@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
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.
Here is the clip from the (decent) interview with Pelle Neroth Taylor of @RealTNTRadio.
In it Boyle is asked whether the mRNA vaccines are themselves biological weapons and he explains that because "in your system, it generates the COVID-19 cells" they would be.
But of course that's incorrect, because mRNA vaccines don't recreate the COVID virus (the biological weapon - assuming as we now know that it was synthetic not natural).
So his explanation was incorrect because he misunderstood that the mRNA only provides the spike protein and he would have been destroyed on this point in court.
Of course he never got to court. And never gave an affidavit for the Dutch court - confirmed here (8/3/25):
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.