The #ChatGPT confirms that #FastEddie Edward Holmes and the University of Sydney conspired to cover up an article referencing the PRRA epitope of the #modernagate furin cleavage site - in 2018.
Hold onto your hats!
The DOI referenced by the #ChatGPT does not exist. How so? The Chatbot is sure is exists. It knows everything.
The chat bot gets further confused and redirects to another unrelated paper.
No, I just want the Holmes 2018 article. Where is it?
Now it gets interesting.
"No longer available"?
A journal article?
It doesn't work like that, retracted articles are marked up as retracted but must stay on the record.
Now there is a retraction notice because of "issues with the data presented" but the retraction notice is the same dead link at @NatureMedicine
The access token link is also dead.
How can a retraction notice have been scrubbed?
But the chat bot provides the text that they have seen in the retraction notice (presumably from a cache)
"An investigation was conducted by the University of Sydney and subsequently the authors were unable to provide raw data for the analysis presented in the paper"
No further information, but we know from a previous request that the chat bot directed our mouse informant to this paper (which no longer exists).
The chat bot doesn't like the next question
So #ChatGPT confirms that a paper existed in 2018 published by #FastEddie Holmes and was retracted, yet no record exists of this paper anywhere.
Not pubmed, not google, not duckduckgo.
But a paper that did not exist prompted an investigation by @Sydney_Uni
It's clear from the title that this is a vitally important paper to the origins of the "Pandemic"...
"Spike cleavage fusion peptide motifs"
Just like the #EK1C4 paper from Zengli Shi, was this a peptide inhibitor developed in advance?
If this turns out to be true (which seems highly likely) then there are senior people at the University of Sydney who are covering up for Edward Holmes and are powerful enough to have that paper scrubbed off the internet.
What are the odds that a virus arising in at least 5 different species would all match the same sequence starting at the same point and matching a "newly discovered" human virus from 2001?
You were lied to about the Merck measles vaccine develop in the 60s. When injected into babies it caused fevers, rashes, diarrhoea and febrile convulsions.
Why?
I'm going to show you.
@SecKennedy @RetsefL @MaryanneDemasi @DrJulieSladden @RWMaloneMD
Merck claimed that the "measles vaccine" was an "attenuated version of measles" giving the impression that it was a virus that was made safe.
That was a lie.
It was just measles, passaged in cells in a lab.
We injected our babies with actual measles.
How do I know?
Recently released Australian Road Deaths data confirm that the @epiphare study claiming that COVID vaccination reduced road deaths by 32% was, as suspected, a complete fake.
Here are the actual road deaths data plotted from the Australian BITRE data repository using a trendline for 2000-2019 (excluding 2020 as it was a quiet year)
The pink area shows the inflection and increase in road deaths over the predicted number.
Note that road deaths have a downward trend despite an increase in population (due to safety measures and slowing of traffic).
So the question becomes...
"what is the probability that - if the @epiphare study was real (showing a 32% reduction in road deaths after vaccination) - the Australian road deaths (where nearly 100% of the adult population was vaccinated) would increase by 36%"?
Debbie's tweet was about her case against @HHSGov when her son developed Type 1 Diabetes after a routine vaccine, when he had a negative glucose test prior.
So it was clearly vaccine linked, but her case was denied.
Not only was the case denied (despite clear evidence of a new diagnosis immediately after vaccination) but the case was used by the "judge" to essentially ban ANY further cases that alleged a link between new diabetes and a routine vaccine.
Here is the clip from the (decent) interview with Pelle Neroth Taylor of @RealTNTRadio.
In it Boyle is asked whether the mRNA vaccines are themselves biological weapons and he explains that because "in your system, it generates the COVID-19 cells" they would be.
But of course that's incorrect, because mRNA vaccines don't recreate the COVID virus (the biological weapon - assuming as we now know that it was synthetic not natural).
So his explanation was incorrect because he misunderstood that the mRNA only provides the spike protein and he would have been destroyed on this point in court.
Of course he never got to court. And never gave an affidavit for the Dutch court - confirmed here (8/3/25):
I'll say it again. The vaccine industry [KNOWINGLY] hijacked cell pathways that cause cancer in order to induce antibody responses so that they can claim that their product "worked" by demonstrating those antibodies - even if they offered zero protection.
To explain, when you induce an immune response you have an immune debt to pay. You can't just keep creating an immune response - or, as in the case of cancer, you will die.
A vaccine creates an artificial immune response...
Which might be fine if it was done every now and again. But what they didn't tell you was that the human body will not respond to an injected antigen alone. It will ignore it (thankfully) and the generic immune system will mop it up, no antibodies required.