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
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?
While everybody was being distracted by the Shah of Trumpran and RFK's wearables nobody actually noticed that the CDC's "public health" department is run by the US military with US military mentality in US military uniforms.
Here is 30 minutes of CAPTAIN Sarah Meyer gaslighting the US public.
If this doesn't make you angry it's likely nothing will.
"No deaths".
"All benefit".
"Don't worry about myocarditis" (which has a 10 year mortality of up to 50%).
Her lapdog Adam McNeil isn't even a doctor and blatantly lies about the net mortality benefit of the COVID vaccines, never seen in a single RCT.
The US military has been forcing experimental vaccines on their soldiers for ever, and they don't give a damn about what happens as a result because YOU will pay the bill.
And if a soldier dies they will just send another soldier to take the spouse a folded up flag. They do not care one iota that your rights to bodily autonomy were trampled on and people died, because they will tell you that nobody died.
And you will shut the hell up, peasant.
CAPTAIN Meyer was part of the ACIP committee that approved the Pfizer vaccine claiming that it reduced infections by 92%. She lied then and she's lying now - because if she admitted that people died, she would be responsible.
Is lying to the public as a commissioned officer treason, or just another reason for a pat on the back from the US military?
Another job done. Crisis averted. Nobody goes to jail. No grand juries. No courts martial.
Chin chin. usphs.gov
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…