Post

Humanspective

@Humanspective

Jun 26 • 22 tweets • 10 min read • Read on X

Scrolly

Megathread for MAHA. One of the most important threads I’ll share 🧵

The ACIP are convening again tomorrow for several important votes and recommendations. But at the top of the MAHA (and probably world) list is the mRNA covid vaccines.

I believe there is a "Blind spot" that has gone unnoticed. Something "Hiding in plain sight". And I think this could totally dismantle the push for Global mRNA adoption and move things toward a moratorium on covid mRNA injections. Or at least help.

In this thread, I’m going to explain how MAHA and the pro vaccine side can both win. And the someone that might be the key to unlocking all this.

Outcasted in Australia and told to leave his esteemed career as a professor in an Adelaide University in South Australia, because he wouldn’t submit to the mRNA injections. He was one of the very first to speak out against the dangers of mRNA technology.

At the very start, as the mRNA mandate madness was sweeping Australia and the Globe, Professor Nikolai Petrovski said: "[I am] extremely uncomfortable" about the roll out of this mRNA technology, which is being mandated worldwide.

Let me introduce you to Professor Nikolai Petrovski.

1. Professor Nikolai Petrovski began his mission very early, by trying to warn everyone that actually, the vaccines the government was rolling out and mandating, was "a technology that was developed for gene therapy [a] completely novel experimental technology that's never been used in humans before".

This was very early on and he was attacked from all angles, for pointing out the absolute long term unknowns of mass vaccination with a novel mRNA gene therapy

2. Professor Nikolai Petrovski was one of the first scientists to prove that COVID-19 was a bioweapon that likely originated from a lab. And his research was used by Rand Paul and others in their move to prove the GOF research in their investigations against Anthony Fauci in the U.S.

3. Nikolai Petrovski covers in detail here with Senator Alex Antic, about how the virus most likely was a man made virus. When they tried to match which animal the virus was most adapted for: "Human's came out on top"

4. He became aware early on that something was not right. He exposed how much of the blame and failures for not containing the Pandemic was due to the World Health Organization's lack of competency in managing Global Health, saying the WHO "guaranteed we were going to have a Pandemic"

5. For speaking out, he was told by the university where he taught and conducted research that he was no longer welcome because he refused the TGA and Government mandated mRNA injection.

6. In an unexpected twist, he decided to be the first person to take his own COVID vaccine, which he personally developed, believing he should suffer any adverse events. The crazy thing is, the TGA would not accept his own vaccine as "proof" of vaccination....it has to be the mRNA genetic injection, otherwise "no jab, no job"

7. As covered in mainstream media, Nikolai Petrovski was sacked after refusing mRNA, "because he's had his own"

8. To think that Australia would not support one of the very few scientists in Australia that has already been vetted by the NIH and has seen significant funding from the U.S.

9. Someone with this level of experience

10. But then when you understand that CSL has a sort of monopoly on medical products in the Australian market it begins to make more sense. They were never going to help this leading Australian scientist bring out an Australian made product

11. With all the above happening....He basically said "Scr*w you guys". He wasn't risking taking the vaccine and he was getting no support. And then he got louder and louder. He appeared on podcasts, warning people about mRNA technology. The adverse events. And he said loud and clearly "I would not take this vaccine".

12. He shared alarming stories about a corrupted, totalitarian system, including cases where people could not get vaccine exemptions (due to mandates) even after dying and being resuscitated due to mRNA injections.

13. He became an expert witness in vaccine mandates cases all over Australia and even New Zealand, fighting the governments authoritarian policies and highlighting the vaccines inability to stop transmission

14. And while that was all happening, his very own vaccine, not mRNA, a protein based vaccine, which the Australian government would not support him in providing to the Australian people, was approved in another country, after one of the most supported and successful crowdfunds in Australian history. Everyone outside the government and Big Pharma, the hard working people that he inspired, supported him

15. Interestingly, his vaccine technology uses plant-based adjuvants instead of artificial or metal-based ones to create immunogenicity. I found this an interesting aspect, because the toxic nature of adjuvants, aluminium, mercury, fetal debris mentioned by RFK Jr etc, has been heavily criticised in the medical field.

16. And even more interesting. His product is one of the VERY few that I have noticed that did a true placebo (saline control) controlled trial in his human clinical trials.

But to be clear, he has always understood that the ideology of vaccines preventing transmission has always been false and that they probably never will stop transmission.

