And here is Shibo Jiang developing peptide inhibitors for Gp-120.... one of the homologous regions of the COVID spike protein that was inserted by "unknown" entities...
Oh look who he pops up with. His buddy Zengli Shi, the "Batwoman" whose lab were the source of the Wuhan COVID outbreak.
"Development of Viral Fusion inhibitors" you say?
Well Zengli Shi had already developed those fusion inhibitors years before. So why weren't they available to the public, if this coronavirus was so deadly?
So now we have a NIH grant awarded to Hotez (who was supposedly working on Coronavirus vaccines for years) and at the same time to the people intimately involved in making a "pandemic" coronavirus for which they had an inhibitor.
And this "dream team" was supposed to be "curing forgotten tropical diseases".
Including ones that coincidentally caused cardiomyopathy (sequelae of myocarditis), for which they were trying to patent a new treatment.
How coincidental.
Here's the full list of papers between Bottazzi and Hotez - 176 in total and 100 in the last 5 years.
It's amazing how they could write all those in the time, without help from #BigPharma ghost writers - given how busy they were trying to save the world
So in summary here we have the smoking gun evidence that the NIH were funding the very people who were not only responsible for developing new pandemic coronaviruses that would shut down the world....
But despite years of funding never released a single beneficial product.
And stand to make millions by channelling more government money to their coffers, and millions more from their patents for the very cardiomyopathies their products have caused.
Let's play jeopardy.
The answer is "money laundering".
What's the question?
Remember that this is just the tip of the iceberg of the links between people who have vested interests in controlling the population with pandemic fear and at the same time creating and enforcing vaccines (however bad they are) on us.
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.
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.