🧵
What is the probability that .@sarahjestock - who is the Program Director of @WellcomeLeap - should be randomly the corresponding author on a paper that she didn't write, relating to datasets that can't be audited, showing "no pregnancy problems with mRNA vaccines"?
And what is the probability that @sarahjestock has written 50 papers in 2 years whilst being a full time obstetrician, university professor at two universities, program director at @WellcomeLeap...
And in her papers declares no conflicts of interest...
It's hit and miss, you see. When it's a pregnancy in vaccine paper there are no conflicts of interest. When it's another paper, we'll declare them but they aren't really conflicts because they are just Pharma so that's fine
And can you believe it? Sarah Stock - whose name is on over 100 papers - just happened to team up with Colin Simpson in 2020!
What a coincidence!
And these are the two players behind the Scottish COVID vaccine in pregnancy data
The HDRUK Impact of the Year award 2021?
Really?
They kept that quiet.
So you went from teacher's pet at Nicole Junkermann's and Matt Hancock's HDRUK...
Which is infamous for its links to Jeffrey Epstein via Nicole Junkermann
To be in charge of New Zealand's Electronic Health Data.
Oh good. I'm sure New Zealanders can now sleep easy knowing that their health data is getting the "HDRUK" treatment and being pawned off to Pharma to create synthetic data sets to sell more drugs that don't work? #EMRgate
And it's so pleasing to see such collaboration and obviously with all your awards it's understandable that you don't remember to declare your conflicts of interest.
So let me ask you both this important question:
Did first author Clara Calvert analyse the 500,000+ patient data sets for those Nature papers, verify them and write the papers - or were they ghost written for her?
Just putting this into context. @DrCatharineY was originally DOD then published on a DARPA grant. One of her few co-authors is Stephanie Petzing of the "Center for Global Health Engagement"
All one big OneHealth family to nudge you into believing this @epiphare slop is real.
For the explanation as to why these "real world data" with "data not available" publications are absolutely junk and shouldn't be accepted to any major journal please see arkmedic.info/p/pharma-hell-…
Dr Young (DARPA/DOD) is clearly now working as an ambassador to cover for the actions of the corrupt Biden regime who we are learning covered up huge amounts of adverse events from their COVID program whilst funding pharma in the "cancer moonshot"
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.