From FOI 3471 the requested primer sequences and Batch analysis of FK8917 (which no longer appears on the TGA's website) were rejected, but they did provide batch analysis of the other batches requested - of which two (of 4) appear on the "death batch" list.
What are the odds?
BUT - in the 57 documents there was something that stuck out and which I posted about earlier in the year.
Because this account was suspended, that information was hidden from the public.
βΆοΈThe Agilent curve showed irregularities in the RNA analysis that was ignored by the TGA.
Here they are. Note the batch numbers
FL5333, FH3221, FK0738 and FL7649 - all death batches.
To illustrate what I'm talking about I've put a big red arrow on the point of interest. Subtle eh?
Now that hump (at about 3000nt) shouldn't be there. There is a smaller one at about 2000nt.
That agilent analysis (which should show a spike at the size of RNA of interest) shows RNA contamination.
There is RNA there that shouldn't be there
To illustrate the point further there ARE batches that don't have these humps. This is what an Agilent analysis of a relatively pure RNA should look like.
A nice smooth transition from the main spike. No humps.
These batches are not in the death log.
Do you know what else is not in the death batch log?
Any of the 7 batches reserved for Pfizer employees.
No, I'm not kidding:
FF0884
FA4598
FE3064
FA7338
FA7812
FC8736
FC3558
So, on the information that we have available (which is restricted) we must conclude that the contaminated batches lead to deaths which were not investigated and the contamination was ignored.
Of course, the TGA can tell you that they "didn't know" that these agilent curves showed contamination.
You know why?
Because they didn't know how to handle genetically transferable material. The very definition that should have meant referral to the OGTR.
And you know what else the TGA (and equally the FDA, MHRA and EMA) didn't know about this novel gene technlology?
Everything.
We asked them.
They had (and have) no idea what they were dealing with.
They just approved it because someone told them to.
And people died.
Just a note of thanks to the helper mice that have bravely put themselves out to make these requests.
You know who you are.
I should just add this extra bombshell from a few days ago here...
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.
Here is the clip from the (decent) interview with Pelle Neroth Taylor of @RealTNTRadio.
In it Boyle is asked whether the mRNA vaccines are themselves biological weapons and he explains that because "in your system, it generates the COVID-19 cells" they would be.
But of course that's incorrect, because mRNA vaccines don't recreate the COVID virus (the biological weapon - assuming as we now know that it was synthetic not natural).
So his explanation was incorrect because he misunderstood that the mRNA only provides the spike protein and he would have been destroyed on this point in court.
Of course he never got to court. And never gave an affidavit for the Dutch court - confirmed here (8/3/25):
I'll say it again. The vaccine industry [KNOWINGLY] hijacked cell pathways that cause cancer in order to induce antibody responses so that they can claim that their product "worked" by demonstrating those antibodies - even if they offered zero protection.
To explain, when you induce an immune response you have an immune debt to pay. You can't just keep creating an immune response - or, as in the case of cancer, you will die.
A vaccine creates an artificial immune response...
Which might be fine if it was done every now and again. But what they didn't tell you was that the human body will not respond to an injected antigen alone. It will ignore it (thankfully) and the generic immune system will mop it up, no antibodies required.