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So #ChatGPT confirms that a paper existed in 2018 published by #FastEddie Holmes and was retracted, yet no record exists of this paper anywhere.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?
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.
I'm going to explain why this chart is so important and why @jsm2334 is being disingenuous by ignoring it - whilst making points that undermine the "real world vaccine data" industry.
It's a Kaplan-Meier curve and it obliterates Jeffrey's argument.
Just to go over it... the lines show what proportion of subjects (children) ended up without chronic disease up to 10 years after being studied.
It's called a survival analysis because it's used for cancer survival.
If the red line was a cancer drug it would be a blockbuster
It shows that by the end of the 10 year follow-up, of those that they could still follow up (who stayed in the study) 57% (100-43%) of vaccinated kids had chronic disease (e.g. asthma) and 17% (100-83%) of unvaccinated kids did.
Janet Diaz was the person that led the #MAGICApp guideline committees that stopped your grandma getting antibiotics for her post-viral pneumonia, leading to her death.
But she did this with the help of @pervandvik who deleted his account
Diaz here tells you that COVID kills you by an overreacting immune response, but that was never true.
She was an intensivist recruited by the WHO in 2018.
None of this was true, but it sold a LOT of drugs and killed a LOT of people
Which US govt organisation blew a hole in the ozone layer in 1958 by sending atomic bombs to the troposphere over the Antarctic in operation Argus - then blaming the resulting destruction of ozone on CFC's?
It wasn't just Pfizer that hid the fact that the mRNA-LNP complex went to the ovaries (where it could not possibly provide its declared function in the lung).
The AMH drop (ovarian reserve) after vaccination was later shown by the Manniche paper after being denied by the Kate Clancy and Viki Males of the world.
But this time the Arnold foundation's @RetractionWatch have not only revealed with their "exclusive" that they were directly involved in trying to get this important paper retracted...