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...
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.
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.
Just putting this into context. @DrCatharineY was originally DOD then published on a DARPA grant. One of her few co-authors is Stephanie Petzing of the "Center for Global Health Engagement"
All one big OneHealth family to nudge you into believing this @epiphare slop is real.
For the explanation as to why these "real world data" with "data not available" publications are absolutely junk and shouldn't be accepted to any major journal please see arkmedic.info/p/pharma-hell-…
Dr Young (DARPA/DOD) is clearly now working as an ambassador to cover for the actions of the corrupt Biden regime who we are learning covered up huge amounts of adverse events from their COVID program whilst funding pharma in the "cancer moonshot"
It looks like we found our vector.
They moved from spraying live (cloned) viruses to putting them in drinking water.. which we thought wasn't possible due to chlorine.
Well, it turns out that it is, if you use a stabiliser.
The @NIH told us that they stopped funding GOFROC research but they clearly didn't.
This is a modified live virus. That is, they took a pathogenic influenza and genetically modified it and propagated it using infectious clones (reverse genetics). nature.com/articles/s4154…
"MLVs were diluted in distilled water containing Vac-Pac Plus (Best Veterinary 418 Solutions, Columbus, GA, USA) to neutralize residual chlorine and adjust the pH"