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 • 19 tweets • 10 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
New Cheese 🧀🧀🧀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

• • •

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

Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
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
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
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
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
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
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
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
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
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
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
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!

Send Email!

:(