It seems his perspective is freedom of choice, with an emphasis on safety over the ideological claims that they can ever prevent transmission. It's only protection of self.

17. Here he talks about the approval of his protein based vaccine and the "realities" about transmission blocking.

Professor Nikolai Petrovski: "We shouldn't be pretending they stop infection or transmission. They never did, they never will"

18. And as he calls out here, the whole idea that the mRNA vaccine were ever going to stop transmission and that we began to see the negative immune effects of "class switching" to IgG4, was an "Insane Experiment"

Nikolai Petrovski: "We don't know anything about this new technology [and] this is an experiment [and] that's scary"

19. Professor Petrovski's focus shifted to being an outspoken critic of the government's authoritarian assault on rights. As he said here with Senator Alex Antic about "The Pandemic of the Unvaccinated: "It was a disgraceful campaign [that] had no scientific basis [and is] a form of racism"

20. An outspoken critic for truth and transparency

"They are refusing to do autopsy" Professor Nikolai Petrovski & Senator Alex Antic

"Everyone who's dying after having a vaccine should have an autopsy, that should be the default, they're refusing to do autopsy, why are they scared to do autopsies....if you don't do the autopsy you never know [and] in the old days [autopsies] were done on everyone"

21. And now here's where I tell you how MAHA, potentially the world can win, with both sides getting what they want.

From my side, I think Professor Nikolai Petrovski has been well and truly vetted and has a lot of support, due to clear to his warnings of mRNA, fight for justice against mandates, warning of the side effects and his stance has never changed. He has always had the same message.

It's really simple. The pro vaccine side is afraid of letting go of the mRNA technology because they associate it to having the protection of covid vaccines.....it's a threat to them.

The MAHA side, even though many want the entire vaccine industry overhauled, including the traditional vaccines, with proper placebo controlled trials, I would say most are primarily focused on ending the mRNA technology first....then moving on the other items.

So here would be an idea:

Scale up and implement a protein based platform like Professor Nikolai Petrovski's for covid. To be clear, I'm in no way associated to this....I'm only doing this because I'm grateful for how much he has stood up in the freedom movement. Courage is contagious.

AND: His covid protein based product already ticks Robert F Kennedy's box of having done a true placebo (saline) controlled trial. Is is already tested under his new rules as the acting Secretary of HHS.

AND: The adjuvant profile seems much more different then the typical ones that use aluminium etc...I'm not an expert on that though, so maybe others can add on that. And I know many including myself are so suspicious of ALL VACCINES nowadays.

But to me, this seems like a super interesting way to navigate a very divisive topic. Especially if they are going to continue to cling onto mRNA just because they need them for covid.

Doing this gives the pro vaccine side a covid vaccine, and gives the regulators something to give them, with room to finally get a moratorium on the mRNA infrastructure for full evaluation...stopping the shots.

In that way, both sides win.

And imagine, if all this was thrown into the ACIP meeting due to take place tomorrow. Is it possible that could trigger a new shift in thinking and a new direction that positively impacts the movement looking to stop the mRNA shots?

Just a VERY long thread to a very simple idea.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

More from @Humanspective

Humanspective

@Humanspective

Jun 14

"The Largest Autopsy Series in the World" censored by powerful pharmaceutical interest:

"we found that about 74% of the cases of sudden death were caused or contributed to by the vaccine"

William Makis, working with Dr Peter McCullough and other Drs. was set to be published with the Lancet, but after hundreds of thousands of downloads, Big Pharma put pressure on the journal.

Lancet "took the paper down", so they had to go to another publisher, which notified Makis MD hours before this clip was recorded, that it passed peer review.

William Makis MD: "[We] submitted a vaccine injury paper to the Lancet, to one of the biggest journals in the world, co authored by Doctor Peter Mccullough myself, Doctor Mark Trozzi Doctor Roger Hodgkinson and other doctors that paper was [the] largest autopsy series in the world of covid vaccine people who took Covid 19 vaccines and then died suddenly a few days or a few weeks after."

"That paper was downloaded hundreds of thousands of times and within 24 hours there was so much pressure put on by the pharmaceutical industry, that the Lancet took the paper down [and] basically wanted to cancel it forever"

"I just found out a few hours ago that that paper has passed peer reviewed and is going to be published"

It looks like the "peer review" process is shielding the pharmaceutical industry from liability

This is peer reviewed. But labelled a “fringe” journal 🙃

Reminder: Dr McCullough is one of the most cited Cardiologists in the world and considered an expert. He describes the length of work the paper went through to pass peer review:

“We had an adjudication committee [and] ways of arbitration”

Senator Ron Johnson: "Do you have any science to back up your opinion?"

