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
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:
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.
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.
@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.
Match to BGH [NM_180996.1]: (114/226bp)
CTGTGCCTTCTAGTTGCCAGCCATCTGTTGTTTGCCCCTCCCCCGTGCCTTCCTTGACCCTGGAAGGTGCCACTCCCACTGTCCTTTCCTAATAAAATGAGGAAATTGCATCGC
So there are 112 bp in the BGH PolyA cassette which are not in the BGH gene transcript, and presumably make that cassette as efficient as the SV40 PolyA as described in Goodwin 1992...
@DiedSuddenly_ @JesslovesMJK @Kevin_McKernan Also note the "ribbon" pictures after nearly two years have none of the diatheses seen in the other images. Totally clean. After 499 days. 🙄