Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
@Jikkyleaks
Jan 17, 2023 β€’ 19 tweets β€’ 10 min read β€’ Read on X
Scrolly
New Cheese πŸ§€πŸ§€πŸ§€on #Blotgate - The emerging scandal that keeps on giving.
The EMA and FDA reviews of the Pfizer BNT162b2 molecular biology assays were not independent reviews at all.
Pfizer wrote their documents.
@chrismartenson

The paper that David is referring to is published as a "peer reviewed" paper in @JPharmSciences

Except it wasn't that at all, it was a submission by Pfizer in response to the EMA and FDA questions posed in relation to their gene therapy product.
[PDF: jpharmsci.org/action/showPdf…]
It has simply been reconstituted as a "peer reviewed" manuscript.

These are the claims in the paper but they are not shown to be true.

Let's ignore the "safe and effective" claim for obvious reasons
The claims are that
(1) the mRNA has been isolated and characterized.

This is not true as no sequencing has been performed on the mRNA - the same mRNA "extras" identified in #humpgate

These humps with big red arrows
@Kevin_McKernan
and (2) that no additional (off-target) proteins are made because the mRNA that is in the product is truncated and unable to produce a protein product.

Again, not true based on this published data.
We saw this in #blotgate
So this paper - just published in January 2023 - is the exact same document as in the submissions to the EMA and FDA seen in the earlier threads.

Here is the #humpgate graph - the exact same one as the EMA document.
And the comedy Western blots are also the same. These as we saw are not Western blots at all but AWBs or "virtual blots". These are computer reconstructions that are easy to fake.

That's why papers are not normally accepted just based on AWBs.

This one was.
Those blots are meant to show that no other protein is made but simply show that no truncated spike protein is made (because they were only looking for spike protein fragments).

They did NOT exclude a different protein altogether.
There was in fact one genuine-looking Western blot in the whole paper, that was meant to show that no other proteins were being produced.

This one: https://jpharmsci.org/article/S0022-3549(23)00009-6/fulltextEMA Type II group of variations assessment report EMEA/H/C/0
The only problem is that the negative and positive controls were not specified, and there was only ever one of these produced - from one "special" batch not seen anywhere else.

They were meant to repeat this with 3 more batches. They didn't
So who was it exactly that produced this "peer reviewed paper"?

It was a Pfizerfest.
All Pfizer employees. Every single one.
The first author, Himakshi K Patel has no history on pubmed.gov so likely doesn't have a PhD.
The supervising author, Thomas F Lerch had a handful of first author papers prior to moving to Pfizer.

There are no university affiliations at all and no independent oversight of this paper.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=lerch%2C…
Which means that Pfizer wrote their own holiday brochure.

Nobody checked the hotel.
And it's not just me - the EMA said they need to "further characterize the mRNA" in July 2021.

No further characterisations were done.
We said so, so it's true.

The paper was published in January 2023.
Which is interesting, because this paper was approved on the day of the submission of the revised document.

Which was two days after we first exposed #humpgate

What are the odds?
Of course, you should trust Pfizer to make the product, investigate the product, write the assessors' brochure for the product and monitor their own clinical trial for the product.

Why wouldn't you?
justice.gov/opa/pr/justice…

@JesslovesMJK @MidwesternDoc
More on this from @JesslovesMJK ....
For reference this is the EMA document
files.catbox.moe/sg745z.pdf

And here is the Pfizer (BioNtech) FDA response document
files.catbox.moe/egah0n.pdf

β€’ β€’ β€’

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
γ€€

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

Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Jan 25
@JaninePaynter @PetousisH Following 4 years of enforced medical interventions does the public trust or distrust public health?
@JaninePaynter @PetousisH Always worth recording after the early polling and before the pharma companies send in their accounts.

It's like Georgia. Someone flood the polling station quick! Image
@JaninePaynter @PetousisH And here we have it.
The poll started off in one direction, and as soon as the pharma brigade got hold of it, it went the opposite way.

The problem is that they now have 19 hours to keep the bots going.

@elonmusk please make poll voting a 2-step interaction. TY.
Image
Image
Read 9 tweets
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Oct 28, 2023
BOOM πŸ’₯πŸ’₯
It's a gene therapy.
It was a gene therapy yesterday.
It will still be a gene therapy tomorrow.
With a plasmid, it's two gene therapies.

The OGTR confirms:
"Under the gene technology act an [OGTR] approval would have been required"

@SenatorRennick @double_christ
@SenatorRennick @Double_Christ This was a lie from Dr Raj Bhula.
It's transfection.
It's in the Pfizer documents that the TGA have.
Everybody knows it's transfection.
If Dr Bhula doesn't know, she should resign immediately.
The OGTR failed.
From the document that @SenatorRennick is referring to.

They never knew what they were doing. They just needed to make you take it.
Who told them to do that?
And why was it necessary for you to have 3 transfections in order to earn a living?

tga.gov.au/sites/default/…
Image
Read 9 tweets
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Oct 25, 2023
Hi @peterdaszak now that I have your attention why did Alice Latinne hide those viral sequences from your 2019 Nature paper, and where did the GP-120 sequences come from?

Asking for 6.9m people who can't, because they died.

.
@chrismartenson
Image
Reminder
Thread from April 2022
Read 7 tweets
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Oct 23, 2023
Well, it used to be rare.

This is the same rare lymphoma that Michel Goldman wrote about developing after a COVID mRNA "vaccine".

(see next tweet).
news.com.au/entertainment/…

Image
Michel Goldman's story in the Atlantic
archive.is/S3xXz
Original paper - which was Michel Goldman's own story, published in Frontiers.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
Read 7 tweets
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Oct 22, 2023
Were the claims made in this press conference by a high profile CNN doctor true?

Watch the conference clip and follow the thread below.
It is impossible to know what is happening in another part of the world unless you are there.

But the statements made by Gassan Abu-Sittah cannot be true as made.

If not true they could even qualify as an incitement to further violence. Image
The claims made by Dr Abu-Sittah are not accidental or misinterpreted.

He specifically claimed that 500 people were killed - days after the press conference when it was known that was not true.

Image
Read 15 tweets
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Oct 18, 2023
The author of the BMJ article quoted by Viki as if it is gospel is a freelance journalist. He chose not to include that qualifier in this BMJ piece.

This tweet from Viki is propaganda because it suggests something that is not true, adding the @bmj_latest label for authenticity
@bmj_latest Here is the request for the data underlying the MBRRACE report.

Data from the @NPEU_UKOSS has previously been requested under FOI and denied.

This is not their data, it belongs to the British public who fund them.

@bmj_latest @NPEU_UKOSS The BMJ article itself is just an opinion piece from a freelance journalist, basically repeating the party line - that only unvaccinated pregnant women died of COVID.

This is a misrepresentation of the truth.
Read 13 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!

Send Email!

:(