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.
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...