Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Jan 5, 2023 19 tweets 9 min read Read on X
BREAKING CHEESE 🧀🧀🧀
#humpgate #TGAgate

1⃣ We found the humps.
2⃣ the EMA knew about them
3⃣ the analysis appears to be synthetic

@chrismartenson @stkirsch @Daoyu15 @Kevin_McKernan
Just a reminder that these are the same humps that we found in the TGA batch analyses here

They are contaminants at 3000nt and 2000nt length. The main mRNA should be about 4000nt length.
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.
Here is the full document
files.catbox.moe/sg745z.pdf

The analysis was done by the Swedish Medical Products agency.
lakemedelsverket.se/sv
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. Western blot as described in the document. Each black line i
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).

Here are some more examples.

Note the typical features:
▶️Not straight lines
▶️Bleeding
▶️Rounded edges
▶️Uneven lines/bars
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
 

Keep Current with Jikkyleaks 🐭

Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Jikkyleaks

Nov 29
WHOA💥💥💥💥

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.

#Spraygate takes a new turn 👇🧵
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"

That stops the chlorine killing off your "MLV" aka engineered virus.
bestvetsolutions.sharepoint.com/Product%20Info…Image
Read 8 tweets
Nov 26
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…

@PGtzsche1 @MaryanneDemasi @SenatorAntic @DrJulieSladden @Fynnderella1 @missyTHX1138 @RWMaloneMD @RetsefL @BrokenTruthTV @RMConservativeImage
Image
"Scotland HPV vaccine study flawed" - explaining how the Scotland data on HPV was misrepresented to show an effect that wasn't real

blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/the-hpv-vacc…
How "real world data" papers claim to use electronic health records data but can't be verified and in many cases are not even real.

@ClareCraigPath
#Surgisphere #Penngate #EMRgate
arkmedic.info/p/pharma-hell-…
Read 4 tweets
Nov 24
Thank you @davidbahry...

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.

@Kevin_McKernan @MaryanneDemasi
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40463121/Image
Image
@DavidBahry @Kevin_McKernan @MaryanneDemasi @JesslovesMJK @Fynnderella1 @DJSpeicher @DrJulieSladden Paper here
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40463121/
@DavidBahry @Kevin_McKernan @MaryanneDemasi @JesslovesMJK @Fynnderella1 @DJSpeicher @DrJulieSladden Pro metastatic impact of chronic cGAS-STING activation
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10…
Read 5 tweets
Nov 22
WHOA!

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.

You just can't make this stuff up. Image
Image
Image
Image
Receipts - Quandt family values
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…
More on the Quandts
medium.com/the-collector/…
Read 7 tweets
Nov 2
Can you see how this works?
I ask for rationality, and the Stew Peters brigade jump in.
Now I'm advocating genocide.
Apparently.

The people running these accounts have a LOT of money behind them. They target credible accounts for discrediting. That's their job.
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.

Unhinged.
"DARVO bioterrorist agent". 🤦

This is the level of well poisoning that is part of the Sansone-Ruby-Latypova scam.

Good luck with this one in court.

@BlackTomThePyr8
Read 7 tweets
Oct 17
When "real world" data is this complete and the findings are too good to be true - contradicting those from the @CDCgov's own V-safe registry...

It's likely to be synthetic, until proven otherwise.

There is ZERO reason to restrict this data.
jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman… x.com/jsm2334/status…Image
BINGO.

In France in 2021 only 25% of women received a COVID vaccine during pregnancy and most of those were second trimester.

Therefore it's not possible that 25% of the French pregnancy registry received 1st trimester vaccination.

Image
Image
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.

Bernard jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
Quentin registry
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
@franklin_reeder @chrismartensonImage
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(