Even in the current environment where "vaccine sceptic" papers are almost impossible to publish we can see
▶ minimal expected response
▶ cases of transplant rejection
▶ documented renal impairment in renal transplant recipients
▶ COVID infection
It's not science-based medicine.
It's politics-based medicine.
It's not licensed.
It's not studied.
It doesn't work.
It risks transplant rejection.
Yet the Lysenkoist "doctors" at @StVHealthAust and @AlfredHealth would rather you die than they admit they were wrong
@StVHealthAust @AlfredHealth Just one question for @fay_burrows who had the unenviable job of putting their name to the document.
Who was on the SVH AMS (antimicrobial stewardship) committee please?
@CKellyUAP @TonyNikolic10
One final thing.
More than 90% of the population of NSW has had COVID and therefore developed natural immunity.
Not one single study showed a benefit of "vaccine immunity" over natural immunity.
These patients do not need more COVID vaccines.
https://t.co/2Ly8j4REPCpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34956206/ twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
And my new challenge is open to the vaccine zealots at @StVHealthAust and @AlfredHealth
Post one placebo-controlled study showing COVID-19 mRNA vaccination reduces all-cause mortality in transplant recipients in the following year.
The "Swiss patient" sequence you provided not only has 2% dissimilarity from any known hanta sequence but BLASTing into the patent database gets us here.
"No name" virus.
Really?
The people running the @DeptofWar need to start going to jail.
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):