In that study the fetal loss rate DOUBLED (4.2% to 9.8%) but had little impact on the overall number of fetuses.
This is how this information is hidden. That single slide should have been enough to prompt much more investigation, because it showed fewer fetuses in EVERY GROUP
But this is a DIFFERENT paper than the one Viki Male was (falsely) claiming to show a lack of effect on the fetus.
That paper was by Swingle at Uni Pennsylvania, here it is. Note one of the authors is Drew Weissman
Gotta say this looks like just a little bit of toxicity to me.
Now, think about this. If you lose the fetus prior to implantation due to drug toxicity, are you going to see that drug in the fetus?
Especially if you decide not to analyse the non-viable ones.
So you exclude the lost fetuses due to drug toxicity and then produce a plate in your study that shows that the fetuses that managed to avoid toxicity were the ones with the lowest drug transfer.
Giving you Viki's famous "the fetuses didn't glow" claim
And just for good measure, these two supposedly separate groups working on a separate paper have the same techniques and very similar looking plates.
What are the odds?
And remember when they told you "it stays in the arm" and denied it goes to the ovary?
You tell me whether they lied.
Look at the signal in the ovaries on A4 and B5.
Glowing. Hot.
And if you thought that was dramatic, wait till you see the uterus.
This is what a mouse uterus looks like. Like a lucky horsehoe.
Look at the signal in A4 and B5.
Lucky it doesn't get to the fetus eh?
So I'm not saying that the "non-glowing fetuses" are fake, but I'd like to see the original slides.
Especially now that we just found out that the peer review process in these papers appears to be a little "mates club" of pharma advocates.
So I'll finish here. It does seem that #PlacentaGate may be the tip of the iceberg in relation to the $cience around the safety of COVID vaccines in pregnancy.
NB: The LNPs referenced in these papers may be different from those in the mRNA COVID vaccines (we may never know), but they are all related compounds and designed for transfection of miRNA and mRNA.
@jsm2334 I have 3 new questions:
1⃣ why didn't you appear on the Razzaghi paper using your data?
2⃣ is your data synthetic?
3⃣ what is the binomial probability that 18/20 of a university's research team come from a group that comprises 2% of the US population, if all groups are equal?
@jsm2334 For those confused... The original thread on #OHDSI - the data curators claiming an impossible 96% efficacy rate for a type-mismatched vaccine against infection - is here.
Match to BGH [NM_180996.1]: (114/226bp)
CTGTGCCTTCTAGTTGCCAGCCATCTGTTGTTTGCCCCTCCCCCGTGCCTTCCTTGACCCTGGAAGGTGCCACTCCCACTGTCCTTTCCTAATAAAATGAGGAAATTGCATCGC
So there are 112 bp in the BGH PolyA cassette which are not in the BGH gene transcript, and presumably make that cassette as efficient as the SV40 PolyA as described in Goodwin 1992...
@DiedSuddenly_ @JesslovesMJK @Kevin_McKernan Also note the "ribbon" pictures after nearly two years have none of the diatheses seen in the other images. Totally clean. After 499 days. 🙄
Sorry but this is not a believable study.
1⃣ ORCID ID record for Lee is blank, she is not a molecular biologist (& address does not validate)
2⃣ No ethics approval despite clinical samples (blood and semen - seriously?)
3⃣ Vials were incubated for a year without bacterial or fungal growth - these people have never done cell culture.
4⃣Quoting #Sashagate as a source in scientific paper is a massive red flag
My view reading this is:
This paper was submitted to the IJVTPR to discredit it because it's one of the few journals that allows criticism of pharmaceutical companies.
I'm happy to reconsider if you can find a valid publication record for Young Mi Lee at that address.
@DiedSuddenly_ A bowling alley?
I can't find any record of "Hanna Gynecologist Clinic" using that provided address either.
@SenatorRennick @TonyNikolic10 @BroadbentMP This website was used as the central evidence for the government in Kassam vs Hazzard, the first and most important vaccine mandate case in the Commonwealth.
It has gone.
Therefore the ruling is obsolete.
@tonynikolic10 @AaronSiriSG @barnes_law archive.is/dEBZ1