🧵
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?
What @TheBurninBeard is saying here is that the clinical samples that had "COVID" also had gene signatures of Mycoplasma fermentans, a US military pathogen that can be used as a vector to carry viral clones.
@SabinehazanMD found it too.
🧵
#spraygate @BrokenTruthTV
Can you see that Norman Pieniazek, who headed up the CDC's research division at the time that the @CDCgov sent biological weapons to Iraq to start a war, took himself out of this thread?
Every vaccine scientist will try to convince you that the drop in u25 cancers was due to the vaccine when it was merely due to the change in screening.
But check out the HUGE RISE in 25+ cancers. This pattern is repeated in Scotland and Australia where similar changes to the screening age were made a few years after the introduction of coerced vaccination, obfuscating the figures to hide a scandalous rise in 25-29 age cervical cancers after the vaccine rollout.
For clarity most cancers in this age group are early and detected on screening before they become advanced. Moving the screening age meant that they were diagnosed later and therefore in an older age bracket.
The big red arrow is pointing to the preinvasive diagnoses which tend to mirror the actual cancers - the upper chart was too busy.
Here is the same from the OP with arrows showing both cancer (above) and precancer (below) which both rose significantly after the vaccine rollout
And here is the same data from Cancer Research UK (smoothed) showing a doubling of cancer rates in the over 25s for at least 5 years after the vaccine rollout. cancerresearchuk.org/health-profess…