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.
▶️The 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...
Just a reminder that Sam Neill had exactly the same "rare" T-cell lymphoma that Michel Goldman developed after his COVID vaccines.
Goldman published his own case report. After the backlash he was forced to falsely claim that the vaccines "had saved millions" - yet he stopped taking the COVID vaccines that gave him lymphoma and he is still alive.
Sam Neill's death is being weaponised by vested interests to claim that the experimental CAR-T gene therapy that was used for him "worked".
If you see someone claiming that CAR-T therapy "works" remember to ask them whether they have vested interests in it. Most media accounts that are pushing it do. It is a high risk gene therapy that has no proven and verified success in the treatment of cancers.
Meanwhile it is also important to remember that these very lymphomas were predicted to be a consequence of spike producing vaccines - because independent research showed it. But that research was quashed by the @NIH. People died as a consequence and are still dying.
The only journalist who was prepared to cover this story is @BrokenTruthTV
He is still waiting for the @NIH to release the 490 pages of emails that they refused to release that contained information on the suppression of this scandal.
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%"?