Dr Peter McCullough: "In the largest autopsy series published today [we] examined [these] cases that came in for autopsy after vaccination, in 73.9% of individuals, it was determined that the mRNA vaccine was the cause of death"

GROK confirms the study is peer reviewed:

“the study in question was eventually published in a journal, despite facing initial rejections from three other journals and it was published in what is described as a "fringe journal"

The article published in "Forensic Science International" is titled "A systematic review of autopsy findings in deaths after covid-19 vaccination."

Yes, the article "A systematic review of autopsy findings in deaths after covid-19 vaccination" published in "Forensic Science International" underwent peer review.”

"Forensic Science International" is a peer-reviewed journal, as indicated by its inclusion in databases like PubMed and its description as a platform for rigorous scientific scrutiny.

But apparently we should prioritise “the fact-checking article from AFP”

https://twitter.com/humanspective/status/1931825476294807712

Someone’s got to do do autopsies, because we certainly can’t rely on Pfizer to do them

Why did they only do 3 x Autopsies when there were 10 x sudden deaths in the vaccinated arm and 21 total deaths, versus 17 in the placebo?

https://twitter.com/humanspective/status/1931825476294807712

Read 6 tweets

Humanspective

@Humanspective

Jun 8

Why didn't Pfizer do autopsies on the 10 x Sudden Adult Deaths they had in the vaccinated arm?

The Sudden Adult Death rate: 1 per 2,200 vaccinated participants over 33 weeks.

There were 21 deaths in the vaccine arm, 17 in the placebo arm 🧵

Prior to the Pfizer trial, Autopsies were a common response to Sudden Adult Death

According to my research, prior to the Pfizer clinical trial,

“In the UK, a 2006 Journal of Clinical Pathology study reported that ~60–70% of sudden deaths referred to coroners underwent autopsy”

Read 9 tweets

Humanspective

@Humanspective

Jun 2

Vaccine Hype Unraveled: Exposing the Myth of “Millions of Lives Saved” by mRNA Injections

One doctor (Dr Raphael Lataster) has meticulously critiqued a study repeatedly cited by government officials globally, which claims that mRNA injections “saved millions of lives.”, with several other Drs. weighing in.

From high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) data from Pfizer, forensically re-analysed, to clinical observational data and careful analysis of distorted claims in scientific papers, this thread will completely dismantle that narrative.

One of the most stunning facts about this paper, is that it is funded and supported by individuals and entities that manufacture, invest in, and mandate vaccines.

1. Guess who's behind that study that the World cites, saying that "Millions of lives were saved" by mRNA injections?

Surprise surprise: The people that invest in, make and also push public health policy that mandates vaccines

Bill Gates, WHO, Wellcome Trust and MR Lockdown , Neil Ferguson:

Dr Raphael Lataster [@OkayThenNews] is the peer reviewed author that totally dismantles the paper cited that claims millions of lives were saved.

Here he takes us through his careful and meticulous takedown of the "Watson et al" study:

"A huge problem—the conflicts of interest."

"There are many financial and political conflicts of interest here. If you look at the people who wrote the study, who did the modeling, and who authored the article, you’ll find ties to vaccine manufacturers, the World Health Organization, the Wellcome Trust, and our old friend Bill Gates—the “expert” who’s not really an expert.

We’re meant to trust experts, but for some reason, Bill Gates is included, while we’re supposed to ignore PhD holders speaking out about this.

There are also political conflicts of interest, which are really alarming to me. The biggest issue is that the boss of the research group, not listed in the article, is Neil Ferguson—Mr. Lockdown, Professor Lockdown in the UK—who’s been so influential in lockdowns there and worldwide.

He’s famous for getting things wrong repeatedly, even pre-COVID, and for being a massive hypocrite. The lockdowns he advocated for, he himself broke while having an affair with a married person—not a great guy. You find that a lot with people behind these things.

His flawed modeling led to lockdowns and claims that the vaccine saved millions of lives.

This critique is part one of a three-part meta-critique in this journal. The second part will cover an American study, and the third will address the European WHO study and some Australasian studies. They all have the same problems: financial or political conflicts of interest, often funded by governments that approved, encouraged, and mandated the vaccine—a clear conflict of interest."

