The Lancet are the main drivers for the whole #covid19 crisis. They published the complete lie that was the "zoonosis" paper of Peter Daszak and his chums.
The @TheLancetRheum also published this paper to discredit #hydroxychloroquine by @bengoldacre who refused to make the data public despite making his whole reputation on "scientific data transparency".
To complete the arms of the #covid19#event201 scenario for "global health" .@TheLancet were again used to create the insidious "Lancet Commission on vaccine refusal".
It first met in 2020, and Chelsea Clinton is its patron.
Surgo ventures (Sema Sgaier) is partnered with both the Clinton Foundation (yes the same one that took $2bn in charity money for #haiti and built 6 huts) and the BMGF.
And of course Art Caplan who has abrogated any pretence to uphold his specialty of medical ethics by promoting vaccine mandates using @Medscape as his vehicle, without declaring any of these conflicts on his Medscape page
Please feel free to add more context about the Lancet commission or its members, particularly where there are obvious undisclosed conflicts of interest.
The parallels to the Lancet "zoonosis commission" are uncanny.
I was taught for years that @DrAndyWakefield had committed fraud - it was not true.
His prior paper - written with @PeterDaszak - showed that measles virus was a contributor to Crohn's.
The Lancet paper showed that bowel disease was a feature of severe disability after vaccination.
Wakefield had to be destroyed to protect the vaccine industry or it would have collapsed in 1998.
That is how the pharma industry works, but they can't do it alone.
In the case of the Wakefield saga, they were aided by the @bmj_latest who commissioned Brian Deer to fabricate a fake story about "fraud" because they were being paid by GSK and Merck - the very vaccine makers who stood to be eviscerated by the truth about their product's safety.
All this is documented (thread below).
The children in the paper were permanently disabled by the MMR vaccine and never, ever, got recognition. They are on track to die without ever having their vaccine disability recognised.
This is the worst travesty of the medical industry ever committed - because it was done for money.
Teenage pregnancies are a surrogate for underage sexual activity (which drives cervical cancer rates in the under 25s). In the UK they fell off a cliff in 2007 - the year the iphone came out and the HPV vaccine rollout started.
The "Swiss patient" sequence you provided not only has 2% dissimilarity from any known hanta sequence but BLASTing into the patent database gets us here.
"No name" virus.
Really?
The people running the @DeptofWar need to start going to jail.
You were lied to about the Merck measles vaccine develop in the 60s. When injected into babies it caused fevers, rashes, diarrhoea and febrile convulsions.
Why?
I'm going to show you.
@SecKennedy @RetsefL @MaryanneDemasi @DrJulieSladden @RWMaloneMD
Merck claimed that the "measles vaccine" was an "attenuated version of measles" giving the impression that it was a virus that was made safe.
That was a lie.
It was just measles, passaged in cells in a lab.
We injected our babies with actual measles.
How do I know?
Recently released Australian Road Deaths data confirm that the @epiphare study claiming that COVID vaccination reduced road deaths by 32% was, as suspected, a complete fake.
Here are the actual road deaths data plotted from the Australian BITRE data repository using a trendline for 2000-2019 (excluding 2020 as it was a quiet year)
The pink area shows the inflection and increase in road deaths over the predicted number.
Note that road deaths have a downward trend despite an increase in population (due to safety measures and slowing of traffic).
So the question becomes...
"what is the probability that - if the @epiphare study was real (showing a 32% reduction in road deaths after vaccination) - the Australian road deaths (where nearly 100% of the adult population was vaccinated) would increase by 36%"?
Debbie's tweet was about her case against @HHSGov when her son developed Type 1 Diabetes after a routine vaccine, when he had a negative glucose test prior.
So it was clearly vaccine linked, but her case was denied.
Not only was the case denied (despite clear evidence of a new diagnosis immediately after vaccination) but the case was used by the "judge" to essentially ban ANY further cases that alleged a link between new diabetes and a routine vaccine.