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So #ChatGPT confirms that a paper existed in 2018 published by #FastEddie Holmes and was retracted, yet no record exists of this paper anywhere.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?
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.
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"
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.