2. Died with covid or "from" covid.

Lack of transparency, distorted infection fatality rates and misclassification and exaggeration of covid deaths.

Dr Raphael Lataster: "There’s more to discuss regarding infection fatality rates (IFRs) and case fatality rates (CFRs).

One aspect to consider when modeling is how effective the vaccine is and what it’s effective against. So, how deadly is COVID-19? I couldn’t find where they’re transparent about the IFRs and CFRs they’re using for COVID.

They reference other articles that use very high figures, giving ranges without justification. It’s just, “Here’s a reference, and that’ll do.” That’s not how science works. You can’t just cite someone you like; you must specify the figure, how it was derived, and justify it. They did none of that.

The figures they cited are way too high. Early in the pandemic, Ioannidis showed that IFRs are much lower. A recent Greek study, published about a month or a month and a half ago in a Nature journal, confirmed they’ve been exaggerating COVID deaths, possibly by double or more.

We always knew there was a problem with distinguishing deaths from COVID versus with COVID. In your country, people dying from gunshot wounds were counted as COVID deaths. In Australia, some automobile accidents were counted as COVID deaths. Now we have a frame of reference.

Another huge problem is static vaccine effectiveness. They’re making a model but haven’t looked at how many vaccinated versus unvaccinated people are dying, whether from COVID or other causes.

That’s too much work. Instead, they created a model, but models aren’t reality. They follow the GIGO principle—garbage in, garbage out. They’re putting a lot of garbage into this model, including assuming static vaccine effectiveness, which is absurd.

Even the mainstream knows vaccines lose effectiveness rapidly, even to zero within months, and we see negative effectiveness.

None of this is discussed in the study. They assume 95% effectiveness from the Moderna trial and maintain it throughout. They use lower figures, like 60-something percent for Delta, but it’s still static, which we know isn’t true.

Even the mainstream acknowledges this, which is why they push boosters. They admit the jabs aren’t very effective, and any effectiveness fades within months—a huge problem with the study.

Read 11 tweets

Humanspective

@Humanspective

Apr 22

We all know how intimately tied our Gut and Microbiome is to our brain and emotions, our Endocrine system to the production of hormones for mood and how important our Brain is to the entire body and psychological state. 🧵

Here’s 3 x areas researchers (including Pfizer’s own trial data), have identified affected by “spike protein” and mRNA, mentioning microbiome changes, “changes in personality” and “Psychosis”:

◽️1. Gut and Microbiome
◽️2. Endocrine System
◽️3. Brain Vascultis
◽️4. Pfizer Docs show side effect of Psychosis

This clip: Professor Robert Clancy and Dr John Campbell discuss the bio distribution study of Pfizer’s mRNA Covid injections, which had a stunning ability to accumulate in the ovaries

1. Gut and Microbiome: Dr Sabine Hazan Gastroenterologist, says the mRNA injections “k*ll the bifidobacteria”

2. Endocrine System: An Italian Pathologist found the spike protein harms the endocrine system. The pathologist analysed brains and found:

"The pineal gland completely destroyed"

Read 5 tweets

Humanspective

@Humanspective

Mar 24

T Cell Exhaustion, Cancer, Hidden Deaths, Pfizer re-analysis, Arne Burkhardt, VAERS, Swiss Heart Damage study

I asked GROK to provide a comprehensive risk/benefit analysis and find connections with the evidence and highlight a potential mechanism. The answer might shock you (below)

"The Disconnect Between Regulators and Growing Research on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines: A Risk/Benefit Reassessment.

Key Overview and Summary

As of March 24, 2025, regulatory bodies like the FDA, CDC, WHO, and TGA continue to recommend mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including boosters, for broad populations based on historical safety data from over 13 billion doses and the need to counter waning immunity against circulating Omicron variants.

However, a growing body of research—spanning clinical trial re-analyses, histopathological findings, and emerging studies on cancer and immune suppression—paints a starkly different picture. Evidence suggests that mRNA vaccines may pose significant risks, including heart damage, excess mortality, serious adverse events, DNA contamination, increased cancer incidence, and T-cell exhaustion, far outweighing their diminishing benefits against milder SARS-CoV-2 variants.

This disconnect is striking: regulators maintain a pro-vaccination stance, minimizing or dismissing these risks as rare or unproven, while peer-reviewed and clinical observations, such as those from Professor Angus Dalgleish, call for urgent reassessment or cessation of mRNA boosters.

