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...
Every vaccine scientist will try to convince you that the drop in u25 cancers was due to the vaccine when it was merely due to the change in screening.
But check out the HUGE RISE in 25+ cancers. This pattern is repeated in Scotland and Australia where similar changes to the screening age were made a few years after the introduction of coerced vaccination, obfuscating the figures to hide a scandalous rise in 25-29 age cervical cancers after the vaccine rollout.
For clarity most cancers in this age group are early and detected on screening before they become advanced. Moving the screening age meant that they were diagnosed later and therefore in an older age bracket.
The big red arrow is pointing to the preinvasive diagnoses which tend to mirror the actual cancers - the upper chart was too busy.
Here is the same from the OP with arrows showing both cancer (above) and precancer (below) which both rose significantly after the vaccine rollout
And here is the same data from Cancer Research UK (smoothed) showing a doubling of cancer rates in the over 25s for at least 5 years after the vaccine rollout. cancerresearchuk.org/health-profess…
@SECGov @Kevin_McKernan @SabinehazanMD Wow so this company is claiming influence with 11,000 scientists and multiple links lead back to pharma and the gene therapy corporations.
Broad institute. Who could have guessed?
#pubpeergate
@Yale could be up to their necks in the biggest HIPAA scandal since @UChicago
This is how the scam appears to have worked.
Harlan Krumholz owns a patent for managing health data through an app. "Hugo health" was the middle man providing the app to bait people claiming to be vaccine injured to join a study called LISTEN. But it was essentially being run on behalf of Pfizer/Janssen who paid him $3m in "research grants".
Thousands of injured signed up but only 241 patients were used in the "study" of which the publications were irrelevant and showed nothing other than "the vaccines saved millions of lives" bla bla. Nothing helpful for the vaccine injured at all.
But the bombshell - the data that they provided was able to be sold off to anyone they wanted to. It was in the consent form that most people didn't read. The data was held on hugo.health which has now gone. It was NOT HIPAA compliant.
How did we know that hugo.health's servers were not HIPAA compliant?
Yale told the participants in a email in July 2024 (attached).
So where did all that health data go?
Was it sold off to the highest bidder or used in a blackmail campaign against vulnerable people who were vaccine injured and couldn't work? (Like those that have targeted our accounts recently)
We don't know. But you can be damn sure that Yale knows, and took secret action to remedy the situation having already taken millions of dollars from pharma to run studies that undermined the vaccine injured.
That is why there is so much animosity suddenly being directed at the vaccine injured. They want to bury this story.
Yale could be in very big trouble.
They deserve a hashtag.
#YaleGate
@Yale @UChicago For those confused, please understand what a "limited hangout" is here. While you are rejoicing on the scraps of Daily Mail fodder, the pharma companies' new narrative is enshrined by those very articles.
@jsm2334 I have 3 new questions:
1⃣ why didn't you appear on the Razzaghi paper using your data?
2⃣ is your data synthetic?
3⃣ what is the binomial probability that 18/20 of a university's research team come from a group that comprises 2% of the US population, if all groups are equal?
@jsm2334 For those confused... The original thread on #OHDSI - the data curators claiming an impossible 96% efficacy rate for a type-mismatched vaccine against infection - is here.