Post

More from @SenseReceptor

Sense Receptor

@SenseReceptor

Jan 1

With the acquisition of Seagen for $43 billion, "[I]t seems like Pfizer is covering itself for most of the turbo cancers that I'm describing right now that I see skyrocketing in the general population [that's taken the C19 injections]."

Radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis (@MakisMD) describes for Seth Holehouse (@ManInAmericaUS) how bizarre Pfizer's acquisition of the biotech company Seagen—which produces monoclonal antibody-based therapies for the treatment of cancer—was, considering its outsized $43 billion price tag.

"Why are they overpaying for a company that's not generating more than $2 billion in revenue right now?" Makis asks rhetorically. He notes that "it's estimated that it would take a decade for Pfizer just to break even on the deal."

The oncologist asks the question, "Why would cancer, all of the sudden, be the next big thing [for Pfizer]?" He notes that "you don't see... huge spikes in cancer" and that "nothing that would justify the scaling up the production of cancer drugs in a way that you would scale up production of mRNA in a viral outbreak, and yet this is the language that he's using."

Specifically, Makis says that Pfizer "paid top dollar" for Seagen's drugs aimed at battling breast cancer, lymphomas, leukemia, colon cancer, lung cancers, and kidney cancers, amongst others. He says that these are the exact kinds of "turbo cancers" he's been seeing in people who took the C19 injections.

Makis asks another rhetorical question: "[I]s he [Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla] telling us that there's going to be such a skyrocketing of cancers in the vaccinated population that he's basically acquired this company and he intends to use Pfizer's resources and infrastructure to scale up the production of cancer drugs [to fight]... an epidemic of cancer in the population?"

Here is Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla telling Jim Cramer that a new Seagen cancer-fighting drug "will come every year" and that he wants to make cancer "a chronic disease" rather than a death sentence."

Source:

Full interview with Makis: rumble.com/v43papz-sudden…

Read 4 tweets

Sense Receptor

@SenseReceptor

Dec 24, 2023

"[P]eople need to understand the FDA lied, the CDC lied, these [C19 jabs] were not tested, they did not go through good manufacturing practice... and [people] are being given adulterated and misbranded products that have never been tested... that is the reality." (Tweet 1/4)

Toxicologist and molecular biologist Janci Lindsay (@JanciToxDoc) outlines for Dr. Philip McMillan (@vejon_health) and virologist and whistleblower Jennifer Smith, PhD, how the COVID injections are not—BY LAW—vaccines, but rather "countermeasures" that can be—LEGALLY—adulterated and misbranded.

"[T]hese products as they are characterized, these medical countermeasures, are allowed to be adulterated and misbranded—and will not be seen as unapproved.... so they are approved, and they will be licensed," the toxicologist and molecular biologist notes. She adds that "No cgmp [current good manufacturing practices] is required of these [injections]. No testing, no good manufacturing practices required and they will be approved."

Indeed, as Janci notes, 21CFR 360bbb, which describes "Emergency use of medical products" like the C19 injections, notes the following:

"an eligible product shall not be considered an unapproved product (as defined in section 360bbb–3(a)(2)(A) of this title) and shall not be deemed adulterated or misbranded under this chapter because, with respect to such product, the Secretary has authorized deviations from current good manufacturing practices under paragraph (1)."

Link: uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req…

As Janci also notes, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has indeed extended its declaration of a public health emergency under the PREP Act until December 2024.

The toxicologist notes this has been done "to provide liability protection to everybody who is giving this [C19 injection]."

Source of HHS declaration: federalregister.gov/documents/2023…

Read 5 tweets

Sense Receptor

@SenseReceptor

Dec 9, 2023

"What we've lived through has been a fifth-generation propaganda war fed from the top level of the U.S. security state that took command of the pandemic on day five after the emergency was declared in 2020." (Tweet 1/4)

Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale Dr. Harvey Risch (@DrHarveyRisch) describes for Gary Null of how the U.S. security state—specifically the National Security Council (NSC)—took command of the national COVID-19 response, and executed on a "scam."

"[N]othing changed in public health [in 2020]," Risch says. "What changed is who was telling the public health infrastructure what to do. And terrorizing the public health infrastructure into carrying this all out."

Risch specifically notes the U.S. public health system "Did the exact opposite of all established public health protocols for managing a respiratory virus pandemic." He offers former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky as an example of how the U.S. security state intimidated public health officials:

Walensky was told if she "didn't comply with the security state requirements of what she had to say and what her policies were, that she would be responsible for killing millions of people. And, unfortunately, she believed that," Risch says. He notes other officials were "convinced" or "threatened" to "make policies and actions that were exactly scientifically contrary to everything that was known about managing the pandemic."

As for the motivations, Risch speculates that the U.S. security state was "attempting to cover up our role in creating this virus in the first place," "shilling" for pharmaceutical companies, and enforcing a state of "fascism."

The National Security Council (NSC) was indeed responsible for setting COVID-19 policy. Not HHS or any of its subsidiaries.

NSC took what was a reasonable pandemic preparedness plan, threw it out, and made a new one that they used, but is not available to the public.

Source:

fema.gov/sites/default/…

Read 4 tweets

Sense Receptor

@SenseReceptor

Dec 6, 2023

💉THE POISON NEEDLE AND THE LEGAL SHIELD🛡️ -Here’s How Illegal "Pseudo-Laws" Have Allowed the U.S. Gov’t to Deploy the C-19-Injection Bioweapons on Americans, and Given Legal Immunity to Those Who Administer The Kill Shots (Tweet 1/9)

Although many prominent voices in the “health freedom movement” espouse the idea that the C19 injections are pharmaceutical products, they are not. This is unequivocal. Therefore, they are beholden to no FDA regulations, and cannot be regulated by the FDA.