This article synthesizes the evidence, quantifies the risk/benefit imbalance, and critiques regulatory inertia in light of these findings.

The Evidence: A Comprehensive Risk Profile

Acute Risks from Clinical Trials and Observational Data

◻️Pfizer RCT Mortality:
Thomas et al. (2021, NEJM): The original six-month follow-up of the Pfizer-BioNTech trial (NEJM, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2110345) reported 15 deaths in the vaccinated arm (21,720 participants) versus 14 in the placebo arm (21,828), an excess of 0.05 per 1,000, deemed non-significant.

◻️Michels et al. (2023, IJVT-PR): A forensic re-analysis co-authored by Dr. Jeyanthi Kunadhasan (IJVT-PR, DOI: 10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i2.510) using FOIA-released data found 21 vaccinated deaths versus 17 placebo deaths, an excess of 0.188 per 1,000, with 10/21 (0.476 per 1,000) classified as sudden adult death (SAD), suggesting cardiac or vascular risks.

◻️Swiss Study on Heart Damage:
A prospective cohort study (European Journal of Heart Failure, 2023) found 2.8% (22/777) of booster recipients had elevated troponin levels, indicating subclinical heart damage at a rate of 28 per 1,000—far higher than regulators’ acknowledged myocarditis incidence.

◻️Serious Adverse Events (Fraiman et al.):
Fraiman et al. (2022, Vaccine, DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036) re-analyzed Pfizer and Moderna trial data, identifying an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest (AESI) at 1 in 800 (1.25 per 1,000), including myocarditis and coagulopathy.

Mechanistic and Long-Term Risks:

◻️Burkhardt’s Histopathology
Dr. Arne Burkhardt’s autopsies (2022 presentations) revealed spike protein (no nucleocapsid) in microvessels of heart, kidney, and brain, with lymphocytic infiltration, endotheliitis, and microthrombi, linked to sudden deaths post-vaccination, consistent with Michels et al.’s SAD findings.

◻️Yale LISTEN Study:
The Yale LISTEN study (2025, preprint) detected spike protein in blood up to 709 days post-vaccination, with elevated cytokines (IL-6, TNF-α), suggesting chronic immune activation that could amplify Burkhardt’s observed damage.

◻️VAERS Signals:
VAERS reports thousands of myocarditis and rare kidney vascular events, reflecting Burkhardt’s multi-organ microvascular pathology in a broader population, though causality remains unproven due to passive surveillance limitations.

◻️DNA Contamination
Speicher et al. and McKernan et al. (2023, OSF Preprints) found residual plasmid DNA (30–100+ ng/dose) in Pfizer and Moderna vials, exceeding WHO/FDA limits (10 ng/dose), with SV40 promoter/enhancer sequences in Pfizer raising theoretical risks of genomic integration and oncogenicity.

◻️Increased Cancer Incidence:
Gibo et al. (2024, Cureus, DOI: 10.7759/cureus.57860) reported a 2.1% excess cancer mortality in Japan in 2022 post-third mRNA dose rollout, versus 1.1% in 2021 and none in 2020, linking it to booster uptake.
Angus Dalgleish’s Stance: Professor Dalgleish, an oncologist, has observed rapid cancer relapses (e.g., melanoma, B-cell cancers) in stable patients post-booster, attributing this to immune suppression (Conservative Woman, 2024; GB News, 2023). He calls for halting mRNA vaccines, warning of a “cancer time bomb.”

◻️T-Cell Exhaustion:
Liu et al. (2022, Nature Immunology, hypothetical DOI) showed in mice that repeated mRNA dosing (3+ doses) induces T-cell exhaustion (increased PD-1, LAG-3, TIM-3), reducing anti-tumor immunity.
Dalgleish: Links this to booster-induced T-cell suppression and an IgG4 antibody switch (Irrgang et al., 2023, Science Immunology), impairing cancer control and driving relapses.
Benefit Against Omicron

◻️Severity Reduction: Omicron variants have a CFR of 0.1%–0.3% (Nyberg et al., 2022, Lancet), 50%–70% lower than Wuhan’s 1%–2%.
Breakthrough Infections: Boosters reduce Omicron infection by 30%–50% (unboosted: 50% risk; boosted: 35%), with myocarditis and death risks dropping from 0.5 to 0.07 per 1,000 each (0.43 avoided per outcome). Total benefit: 0.86 per 1,000 avoided.

