Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #humpgate
Most recents (7)
アメリカとかで流行ってるっぽい枠珍の疑惑系タグを独断で一通りまとめてみました🧐
どれもヤヴァイですが、改めて枠珍の毒性を総合的に認識しなおしましょう🧐
まずはmRNA枠珍そのものが人体に及ぼす疑惑一覧表🧐
この表の各々のリスクが相互に及ぼす影響はあえて聞かないでくれ・・・🥺
（1/15）
どれもヤヴァイですが、改めて枠珍の毒性を総合的に認識しなおしましょう🧐
まずはmRNA枠珍そのものが人体に及ぼす疑惑一覧表🧐
この表の各々のリスクが相互に及ぼす影響はあえて聞かないでくれ・・・🥺
（1/15）
次に、企業組織系の疑惑一覧表🧐
世界中で組織ぐるみの隠蔽疑惑が起きていますので、日本でも同じように、組織ぐるみで隠ぺいする悪しき企みは、間違いなく存在するのでしょうね🙄
これら以外にも、研究者個人名を含む疑惑タグが結構ありましたが、あえて割愛します🙄
（2/15）
世界中で組織ぐるみの隠蔽疑惑が起きていますので、日本でも同じように、組織ぐるみで隠ぺいする悪しき企みは、間違いなく存在するのでしょうね🙄
これら以外にも、研究者個人名を含む疑惑タグが結構ありましたが、あえて割愛します🙄
（2/15）
以下、これまで表に示した各項目の詳細です🧐
#plasmidgate
プラスミドdsDNA 混入疑惑
・LNPにDNA断片を封入して世界中のヒトに導入
・逆転写によらず遺伝子改変される
・胎盤移行した場合、末代まで祟られる
note.com/hiroshi_arakaw…
#dsDNA
（3/15）
#plasmidgate
プラスミドdsDNA 混入疑惑
・LNPにDNA断片を封入して世界中のヒトに導入
・逆転写によらず遺伝子改変される
・胎盤移行した場合、末代まで祟られる
note.com/hiroshi_arakaw…
#dsDNA
（3/15）
BREAKING 🧀🧀🧀
#Blotgate hits the big time with a breakdown on @EpochTimes and @zerohedge
The report in this article was based on our findings published here on twitter
@sonia_elijah @chrismartenson
theepochtimes.com/health/pfizer-…
#Blotgate hits the big time with a breakdown on @EpochTimes and @zerohedge
The report in this article was based on our findings published here on twitter
@sonia_elijah @chrismartenson
theepochtimes.com/health/pfizer-…
Follow-up report.
10th Jan 2023.
#blotgate
Please follow the hashtags for more threads and tweets
@JesslovesMJK
@MidwesternDoc
10th Jan 2023.
#blotgate
Please follow the hashtags for more threads and tweets
@JesslovesMJK
@MidwesternDoc
New Cheese 🧀🧀🧀on #Blotgate - The emerging scandal that keeps on giving.
The EMA and FDA reviews of the Pfizer BNT162b2 molecular biology assays were not independent reviews at all.
Pfizer wrote their documents.
@chrismartenson
The EMA and FDA reviews of the Pfizer BNT162b2 molecular biology assays were not independent reviews at all.
Pfizer wrote their documents.
@chrismartenson
The paper that David is referring to is published as a "peer reviewed" paper in @JPharmSciences
Except it wasn't that at all, it was a submission by Pfizer in response to the EMA and FDA questions posed in relation to their gene therapy product.
[PDF: jpharmsci.org/action/showPdf…]
Except it wasn't that at all, it was a submission by Pfizer in response to the EMA and FDA questions posed in relation to their gene therapy product.
[PDF: jpharmsci.org/action/showPdf…]
It has simply been reconstituted as a "peer reviewed" manuscript.
These are the claims in the paper but they are not shown to be true.
Let's ignore the "safe and effective" claim for obvious reasons
These are the claims in the paper but they are not shown to be true.
Let's ignore the "safe and effective" claim for obvious reasons
WHOA!!!!
Absolutely busted.
Great work on #blotgate @MidwesternDoc to put this into a visible format.
Now we need criminal investigations.
#blotgate #humpgate and #pfizertaggate are not going away.
@chrismartenson @JesslovesMJK
Absolutely busted.
Great work on #blotgate @MidwesternDoc to put this into a visible format.
Now we need criminal investigations.
#blotgate #humpgate and #pfizertaggate are not going away.
@chrismartenson @JesslovesMJK
STINKY CHEESE🧀🧀🧀
What do you call something that's too good to be true from a company that has previously been convicted of fraud?
Yep. More cartoon Westerns, this time from Pfizer directly. Nobody checked them.
#Blotgate
👇👇👇
What do you call something that's too good to be true from a company that has previously been convicted of fraud?
Yep. More cartoon Westerns, this time from Pfizer directly. Nobody checked them.
#Blotgate
👇👇👇
The source document sent to me appears to be from those released under @AaronSiriSG @IamBrookJackson legal actions to investigate fraud in the Pfizer vaccine study that the FDA said they needed 75 years to release the documents.
Yet they assessed the 450,000 pages in 24 hours?
Yet they assessed the 450,000 pages in 24 hours?
I'll say that again.
There were 11 MILLION total documents (44,000 patients, minimum 250 pages per patient plus 350,000 assessment and summary documents).
The FDA was given the glossy summary on the 10th December.
The vaccine was "approved" on the 11th December.
There were 11 MILLION total documents (44,000 patients, minimum 250 pages per patient plus 350,000 assessment and summary documents).
The FDA was given the glossy summary on the 10th December.
The vaccine was "approved" on the 11th December.
BREAKING: After uncovering gross incompetence (or negligence) at the TGA @SenatorRennick asked them what they did about the clearly contaminated batches.
Their response:
"We didn't see any problems"
#humpgate #TGAgate
Their response:
"We didn't see any problems"
#humpgate #TGAgate
The response confirms that the TGA were not competent to assess this product, given that the EMA identified the contamination.
Full thread below:
Full thread below:
This response was completely disingenuous because you cannot find a protein that you are not looking for.
Without mRNA sequencing (which they didn't do) they would have no idea what protein to look for.
Protein sequencing is complex, but they didn't do that either.
Without mRNA sequencing (which they didn't do) they would have no idea what protein to look for.
Protein sequencing is complex, but they didn't do that either.
BREAKING CHEESE 🧀🧀🧀
#humpgate #TGAgate
1⃣ We found the humps.
2⃣ the EMA knew about them
3⃣ the analysis appears to be synthetic
@chrismartenson @stkirsch @Daoyu15 @Kevin_McKernan
#humpgate #TGAgate
1⃣ We found the humps.
2⃣ the EMA knew about them
3⃣ the analysis appears to be synthetic
@chrismartenson @stkirsch @Daoyu15 @Kevin_McKernan
Just a reminder that these are the same humps that we found in the TGA batch analyses here
They are contaminants at 3000nt and 2000nt length. The main mRNA should be about 4000nt length.
They are contaminants at 3000nt and 2000nt length. The main mRNA should be about 4000nt length.
The EMA knew about these humps because they had them analysed. But only to a point.
Not only did they ONLY perform on analysis on the assumption of what they THOUGHT was in the product, but they accepted what now appear to be synthetic Western blots as evidence.
Not only did they ONLY perform on analysis on the assumption of what they THOUGHT was in the product, but they accepted what now appear to be synthetic Western blots as evidence.
