Pfizer’s Chief Vaccine Officer Advised U.S. Government On Redrafting Gain Of Function Research Policy

Pfizer’s Chief Scientific Officer for Vaccine Research and Development advised the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity during the group’s deliberation over redrafting government policies concerning gain of function research.

The unearthed influence of a leading Pfizer employee over the federal government’s approach to regulating gain of function research, which refers to the manipulation of pathogens to become more lethal, virulent, or transmissible to humans, follows a shocking undercover investigation from Project Veritas into the company. This group was caught on camera. Employer The admission by the pharmaceutical giant and COVID-19, a vaccine maker, that they engaged in risky research to make more vaccines.

In light of these claims, the proximity of Pfizer’s Philip Dormitzer to the U.S. government’s effort to redraft its policies surrounding gain of function research in 2016 is curious, as he was working as the Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer for RNA and Viral Vaccines at Pfizer at the time. This position was his from September 2015 to December 2021

In 2014, the U.S. government announced that it would not be funding function research and launched a discussion process to determine a new policy. This was in order to better regulate the potentially dangerous form of research.

Two “key voices” Two symposiums were held by the National Academies to develop and deliberate gain of function policies. The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) was also involved in the debate. Responsible for the discussion was the NSABB. “providing the U.S. government with recommendations on policy for the funding and conduct of gain of function research” “serving as the official federal advisory body for providing advice on oversight of this area of dual use research.”

Put simply, the National Academies were the most influential advisor to the NSABB, which, in turn, was responsible drafting the government’s new gain of function research policy.

The ten are listed below. Members of the National Academy of Science’s Second Symposium was Dormitzer, whose Pfizer affiliations are clearly displayed on official event documents. The symposium, which was held in March 2016, was the last event before the NSABB completed its draft of recommendations.

In other words, the event was highly influential over what the NSABB’s ultimate output regarding gain of function research policy would become.

Dormitzer was also the moderator for a session entitled: “Best Practices to Inform National Policy Design and Implementation: Perspectives of Key Stakeholders in the Biomedical and Public Health Communities.”

“Philip Dormitzer from the Pfizer Vaccine Research and Development Unit and a member of the Symposium Planning Committee, introduced the session as a continuation of the earlier plenary session on the U.S. policy landscape. This session would present the perspectives of several different key stakeholders, including regulatory agencies and the vaccine industry,” explained the National Academy of Science’s breakdown of the event.

Summaries of Dormitzer’s contributions consistently appear to reveal a desire for more lax regulation on gain of function research, with the symposium report noting:

“Philip Dormitzer pointed out that not all GOF research involves GOF studies of concern, and therefore not all the research needs to be overseen by any additional policy frameworks.”

“There was an exploration of the impact of over-regulating GOF research for countermeasure development. Philip Dormitzer pointed out that as one of the factors for identifying GOF studies of concern is the absence of effective countermeasures, limiting research that could provide such measures could be counter-productive. There was also consideration of the opportunity costs of not doing research, especially in justifying potential barriers to developing countermeasures,” The summary was also added.

He expressed concern about the possibility of a lawsuit. “blowback” Discussions about gain of function research have led to a shift towards vaccines:

“Dormitzer closed with some personal observations. One was an increasing need to consider integration of the multiple biosafety and biosecurity regimens. The other was a concern about unintended consequences, for example from the “blowback” onto vaccine production from the controversies over GOF studies of concern—or GOF research more generally—in academia.”

You can watch the Project Veritas video here:

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases