Did you know that Pfizer (the "sponsor") manipulated images of spike protein in the nucleus when they submitted their shiny brochure to the @TGAgovau, and the TGA didn't care?
Check this out, thread to follow.
Here's the original plate
In the original plate (the one submitted to the TGA), you should be able to see that the S1 image shows a bright signal to the top left of the "two fried eggs"
The "fried eggs" are the nuclei, stained blue in the left column
Original plate again. Ignore the merge column.
In the left column the nuclei have a dark circle (like an egg yolk), which is the nucleolus.
In the S1 image the nuclei look bigger, which reduces the impact of the signal in the nucleus.
There should be NO GREEN in the nucleus
But there is green in the nucleus.
You can see it, but I've labelled it just in case
@JesslovesMJK
Now the twist.
Even scientists I know with lab experience didn't notice the nuclear staining in the Pfizer document until it was pointed out. Why?
Because the sponsor (Pfizer) pulled a trick.
They manipulated the brightness of the image.
Here's the original again
Now let's change the shadows and highlights of the whole plate in the same way and see if any of the subplates look different.
Bingo.
The S1 vaccinated plate background (and the merge) have been altered in comparison to the Hoechst plates.
So let's try and reverse this correction and see what we get
Well that looks pretty convincing.
The nucleus is flooded with green.
Because the spike protein is flooding the nucleus.
And if you're not convinced here is the corrected view against the original view.
Subtle, but enough for scientists at the TGA to say "nothing to see here, let's approve this and get our posh nosh"
@double_christ @TonyNikolic10
And you might ask..
"Why does it matter if the spike protein gets in the nucleus?"
Well, because it destroys the body's cancer defence mechanisms via suppression of p53, which is the body's main defence against cancer.
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.