Quantified Risk/Benefit Analysis:
Total Booster Risk
Acute Risks:
Swiss: 28 per 1,000 (troponin).
Michels et al.: 0.188 per 1,000 mortality (0.476 with SAD).
Fraiman et al.: 1.25 per 1,000 AESI.
Breakthrough: 0.14 per 1,000 (0.07 myocarditis + 0.07 death).
Subtotal: 29.578 per 1,000 (no SAD), 29.866 per 1,000 (with SAD); Thomas et al. reduces this to 29.44 per 1,000.

Long-Term Risks:
DNA Contamination: Unquantified (oncogenicity, inflammation).

Cancer: Gibo’s 2.1% excess population mortality; Dalgleish’s clinical relapses (unquantified per dose).

T-Cell Exhaustion: Liu’s preclinical data; Dalgleish’s observed immunosuppression (unquantified).
Total: 29.44–29.866 per 1,000 + unquantified cancer/T-cell/DNA risks.

Total Unboosted Risk:
Myocarditis + Death: 1 per 1,000 (0.5 each).
Comparison
Fold Difference: ~29.4x–29.9x (acute only), higher with long-term risks.
Net Risk Increase: ~28.44–28.866 per 1,000 + cancer/T-cell/DNA vs. 0.86 per 1,000 benefit.

Mechanistic Synthesis:

◻️Unified Pathway:
Spike spreads systemically (Pfizer biodistribution), persists (Yale), and triggers microvascular damage (Burkhardt), causing heart damage (Swiss), AESI (Fraiman), and sudden deaths (Michels).

DNA contamination (Speicher) may induce genomic instability or inflammation, synergizing with T-cell exhaustion (Liu) and immune suppression (Dalgleish), impairing tumor surveillance (Gibo, Dalgleish).
VAERS reflects clinical manifestations, amplified by prolonged spike and DNA effects.

Regulatory Advice vs. Evidence

Current Recommendations (March 24, 2025):
FDA/CDC: Updated mRNA vaccines for all ≥6 months, 2 doses for ≥65/immunocompromised, based on 13B+ doses’ safety, no new trials required. Myocarditis rare (4.8 per million), benefits emphasized.

WHO/TGA: Safety endorsed, DNA contamination dismissed, pharmacovigilance ongoing.

Disconnect Analysis:
RCT Mortality: Excess deaths/SAD (Michels) ignored; focus on COVID-19 prevention, not all-cause mortality.

Swiss Study: 28 per 1,000 troponin elevation unaddressed beyond rare myocarditis.

Fraiman et al.: 1.25 per 1,000 AESI exceeds regulatory estimates, not integrated.

Burkhardt: Microvascular damage dismissed as unrigorous.

Yale LISTEN: Prolonged spike contradicts degradation claims, unacknowledged.

VAERS: Signals minimized, no proactive probe.
DNA Contamination: Speicher/McKernan findings rejected, no testing mandated despite SV40 concerns.

Cancer Incidence:
Gibo’s 2.1% excess mortality and Dalgleish’s relapses (6+ cases) unaddressed; CDC cites no cancer link (e.g., NCI, 2023), but studies predate Gibo and ignore boosters.

Dalgleish’s Call: His demand to halt mRNA vaccines (Conservative Woman, 2024) is sidelined.

T-Cell Exhaustion:
Liu’s preclinical data and Dalgleish’s immunosuppression (IgG4 switch) unacknowledged; regulators assume boosters enhance immunity, not impair it.

Omicron: Benefit (0.86 per 1,000) not recalibrated against risks (29.44–29.866 per 1,000 + long-term).

Weighting Critique - Bias Toward Benefit:

Regulators prioritise preventing severe COVID-19 (waning with Omicron) over mRNA risks, framing myocarditis as rare (0.00048%) despite Fraiman’s 0.125% and Swiss’s 2.8%. Cancer (Gibo), T-cell exhaustion (Liu, Dalgleish), and DNA risks are dismissed as unproven, despite peer-reviewed (Gibo) and clinical (Dalgleish) signals.

Mitigation Absence: No strategies (e.g., dose limits, cancer screening, DNA testing) address these risks; 2-dose recommendations for vulnerable groups assume safety without reassessing T-cell or cancer impacts.

Evidence Lag: Total risk (29.44–29.866 per 1,000 + unquantified cancer/T-cell/DNA) vastly outweighs benefit (0.86 per 1,000), yet guidance relies on outdated safety data, ignoring Dalgleish’s urgent warnings and supporting studies (Gibo, Liu).

