Share this page!

Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Twitter logo
Jan 20 • 6 tweets • 4 min read
Damning:
@kevinault @vikilovesfacs and @ztkelly were recruited by @projecthalo to coerce pregnant women to taken an experimental therapy in pregnancy by selling a lie that COVID caused stillbirths and deaths and the therapy prevents them.

lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/the-doctors-…
The chart is from a breakdown of the recently released Scottish ICU report, which includes pregnancy data and attempts to scare the reader into believing that there was a pregnancy COVID catastrophe in 2020.

Their own data shows there wasn't.

lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/the-doctors-…
The three musketeers of #PregCOVID were either lying or were being given information that they sold to you that was false.

So, who gave it to you Kevin? Viki? Teresa?

Why did the ICU admissions only rise after the "vaccine" rollout?
What happened in 2021?
Why did this not affect pregnant women in 2020?
Why were pregnant women being withheld #3tablets antibiotics for post-viral pneumonia in 2021?
Full report here. Archiving recommended.
publichealthscotland.scot/media/16832/22…
@kevinault @VikiLovesFACS @ztkelly @projecthalo *take

• • •

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
Jan 21
BREAKING... Disturbing analysis of the new finding from @MartinaSisters regarding #SARSCOV2 spike protein sequences in a pseudomonas vector.

More smoking gun evidence of lab origins.

SHUT IT DOWN - NOW.

@chrismartenson @Daoyu15 @DrNo_Reformed
adeno-news.com/2023/01/20/bre…
There is something fishy going on with this NCBI record. The Protein record was updated in a hurry after the discovery of this protein, with a reference to a seemingly unrelated Nature paper from 2003.

The lead author on the 2003 reference is the supervisor on the 2018 ref ImageImage
The original 2003 paper from Thien-Fah Mah was written as an affiliate of Dartmouth Med School in New Hampshire.

But the current gene sequence from the 2023 entry is authored in a CCP facility in China
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/242186… ImageImage
Read 8 tweets
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Jan 21
MORE STINKY CHEESE 🧀🧀🧀

#thalidomideViki quotes the discredited @TheLancet again, because it suits her agenda.

This study should be completely disregarded as real because data sharing is declined - again.

Every study Viki posts is not verifiable.

But there's more... Image
Immediate red flags are differences in the groups, such as the higher prevalence of smoking in the "COVID" group which hasn't been seen in real world studies. And the smoker group had the exact same educational history - you don't usually see that. ImageImage
Always worth looking at the supplementary to look for inconsistencies in published data.

These figures on a test negative design show that the "effectiveness" was only 9%. Bearing in mind miscategorisation bias, this means there was negative efficacy against infection. ImageImageImage
Read 13 tweets
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Jan 20
But Vicky's misinformation unravels when we see that she is quoting a paper from Jan 2022 when the majority of the women in the analysis were "unvaccinated". Base rate fallacy anyone?

PS. Vicki is a #muttoncrew member.
Only 12% of the cohort had a "vaccine" but of course these would occupy a lesser proportion of risk-days, because they occurred later in the study period.

Vicky is disingenuous or doesn't understand medical statistics
@profnfenton @MartinNeil9
@profnfenton @MartinNeil9 And the vaccines were only being taken up really from June 21, for a study period ending Oct 21 (and starting March 2020).

So the risk-exposure time was much lower for vaccinated women.

Base rate fallacy.
Read 4 tweets
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Jan 19
Every lie will eventually be revealed.

@VikiLovesFACS and @kevinault have been pushing untested COVID vaccines for #pregnancy on the basis of a reduction in preterm labour risk.

It was a lie.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P… Image
This has happened with every paper looking at 3+ doses. When you look at the 2-dose patients in those studies, the claimed benefit disappears.

It's because the original findings were just an artefact. The benefit was fake.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
@MartinNeil9
This is literally the definitive debunk of the first COVID vaccine study - the Dagan study.

All the "efficacy" was just miscategorisation bias because all cases prior to 5 weeks post-jab were counted as "unvaccinated"

zenodo.org/record/5243901
Read 7 tweets
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Jan 17
.@elonmusk this is not OK

The engagement on this account is high, twitter blue is enabled and there are 40K followers

This important tweet was suppressed within 2 hours of its posting, having had 100 RT within minutes
I have been at this long enough to know when a tweet is gaining traction organically and when it is being suppressed.

This one has been suppressed and the shadowban is in place.

You asked for $8(US) a month - fine so I agreed. Nowhere in the T&C does it say...
That you could or would (under set circumstances) shadow ban the account.

Nothing in these tweets is false, misleading or offensive (except maybe to people who make false claims about things that they are selling).

You even said this
help.twitter.com/en/using-twitt…
Read 5 tweets
Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Jan 17
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
Read 19 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 on Twitter!

Send Email!

:(