Do you see how it works yet?
@UniofOxford make a mint pushing a failed and dangerous vaccine for a disease that they fraudulently promoted as lethal...
Whilst pretending to run studies that - if they could interfere with the gravy train - were never published.
(see next tweet)
Here is the clinical trials record for the Wellcome-sponsored COPCOV trial, which was the most likely to report a benefit of protection from #hydroxychloroquine.
Because the trial data was scrubbed.
Here is the ANZCTR record.
The trial website has gone, but previously existed.
https://t.co/cBh1xQw6iK https://t.co/iZRX49qvyvcovidshieldtrial.com.au anzctr.org.au/TrialSearch.as…
Did you catch it?
The smartest mice get the tastiest cheese.
Who has control of this trial?
Who registered the website?
Why our old friends @IQVIA_global of course.
The very people who procured the data for the "highly safe and effective"....
Astrazeneca COVID vaccine, for which they were the data collaborator (aka data maker)
And who were working in conjunction with @UniofOxford, home of our extremist #Vaxophile @trishgreenhalgh, to develop a vaccine... that killed untold numbers of people...
For a disease that was non-lethal in 99% of people and almost certainly treatable in the remainder, if the hydroxychloroquine (+ azithromycin) studies were allowed to have been published.
But @astrazeneca, @IQVIA and @UniofOxford made sure they weren't. Didn't they?
@AstraZeneca @IQVIA @UniofOxford And remember that this is the same IQVIA which has its tentacles in every EMR in every country, yet also ran the only lab in the world...
Where the PCR positive rate for COVID was 99.99%
I'm sure it was just a coincidence.
@MartinNeil9 @profnfenton
@AstraZeneca @IQVIA @UniofOxford @MartinNeil9 @profnfenton Once you realise the collusion between @UniofOxford, their pharma stooge @trishgreenhalgh, the corrupted PRINCIPLE trial and the lethal RECOVERY trial which were all run from the same place...
And remember the ironically-named RECOVERY trial which was also run out of Oxford using @bengoldacre's @HDR_UK pet project, supervised by Jeffrey Epstein's favourite Nicole Junkermann.
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.