In the @COVIDSelect document released last week there were embedded images containing previously unreleased emails.
One of them blows this whole thing open, and it's from #BatBumEddie Holmes.
"Pressure from on high".
WHO THE HELL IS THAT?
@COVIDSelect It's not possible that Eddie Holmes (affiliated with EcoHealth, Fudan university and the CCP) could have anybody "on high" outside of this group.
They were literally the high priests of virology.
Fauci, Rambaut, Andersen, Bedford, Farrar.
@COVIDSelect @AGHuff It doesn't matter of course. This single email tells you why @edwardcholmes refused multiple FOI requests to the University of Sydney and why he was instructed to retain his emails. He is the person running the show, on behalf of the "on high" priest.
Or priestess.
@COVIDSelect @AGHuff @edwardcholmes And when #BatBumEddie's cover story failed, his buddy #WuhanDom was brought in to continue the lie.
@COVIDSelect @AGHuff @edwardcholmes Whoever on the @COVIDSelect it was that made the PDF forgot that Acrobat only performs a virtual crop of embedded images.
So the full images remained in the document.
In the following tweets I will be posting all the uncovered images.
@CharlesRixey @COVIDSelect Not only did Holmes and Lipkin know that GOF research was going on, but they knew #ProximalOrigins was a lie to cover it up.
"We should add [Ian] as an author. Safety in numbers... he is involved in the GOF"
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.
I'm going to explain why this chart is so important and why @jsm2334 is being disingenuous by ignoring it - whilst making points that undermine the "real world vaccine data" industry.
It's a Kaplan-Meier curve and it obliterates Jeffrey's argument.
Just to go over it... the lines show what proportion of subjects (children) ended up without chronic disease up to 10 years after being studied.
It's called a survival analysis because it's used for cancer survival.
If the red line was a cancer drug it would be a blockbuster
It shows that by the end of the 10 year follow-up, of those that they could still follow up (who stayed in the study) 57% (100-43%) of vaccinated kids had chronic disease (e.g. asthma) and 17% (100-83%) of unvaccinated kids did.
Janet Diaz was the person that led the #MAGICApp guideline committees that stopped your grandma getting antibiotics for her post-viral pneumonia, leading to her death.
But she did this with the help of @pervandvik who deleted his account
Diaz here tells you that COVID kills you by an overreacting immune response, but that was never true.
She was an intensivist recruited by the WHO in 2018.
None of this was true, but it sold a LOT of drugs and killed a LOT of people
Which US govt organisation blew a hole in the ozone layer in 1958 by sending atomic bombs to the troposphere over the Antarctic in operation Argus - then blaming the resulting destruction of ozone on CFC's?
It wasn't just Pfizer that hid the fact that the mRNA-LNP complex went to the ovaries (where it could not possibly provide its declared function in the lung).
The AMH drop (ovarian reserve) after vaccination was later shown by the Manniche paper after being denied by the Kate Clancy and Viki Males of the world.
But this time the Arnold foundation's @RetractionWatch have not only revealed with their "exclusive" that they were directly involved in trying to get this important paper retracted...