In a pair of videos released earlier this year, retired pharmaceutical industry R&D executive Sasha Latypova (@sasha_latypova) describes, in detail—with all “the receipts”—how the C19 injections are, in fact, in a class of their own, so to speak; one NOT REGULATED BY THE FDA.

In this first clip from a conversation between Latypova and writer and paralegal Katherine Watt, Latypova explains how there are three regulatory pathways for pharmaceutical drugs, which are “normal regulatory pathways, where we don’t have [an] emergency announcement.” Latypova notes that these pathways include investigational use of the product; FDA-approved drugs; investigational drugs (if you want to introduce a new drug, then you need to clinical trial it across state lines); and drugs made available under “expanded access use.”

Expanded access use, Latypova notes, is “a more recent evolution” of regulatory law, which was put into place in 1997. Since then, expanded access use has allowed for the use of experimental drugs in “desperate situations.”

The fourth regulatory pathway is the one used for the C19 injections: “EUA countermeasures under [a] public health emergency.” Latypova notes that for an “EUA under public health emergency, none of these normal [FDA regulations] apply [in an enforceable manner].” This is why Latypova and Watt refer to the supposed FDA regulation and approval of the C19 injections as “performance art.”

The injections are EUA countermeasures deployed under a public health emergency. Per the law, they cannot be regulated as pharmaceutical drugs.

Specifically, Latypova notes that there is “no requirement for [an] IRB [an institutional review board] or informed consent…” She adds, “investigational new drug regulations don’t apply, [and] clinical trial data is not required.”

Latypova notes that this is why when clinical trial investigator Brook Jackson (@IamBrookJackson) observed fraud at Pfizer’s C19-injection clinical trial sites in Texas, reported it, and started litigating, the judge dismissed her case—because any fraud that existed was “immaterial.”

“Now we have this evolution, from expanded access use… where they said, ‘We can now have a non-investigational substance and use it in [a] non-medical and non-investigational way… That makes it [an] illicit drug.”

In this clip from the same interview, Latypova describes how, by shirking all regular FDA regulations, the C19 injections effectively become illicit drugs. “Just like fentanyl,” the retired pharma executive adds.

Latypova adds, “You can easily poison somebody with a substance you can’t evaluate yourself… you don’t know whether it’s going to be efficacious or safe.”

The “first time the emergency use authorized thing came in was November 2003 through the National Defense Authorization Act, not through a bill that had to do with the FDA, or NIH, or public health, or anything like that.”

Watt, in the same interview with Latypova, says that she believes that the perpetrators of the C19 injection crime against humanity looked at data from the mid-’90s regarding “what the mRNA/LNP stuff was doing and how good it was as a weapon that was hard to detect as being a weapon” and decided that’s what they’d deploy on the population. “Because you could get people to take it under desperate circumstances and then they would die and the families would say, ‘Well, they were terminally ill, of course they died.”

Watt gives a brief history of how the EUA countermeasure under public health emergency legal loophole (i.e. “illegal law”) was put into place, noting that the “first time the emergency use authorized thing came in was November, 2003 through the National Defense Authorization Act, not through a bill that had to do with the FDA, or NIH, or public health, or anything like that.”

The writer and paralegal adds that the 2004 Project Bioshield Act “put flesh on [the] skeleton]” laid out by the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, and that the 2005 PREP Act generated the “liability shield” for anything deployed under the umbrella of “expanded access use.”

The perpetrators of the C19-injection crime against humanity were “Setting up the conditions so that to produce these things nobody would have to follow any of the rules that apply to other drugs,” Watt adds. She notes that they also “[set] up the legal conditions for actual use of the things that had been produced once you’ve declared an emergency.”

Read 11 tweets

Sense Receptor

@SenseReceptor

Jul 26, 2023

twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"ESSENTIALLY WHAT [THIS] IS... [IS] UNRESTRICTED WARFARE USING PROHIBITED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION." (TWEET 1/8)

In a new interview with Big Picture (@BigPictureWatch), former pharma R&D executive and entrepreneur Sasha Latypova breaks down how the COVID injections are being… https://t.co/hnklaKf6THtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…

twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"THE PURPOSE IS TO KILL AND INJURE [THE] CIVILIAN POPULATION. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING."

Latypova goes on to note that Operation Warp Speed (OWS) "is entirely driven by the Department of Defense and that's completely inappropriate because it's deployment of armed forces on...… https://t.co/0yCR8zWAWxtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…

twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"I'VE INTERACTED WITH A LOT OF RESEARCHERS ALL OVER THE WORLD... WHO HAVE BEEN TESTING THESE [COVID INJECTIONS] AND WHAT THEY'RE FINDING IS A HUMONGOUS VARIETY OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE AT ALL. AND NOBODY CARES."

As for the bioweapons themselves—that is, the… https://t.co/R0jG4f9uAntwitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Read 8 tweets

Sense Receptor

@SenseReceptor

Jul 23, 2023

twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI WERE FAKED - THE STORY WE'VE BEEN TOLD IS A MASSIVE LIE - THE ATTACK WAS EXECUTED WITH NAPALM, MUSTARD GAS, ETC. (TWEET 1/11)

Although we've all been told that the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan at the close of WWII—an… https://t.co/wcPqHKz7Nxtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…

twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

In this second clip from the same presentation, Palmer discusses how much radioactive fallout should've been found at Hiroshima and Nagasaki following the "nuclear bombings," versus how much was actually found.

Looking at the gamma-ray spectrum of the soil sample from Hiroshima… https://t.co/LdolcRAfwXtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Palmer also notes that despite the fact victims of the "nuclear bombings" at Hiroshima and Nagasaki reported "having looked straight into the flash of the nuclear bomb[s]" (Palmer's words), literally none of them reported the kind of retinal burns that should've occurred.