Jikkyleaks 🐭 Profile picture
Jan 26 β€’ 16 tweets β€’ 10 min read

Once you realise that there is no biological reason for different codon optimisations to produce the exact same protein...

You realise that it allows the manufacturers to tag any person that has had their product.

#taggate #pfizertaggate
Don't believe me?

It's already published.
Except good luck finding it on pubmed.gov by the author name of Castruita... You have to put in Samaniego or remember the pubmed ID. I'm sure it's just a "formatting error" πŸ˜‰

For the record these are the genbank IDs
Bear in mind that that this was performed on RNA sequencing, not directed PCR. PCR is much more sensitive, you just need the right primers.

So as long as the genome sequence of each vaccine is known (which it is), you can detect it in serum - for weeks.
Which leads to a creepy consequence:

You're tagged.

As long as there is vaccine mRNA in your system (at least 2 months but could be longer) your tag can be identified by specific PCR which does not cross-react between Moderna, Pfizer and #SARSCoV2 virus
Which provides two scenarios (there might be more):

Firstly, these companies can identify whether you are "using" their product. Think it was free? Well, only as long as they decide it's free and as long as they can't detect it....

But you can trust these companies, right?
Remember Monsanto went to extreme lengths to bankrupt and destroy farmers by genomic testing of crops that were on land farmed by farmers that refused to use their products.

But once they identified the genomic tag, they claimed ownership
Sure, it's theoretical to apply this to humans but there seems to be a lot of "theories" that are being played out.

Secondly, there is an equally sinister problem...

Remember this?
Well - imagine that you had control of ALL the PCR samples in a study where the only outcome that was better was the PCR result...

And you just needed to know which samples came from each group in order to "process" them in a specific way
But if you unblinded the sample IDs (to see who got vaccine vs placebo) that unblinding would be recorded in the clinical trials database and everyone would know..

So maybe you just needed a different method to find out which sample ID belonged to each group...
And then you could perhaps put the samples on different machines or run them at different PCR Ct thresholds.

And if you ran samples at very low Ct thresholds you would only pick up a handful of cases..
Whilst the other group would be collecting cases at the expected rate. In fact, if you *could* do this your chart might look something like this epitome of scientific perfection:
Well, obviously they couldn't do this because there was no way that the same lab that analysed the PCR tests was the same lab that had the serology samples from the participants - because the @NEJM and IRB would have identified that as a red flag wouldn't they?

Ahem... Location of the samples used for the Pfizer vaccine study. T
So we have the company that made the product, testing the product and testing the effect of the product with no oversight and a defined pathway to change the likelihood that a result would be positive in their treated group.

Lucky they are super honest though, right?
#taggate https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-
And not only do Pfizer still hold the record for a criminal fine for healthcare fraud, but - in what could be CNN's only ever true news report - they got a friend to take the rap.

No, I'm not kidding.

β€’ β€’ β€’

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!


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

Jan 27

It's not difficult to substantiate an MD whose CV said he was a urology resident before dumping it and moving *back* to pharma.

Pubmed is *very* specific on an author search.
"Jordon" is unusual.
4 papers - all urology.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=walker%2… Image
Which perfectly corroborates @BrianOSheaSPI's summary of his CV here
With the timing showing that he went from IQVIA (yes that IQVIA) into medical school at around 2014, likely produced his first paper as a med student in 2016 and was fast tracked through - I suspect funded by IQVIA. Image
Read 8 tweets
Jan 27
This raises a very important question that relates to freedom of speech in the public interest.

In Australia this has been looked at before. It's a big problem.

Governments hate free speech because they hate their corruption being shown up.
alrc.gov.au/publication/tr… Image
So let's take an extreme example.

Someone on twitter puts out a tweet that says "I have solid information that Corporation X has contaminated the water in Brisbane"

The person makes the disclosure in good faith.
In Australia, where the disclosure is made, it would be protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act - provided it is made in good faith (outside of this, other offences might apply)

Other countries do not have this specific law...
legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A… Image
Read 12 tweets
Jan 26
"Quick, pull George Webb out and quash this story... Those antivaxxers will believe him and he's all we've got left"

Hey George why did you ditch pizzagate all of a sudden and disappear? Did they have another job for you?

I can't believe I didn't follow George Webb from the beginning... Missed so much (lol)

He started his substack a month after our #modernagate expose, nearly 2 years into COVID.

But yeah. An expert.
πŸ€¦πŸ€¦β€β™€οΈπŸ€¦β€β™‚οΈ Image
Now Fleming joins the disinformation war...

What next? Yuri Deigin and Stew Peters do an interview with Sharri Markson? Dan Sirotkin writes about how he knew this was gonna happen?

Give me a break.
Read 8 tweets
Jan 25
Please understand a basic fact:

▢️ Antibodies in serum (from injectable vaccines) cannot possibly prevent the commonest modes of post-viral death (such as bacterial pneumonia).

Don't agree?
Show me the mechanism and the RCT.
Viral load does not correlate to risk.
@leelasik https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133005/
@leelasik To put it another way, the establishment has sold the idea that viraemia (virus in blood) causes sepsis and death in the same way that bacteriaemia does.

Not true. Show me the data.

The median time to death in COVID is 18 days - long after the viral phase.
@leelasik The majority of deaths are caused by the *consequences* of viral infection.

Bacterial pneumonia and thrombosis are the two commonest, both treatable conditions.

We have known this for #COVID since April 2020.
Read 4 tweets
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.


@chrismartenson @daoyu15 @DrNo_Reformed
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
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
Read 8 tweets
Jan 21

#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...
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.
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.
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!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!