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
It looks like we found our vector.
They moved from spraying live (cloned) viruses to putting them in drinking water.. which we thought wasn't possible due to chlorine.
Well, it turns out that it is, if you use a stabiliser.
The @NIH told us that they stopped funding GOFROC research but they clearly didn't.
This is a modified live virus. That is, they took a pathogenic influenza and genetically modified it and propagated it using infectious clones (reverse genetics). nature.com/articles/s4154…
"MLVs were diluted in distilled water containing Vac-Pac Plus (Best Veterinary 418 Solutions, Columbus, GA, USA) to neutralize residual chlorine and adjust the pH"
There are a lot of pharma agents celebrating on twitter recently because the now-conflicted @cochranecollab dropped their standards and published something on HPV vaccination they didn't understand.
To explain it you need to understand the difference between the two studies quoted.
The first (Bergman) analysed a bunch of real studies (including RCTs) and concluded that the effect on cancer couldn't be seen - despite nearly 20 years of follow up.
The second (Henschke) cherry picked a bunch of "real world data" studies and concluded that the vaccine prevented a gazillion cervical cancers, pretending that it analysed 132 million patient records. It did nothing of the sort. What it did was look at two studies, take out the bit where it showed that the vaccine increased the risk of cancer (Kjaer 2021, over 20s) - replicated in multiple country statistics, split them into three studies, ignore the other studies showing the opposite, and ignore the fact that none of this data is verifiable.
Notably, one of the major studies (Palmer 2024, which was found to be seriously flawed) has been excluded from the meta-analysis because it did not show a cancer benefit in the under 16 age group.
It is very difficult to "fix" a randomised controlled trial.
It is very easy to "fix" a meta-analysis of observational studies where the data is "not available".
There is a huge difference between "real" studies and "real world data" studies because the latter are cherry picked or even fully synthetic, and the authors don't have access to the data. They are produced by vested interests groups to sell a narrative.
This was the most corrupted review that Cochrane have ever performed and this time they shot themselves in the foot by contradicting their own reviews. cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.10…
your childish insults drew my attention to your lab's quite incredible paper confirming that chronic activation of cGAS-STING, as happens with plasmid-contaminated vaccines, causes cancer.
Retraction Watch busted for collusion with Rolf Marschalek, who is not only part of BioNtech's Goethe university..
but - get this - their Corona fund was pump primed by the Quandt family - infamous for their role in Nazi Germany.
The dude keeps going, but betrays that this is a copycat to a bunch of accounts linked to one dubbed "Penguin" that only appeared when I pointed out the Joe Sansone scam that is being coordinated by Sasha Latypova to derail legal cases.
This is also strange.
The Quentin registry study shows a big jump in vaccination rate by age group but the Bernard study doesn't show the same.
This is more like what a synthetic data set might show based on assumed characteristics of the underlying data.
There are possible explanations for all of these anomalies, but this is the problem with secret registry data:
It's not credible when it conveniently matches a narrative and nobody is allowed to see it.