The EMA knew about these humps because they had them analysed. But only to a point.
Not only did they ONLY perform on analysis on the assumption of what they THOUGHT was in the product, but they accepted what now appear to be synthetic Western blots as evidence.
So someone spotted the humps that I also found and decided to separate them out from the main spike.
"Peak 1" is the non-spike RNA
"Peak 2" is the spike RNA
According to their analysis, the additional RNA had the 5'cap (which is the start of the RNA) but missed the end (the poly-A tail)
So it looked like it was broken fragments of the main RNA - but only the first part.
Where was the second part?
The whole fragment is 4284nt long. So if there is a 3000nt fragment with a 5'cap (with no poly A tail) there should be a 1284nt fragment floating around with a polyA tail!
Think of it like a lizard losing it's tail...
So what did they do to investigate this? Well, they assumed it must be spike RNA and therefore ran some Western blots (looking for protein) looking for spike protein fragments.
They showed that you need both the 5'cap and the polyA to produce the protein...
These are supposed to be Western blots with antibody staining each section of the spike protein (S1 and S2).
These showed that you need both ends to make spike.
You don't always need a polyA tail to make protein but OK, let's accept this.
Now they do the Western for Peak 1 (non-spike) and Peak 2 (spike) and stain with spike antibody.
The non-spike (peak 1) doesn't stain in either sample.
This means either it is not producing spike protein fragments, OR IT IS PRODUCING ANOTHER PROTEIN.
In fact the document specifically requested "to further characterise the truncated and modified mRNA species present"
It's not just me.
Of course, that never happened. The only way to characterise these RNA fragments is by sequencing, and it has not been done.
So, to recap at this point we have:
1⃣aberrant mRNA at 3000nt and 2000nt, which cannot be a broken spike (4000nt)
2⃣those mRNA do NOT code for spike
3⃣no sequencing has been done to characterise the mRNA.
4⃣the fragments have 5' caps and are therefore active
Now the worst bit (as if the rest wasn't bad enough)...
Those Westerns are not right.
Here's what normal Westerns look like (this is from the same document). They are gels so they contract randomly, which is why nothing is ever a straight line.
(I'm not even going to start on the many different spike fragments in that gel).
Now let's look at the first gel picture in the document "from the sponsor"
It's the straightest gel ever.
Not just that....
But look how regular and symmetrical these bands are.
It's impossible.
It even contradicts their own gel in figure 8.
And the document itself is dithered which means...
The EMA have the original hi-res document with pictures and they copied it with dithering to black-and-white to obfuscate any attempts at assessing the probity of the gels.
Just to push the point, this is what happens when you synthesise an image like this with dithering.
So the Westerns appear to be totally fabricated. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this.
My guess is that the EMA or the Swedish medicines agency know that there is something else in that product, and it isn't degraded spike.
Oh well. Russian roulette it is.
h/t to @JM125reasons for providing this important document
• • •
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.