@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
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%"?
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.