@deerbrian@richardhorton1 Before the trolls start... the above tweet is not even about Andrew Wakefield.
Wakefield was portrayed by the media as someone who committed fraud, but he did not. The charge was that he had not declared his legal work. Big deal...
Think about the fact that this paper was removed for "conflict of interest" when the only conflict was that the lead author was working with lawyers, which is normal practice. thelancet.com/journals/lance…
@deerbrian@richardhorton1 Yet Heather Lipkind and others are allowed to push investigational mRNA products - THAT WERE NEVER TESTED IN PREGNANCY - on pregnant women despite having documented Pfizer conflicts.
And he also fails to declare his involvement with the very "nudge units" (coercion factories) that propagandise these novel therapeutics that they know nothing about.
Why the double standards? Why is Wakefield destroyed for daring to publish a paper that highlighted a proven syndrome that destroyed the lives of 12 children.
Yet Lipkind, Ault and others like Paul Offit are allowed free reign?
Paul Offit's institute proudly declares $1bn in sponsored funding. His whole published dogma is vaccine mandates.
Yet none of it is relevant?
Really Paul?
As I said. Obscene.
These are the real anti-vaxxers. Those that drank from the trough and destroyed trust in medicine
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What @TheBurninBeard is saying here is that the clinical samples that had "COVID" also had gene signatures of Mycoplasma fermentans, a US military pathogen that can be used as a vector to carry viral clones.
@SabinehazanMD found it too.
🧵
#spraygate @BrokenTruthTV
Can you see that Norman Pieniazek, who headed up the CDC's research division at the time that the @CDCgov sent biological weapons to Iraq to start a war, took himself out of this thread?
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…