🧵
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?
You were lied to about the Merck measles vaccine develop in the 60s. When injected into babies it caused fevers, rashes, diarrhoea and febrile convulsions.
Why?
I'm going to show you.
@SecKennedy @RetsefL @MaryanneDemasi @DrJulieSladden @RWMaloneMD
Merck claimed that the "measles vaccine" was an "attenuated version of measles" giving the impression that it was a virus that was made safe.
That was a lie.
It was just measles, passaged in cells in a lab.
We injected our babies with actual measles.
How do I know?
Recently released Australian Road Deaths data confirm that the @epiphare study claiming that COVID vaccination reduced road deaths by 32% was, as suspected, a complete fake.
Here are the actual road deaths data plotted from the Australian BITRE data repository using a trendline for 2000-2019 (excluding 2020 as it was a quiet year)
The pink area shows the inflection and increase in road deaths over the predicted number.
Note that road deaths have a downward trend despite an increase in population (due to safety measures and slowing of traffic).
So the question becomes...
"what is the probability that - if the @epiphare study was real (showing a 32% reduction in road deaths after vaccination) - the Australian road deaths (where nearly 100% of the adult population was vaccinated) would increase by 36%"?
Debbie's tweet was about her case against @HHSGov when her son developed Type 1 Diabetes after a routine vaccine, when he had a negative glucose test prior.
So it was clearly vaccine linked, but her case was denied.
Not only was the case denied (despite clear evidence of a new diagnosis immediately after vaccination) but the case was used by the "judge" to essentially ban ANY further cases that alleged a link between new diabetes and a routine vaccine.
Here is the clip from the (decent) interview with Pelle Neroth Taylor of @RealTNTRadio.
In it Boyle is asked whether the mRNA vaccines are themselves biological weapons and he explains that because "in your system, it generates the COVID-19 cells" they would be.
But of course that's incorrect, because mRNA vaccines don't recreate the COVID virus (the biological weapon - assuming as we now know that it was synthetic not natural).
So his explanation was incorrect because he misunderstood that the mRNA only provides the spike protein and he would have been destroyed on this point in court.
Of course he never got to court. And never gave an affidavit for the Dutch court - confirmed here (8/3/25):
I'll say it again. The vaccine industry [KNOWINGLY] hijacked cell pathways that cause cancer in order to induce antibody responses so that they can claim that their product "worked" by demonstrating those antibodies - even if they offered zero protection.
To explain, when you induce an immune response you have an immune debt to pay. You can't just keep creating an immune response - or, as in the case of cancer, you will die.
A vaccine creates an artificial immune response...
Which might be fine if it was done every now and again. But what they didn't tell you was that the human body will not respond to an injected antigen alone. It will ignore it (thankfully) and the generic immune system will mop it up, no antibodies required.