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
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…
@SECGov @Kevin_McKernan @SabinehazanMD Wow so this company is claiming influence with 11,000 scientists and multiple links lead back to pharma and the gene therapy corporations.
Broad institute. Who could have guessed?
#pubpeergate
@Yale could be up to their necks in the biggest HIPAA scandal since @UChicago
This is how the scam appears to have worked.
Harlan Krumholz owns a patent for managing health data through an app. "Hugo health" was the middle man providing the app to bait people claiming to be vaccine injured to join a study called LISTEN. But it was essentially being run on behalf of Pfizer/Janssen who paid him $3m in "research grants".
Thousands of injured signed up but only 241 patients were used in the "study" of which the publications were irrelevant and showed nothing other than "the vaccines saved millions of lives" bla bla. Nothing helpful for the vaccine injured at all.
But the bombshell - the data that they provided was able to be sold off to anyone they wanted to. It was in the consent form that most people didn't read. The data was held on hugo.health which has now gone. It was NOT HIPAA compliant.
How did we know that hugo.health's servers were not HIPAA compliant?
Yale told the participants in a email in July 2024 (attached).
So where did all that health data go?
Was it sold off to the highest bidder or used in a blackmail campaign against vulnerable people who were vaccine injured and couldn't work? (Like those that have targeted our accounts recently)
We don't know. But you can be damn sure that Yale knows, and took secret action to remedy the situation having already taken millions of dollars from pharma to run studies that undermined the vaccine injured.
That is why there is so much animosity suddenly being directed at the vaccine injured. They want to bury this story.
Yale could be in very big trouble.
They deserve a hashtag.
#YaleGate
@Yale @UChicago For those confused, please understand what a "limited hangout" is here. While you are rejoicing on the scraps of Daily Mail fodder, the pharma companies' new narrative is enshrined by those very articles.
@jsm2334 I have 3 new questions:
1⃣ why didn't you appear on the Razzaghi paper using your data?
2⃣ is your data synthetic?
3⃣ what is the binomial probability that 18/20 of a university's research team come from a group that comprises 2% of the US population, if all groups are equal?
@jsm2334 For those confused... The original thread on #OHDSI - the data curators claiming an impossible 96% efficacy rate for a type-mismatched vaccine against infection - is here.