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...
The dude keeps going, but betrays that this is a copycat to a bunch of accounts linked to one dubbed "Penguin" that only appeared when I pointed out the Joe Sansone scam that is being coordinated by Sasha Latypova to derail legal cases.
This is also strange.
The Quentin registry study shows a big jump in vaccination rate by age group but the Bernard study doesn't show the same.
This is more like what a synthetic data set might show based on assumed characteristics of the underlying data.
There are possible explanations for all of these anomalies, but this is the problem with secret registry data:
It's not credible when it conveniently matches a narrative and nobody is allowed to see it.
I'm going to explain why this chart is so important and why @jsm2334 is being disingenuous by ignoring it - whilst making points that undermine the "real world vaccine data" industry.
It's a Kaplan-Meier curve and it obliterates Jeffrey's argument.
Just to go over it... the lines show what proportion of subjects (children) ended up without chronic disease up to 10 years after being studied.
It's called a survival analysis because it's used for cancer survival.
If the red line was a cancer drug it would be a blockbuster
It shows that by the end of the 10 year follow-up, of those that they could still follow up (who stayed in the study) 57% (100-43%) of vaccinated kids had chronic disease (e.g. asthma) and 17% (100-83%) of unvaccinated kids did.
Janet Diaz was the person that led the #MAGICApp guideline committees that stopped your grandma getting antibiotics for her post-viral pneumonia, leading to her death.
But she did this with the help of @pervandvik who deleted his account
Diaz here tells you that COVID kills you by an overreacting immune response, but that was never true.
She was an intensivist recruited by the WHO in 2018.
None of this was true, but it sold a LOT of drugs and killed a LOT of people
Which US govt organisation blew a hole in the ozone layer in 1958 by sending atomic bombs to the troposphere over the Antarctic in operation Argus - then blaming the resulting destruction of ozone on CFC's?
It wasn't just Pfizer that hid the fact that the mRNA-LNP complex went to the ovaries (where it could not possibly provide its declared function in the lung).
The AMH drop (ovarian reserve) after vaccination was later shown by the Manniche paper after being denied by the Kate Clancy and Viki Males of the world.