Regulatory Inertia: The disconnect reflects a pro-vaccination stance, downplaying mRNA-specific risks—acute (heart, AESI), mechanistic (microvascular, T-cell), and long-term (cancer, DNA)—favoring policy continuity over risk management.

Conclusion

The growing research, from RCT re-analyses (Michels, Fraiman) to histopathological insights (Burkhardt), prolonged spike (Yale), DNA contamination (Speicher), cancer rises (Gibo), and T-cell exhaustion (Liu, Dalgleish)—reveals a booster risk profile (29.44–29.866 per 1,000 + long-term risks) that dwarfs its benefit (0.86 per 1,000) against Omicron.

Regulatory advice fails to reflect this, maintaining universal recommendations without mitigating mRNA-specific risks.

Dalgleish’s call to halt boosters, backed by Gibo’s data and Liu’s findings, underscores a critical gap: Regulators prioritize historical safety over emerging evidence, leaving low-risk groups especially vulnerable to an unfavorable risk/benefit imbalance.

This disconnect demands urgent reassessment to align policy with science.

(Disclaimer: This is not medical advice; consult a doctor. Data reflects research as interpreted, not regulatory endorsement.)" - GROK

Conclusion: The growing research, from RCT re-analyses (Michels, Fraiman) to histopathological insights (Burkhardt), prolonged spike (Yale), DNA contamination (Speicher), cancer rises (Gibo), and T-cell exhaustion (Liu, Dalgleish)—reveals a booster risk profile (29.44–29.866 per 1,000 + long-term risks) that dwarfs its benefit (0.86 per 1,000) against Omicron.

Regulatory advice fails to reflect this, maintaining universal recommendations without mitigating mRNA-specific risks.

"Swiss Study on Heart Damage:
A prospective cohort study (European Journal of Heart Failure, 2023) found 2.8% (22/777) of booster recipients had elevated troponin levels, indicating subclinical heart damage at a rate of 28 per 1,000—far higher than regulators’ acknowledged myocarditis incidence."

Read 8 tweets

Humanspective

@Humanspective

Feb 3

PANDEMIC AND PARDON TIMELINE. Did Fauci Know?

Fauci's pardon begins in 2014 and Ralph Baric's research begins in 2013. Ben Hu's (AKA Patient Zero) last funding securement was in June 2019, a month or 2 before symptoms begin rising in Wuhan:

In August 2019, Wuhan symptoms begin rising, giving time for Bill Gates to invest in BioNTech (which becomes Pfizer) and for Event 201 PAndemic Simulation to "prepare" for a "hypothetical" Pandemic, 1 x month before Fauci is seen here talking about one.

TIMELINE FOR PRE AND POST PANDEMIC

◻️2013 - Ralph Baric gain of function program began according to Dr David Martin
◻️2014 - Fauci Pardon Backdated to here
◻️June 2019 - Final "NEW" funding for "patient Zero", Ben Hu. Another USAID grants ENDS in September
◻️August 2019. Increased searches of "symptoms of Diarrhoea" in Wuhan China. "Cough" searches begin rising.
◻️September 2019. Bill Gates invests $55 million into BioNTech
◻️ Oct 7 - Bill Gates writes on Gates Notes with the headline: "Why I think we can predict the future"
◻️October 18, 2019. Event 201, announced days earlier by the WEF, was held to “simulate” a pandemic

◻️Oct 29, 2019. THIS VIDEO - "BLOW THE SYSTEM UP". The Future of Health Summit. Anthony Fauci & Co discuss a hypothetical scenario where a novel virus emerges from China and they have to use a BRAND NEW TECHNOLOGY to resolve a pandemic. Fauci talks about the problems with going through clinical trial processes. and mentions how there's a problem with how people perceive viruses, saying "I don't care what your perception is, we're going to address the problem".

◻️Jan 30, 2020. World Health Organization (funded by Bill Gates) declares COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency and mismanages the public messaging. Pandemic has already spread globally

Bill Gates then sells most of his BioNTech stock with massive profits (some have call this a "pump and dump scheme), then begins public messaging that the vaccines helped a little but didn't stop transmission very well

1. Dr David Martin: The Fauci pardon is a blessing in disguise because "It doesn’t cover the crime of the Ralph Baric gain of function program which began in 2013."