the far left and the far right were pushing for an authoritarian dictatorship, with the "moderate left" and "moderate right" typically agreeing with their extremists on other things while being more liberal-democratic.

But those times are long gone in europa and have never the USA has a bit of a problem with this eurocentric view anyway, because they haven't had a party sitting anywhere in parliament being in favor of abolishing their facade of a liberal democratic republic hiding corporate rule in centuries. At the moment many far right groups are trying to claim liberalism as their concept, as a "conservative" thing pointing out that progressive political streams like environmentalism have authoritzarian tendencies as they strongly regulate the economy. But in truth the parliamentarian right wing is not about conserving your right to destroy the environment, they care far more about conserving the established power of large corporations.

Re: Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Legitimate journalists issue corrections. Not Project Veritas. The reason your comment history shows you to believe in nefarious vaccine conspiracy theories is that you get your news from sources who do not issue corrections and instead continue to lie after they know they are wrong. https://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/03/12019/james-o%E2%80%99k... https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/project-veritas-loses-defama... https:/…

> Legitimate journalists issue corrections. Not Project Veritas.

Really? They literally have a page on their websites devoted to their mistakes, which shows your comment is ignorant at best. It’s probably nowhere near a complete list, but send me the link to MSNBC’s or CNN’s list.

https://www.projectveritas.com/mistakes-that-project-veritas...

It appears almost everything you believe about Project Veritas are statements which journalists have been forced themselves to correct. Over 300 journalists have pulled back erroneous statements about PV.

https://www.projectveritas.com/wall-of-shame-retracto/

> nefarious vaccine conspiracy theories

Excuse me, but Pfizer has been fined more than any other pharmaceutical company for violations, and also paid the biggest fine in history ($2.3 billion). I can believe that the vaccine is generally effective while saying Pfizer has a history of being scumbags. Pfizer convincing everyone that questioning them makes you anti-vax, despite their long criminal history being a record in quantity of penalties and size of penalties, was a nasty trick.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...

Even The Intercept reported last year that Pfizer is a top lobbyist for making life as difficult as possible for whistleblowers.

https://theintercept.com/2021/11/29/pfizer-whistleblower-ref...

Re: Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legitimate journalists issue corrections. Not Project Veritas. The reason your comment history shows you to believe in nefarious vaccine conspiracy theories is that you get your news from sources who do not issue corrections and instead continue to lie after they know they are wrong. https://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/03/12019/james-o%E2%80%99k... https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/project-veritas-loses-defama... https:/…

> Legitimate journalists issue corrections. Not Project Veritas. Really? They literally have a page on their websites devoted to their mistakes, which shows your comment is ignorant at best. It’s probably nowhere near a complete list, but send me the link to MSNBC’s or CNN’s list. https://www.projectveritas.com/mistakes-that-project-veritas... It appears almost everything you believe about Project Veritas are stateme…

Those published corrections were court-ordered. Other journalists publish corrections to their articles as soon as they are discovered, as your own second link shows. Project Veritas knew their own claims were wrong at the time they published. Your inability to understand the difference contributes to why you subscribe to vaccine conspiracy theories. Whether Pfizer has bad business practices (lobbying against whistleblower protections for reporting corporate fraud) says nothing about the vaccine or its effectiveness.

Re: Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Legitimate journalists issue corrections. Not Project Veritas. Really? They literally have a page on their websites devoted to their mistakes, which shows your comment is ignorant at best. It’s probably nowhere near a complete list, but send me the link to MSNBC’s or CNN’s list. https://www.projectveritas.com/mistakes-that-project-veritas... It appears almost everything you believe about Project Veritas are stateme…

Those published corrections were court-ordered. Other journalists publish corrections to their articles as soon as they are discovered, as your own second link shows. Project Veritas knew their own claims were wrong at the time they published. Your inability to understand the difference contributes to why you subscribe to vaccine conspiracy theories. Whether Pfizer has bad business practices (lobbying against whistle…

> Your inability to understand the difference contributes to why you subscribe to vaccine conspiracy theories.

Point me to a link to why you think so. I'm merely pointing out that Pfizer's own letter, here, hardly denied anything their guy said, which cannot be a conspiracy theory. They could just deny that he even worked for them, or claim that he was taken out of context. They haven't. That's pointing out a fact, nothing more.

> Whether Pfizer has bad business practices (lobbying against whistleblower protections for reporting corporate fraud) says nothing about the vaccine or its effectiveness

Unless they lied on effectiveness to regulators, who according to the video, are also in their pocket. The guy literally alleges the regulators are very much friendly with Pfizer; and Pfizer completely left that unaddressed in this "denial." Thus why I would simply ask for an investigation. Didn't we just go through this with Theranos? Regulators didn't catch Theranos and skeptics were mocked as being misogynist before WSJ finally broke everything.

Re: Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those published corrections were court-ordered. Other journalists publish corrections to their articles as soon as they are discovered, as your own second link shows. Project Veritas knew their own claims were wrong at the time they published. Your inability to understand the difference contributes to why you subscribe to vaccine conspiracy theories. Whether Pfizer has bad business practices (lobbying against whistle…

> Your inability to understand the difference contributes to why you subscribe to vaccine conspiracy theories. Point me to a link to why you think so. I'm merely pointing out that Pfizer's own letter, here, hardly denied anything their guy said, which cannot be a conspiracy theory. They could just deny that he even worked for them, or claim that he was taken out of context. They haven't. That's pointing out a fact, n…

> Unless they lied on effectiveness to regulators, who according to the video, are also in their pocket.

They lied to people who are in their pocket? Your conspiracy theories make less and less sense the more you explain them.

Post reply on HN