Post

x.com/53v3n0fn1n3/st…

More from @HouseLyndseyRN

Nurse Lyndsey 💜🐭

@HouseLyndseyRN

Nov 4

1) * A THREAD: Part 1 of 2 *

~ THE PFIZER JOB ~

{How Pfizer carried out the biggest pharma trial heist ever & the regulators swallowed it—hook, line, & sinker}
• Evidence Blog By: Arkmedic 10.12.25

• Remember this? (@Jikkyleaks)

“Pfizer’s vaccine is more than 90% effective”

2)
• Headlines repeated around the world & more importantly by the regulators FDA, TGA, EMA & MHRA

• The “real” statistic was actually 95%

• Yep, Pfizer & the FDA concluded - after one of the quickest & largest randomized controlled trials in pharma history - that receiving a Pfizer COVID vaccine would give you only 5% of the risk of “catching COVID” than someone who didn’t receive their product

• Just to reiterate - this was about COVID infection

• No claims on severity, hospitalisation or death were made by Pfizer

• The FDA agreed that Pfizer’s trial showed that for every 100 people who were not vaccinated & “got COVID” only 5 vaccinated people would “get COVID”

• & remember this is COVID infection (testing positive), not anything else

• FDA’s analysis of the available efficacy data from 36,523 participants 12 years of age & older without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to 7 days after dose 2 confirmed the vaccine was 95% effective (95% credible interval 90.3, 97.6) in preventing COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after the second dose (with 8 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group compared to 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group)

• Putting this another way, for every vaccinated person you met who had COVID you should have met at least 24 vaccinated people that didn’t ever have COVID

• Given that most of the vaccinated population actually “got COVID” - many of them multiple times, that sounds impossible, right?

• That’s because it was

• Yet the trial nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
itself showed 95% reduction in the risk of infection & was published in the infamous New England Journal of Medicine (the same journal that published the fraudulent Surgisphere study) on the 10th December 2020 science.org/content/articl…

3) ~ Dates Matter ~

• As a background to the first red flag concerning this trial & subsequent “emergency approval” of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine it is worth noting some dates:

• The first patient recruited to the study was July 27th 2020

• By 31st August 2020 half of the participants had been recruited, meaning that less than half the participants had follow-up of at least 75 days from the first injection

• Given that you were supposed to need two weeks after the second injection (35 days) for it to “work” this means that half the participants had follow up of less than 47 days for the “effective dose”

• The original submission from Pfizer to the FDA happened on November 20th 2020

• The “data cut-off” for the trial - the last day that COVID infections could be registered - was November 14th 2020

• The VRBPAC meeting (Vaccines & Related Biological Products Advisory Committee) at the FDA met on the 10th December 2020, the same day the trial was published

• The VRBPAC assessment document for the Pfizer submission was written on the 7th December 2020, just two weeks after the submission was made - & having had to assess a trial with 44,000 participants

• This median of 47 days was the basis on which the approval was given, but it gets worse - much worse

• In fact we are going to show that the whole study was a sham & that there never was a benefit - at all, never mind “95% reduction in infection”

• Here is the chart provided by Pfizer that they used to show that there was a 95% reduction in infection

• It’s impressive

• The red line is the “placebo” group & the blue line is the “vaccinated” group

• And although they initially start off getting infected at the same rate - after about 10 days after the first jab, the vaccinated pretty much stop getting infected at all

• A true miracle vaccine

Read 35 tweets

Nurse Lyndsey 💜🐭

@HouseLyndseyRN

Oct 19

~ The CCR5 Gene ~

The CCR5 gene encodes a chemokine receptor that plays a critical role in immune cell function, particularly in the recruitment and activation of T-cells and B-cells

Below, I’ll explain how CCR5 influences T-cell and B-cell production, its potential to drive increased production, and the risks associated with chronic overproduction of these cells

1. How CCR5 Impacts T-Cell and B-Cell Production

- Role in Immune Cell Activation and Recruitment:
CCR5 is expressed on T-cells (especially Th1 cells), B-cells, macrophages, and dendritic cells

It binds chemokines (e.g., CCL3, CCL4, CCL5), which guide these cells to sites of infection or inflammation

This signaling enhances the activation and proliferation of T-cells and B-cells by amplifying immune responses

For example, CCR5 signaling can promote T-cell differentiation into effector or memory T-cells and enhance B-cell activation, leading to antibody production

- Stimulation of Proliferation:
CCR5-mediated chemokine signaling can upregulate cytokine production (e.g., IL-2, IFN-γ), which supports T-cell clonal expansion and survival

This indirectly boosts T-cell production in lymphoid organs (e.g., lymph nodes, spleen)

For B-cells, CCR5 signaling enhances their migration to germinal centers, where they undergo proliferation and differentiation into plasma cells for antibody production

This is particularly relevant in response to infections or chronic inflammatory signals

- Microenvironmental Influence:
In lymphoid tissues, CCR5 helps create a microenvironment that supports T-cell and B-cell interactions with antigen-presenting cells (e.g., dendritic cells)

This fosters higher production of activated T- and B-cells during immune responses

2. Mechanisms of Increased T-Cell and B-Cell Production

- Infections and Inflammation:
During infections (e.g., viral respiratory illnesses like influenza or SARS-CoV-2), CCR5 signaling is upregulated due to increased chemokine production

This drives T- and B-cell recruitment and proliferation to combat the pathogen

Chronic infections (e.g., HIV, hepatitis C) can lead to sustained CCR5 activation, resulting in prolonged T- and B-cell production

- Autoimmune and Inflammatory Conditions:
In diseases like rheumatoid arthritis or inflammatory lung conditions (e.g., asthma, COPD), persistent inflammation can maintain high levels of CCR5 ligands, leading to continuous T- and B-cell activation and proliferation

- Genetic Factors:
Variations in CCR5 expression or function (e.g., polymorphisms) can alter the intensity of immune responses

For instance, individuals with normal CCR5 function may experience robust T- and B-cell responses compared to those with the CCR5-Δ32 mutation, which reduces receptor activity

Read 6 tweets

Nurse Lyndsey 💜🐭

@HouseLyndseyRN

Jul 18

*** COVID Accountability Victory: Court Rules in Favor of Healthcare Whistleblower ***

~ An update on US ex rel. Conrad v. Rochester Regional Health System. ~

By: WARNER MENDENHALL
@MendenhallFirm
JUL 17, 2025

• For 21 years, Deborah Conrad served as a dedicated Physician Assistant

• She was fired from Rochester Regional Health for doing her job - reporting adverse events to protect public safety

• A federal court vindicated her actions and opened the door for accountability

• On June 11, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York issued a landmark ruling for my client, Deborah Conrad, in her case against Rochester Regional Health and United Memorial Medical Center

• Judge Sinatra denied the hospital's motion to dismiss the core claims in Deborah's False Claims Act lawsuit, letting her case go to discovery

• Here's what this means:
The Court Found:

•Rochester Regional Health had a material obligation to report serious adverse events to VAERS under their Provider Agreement with the CDC

•The hospital's failure to report while continuing to seek federal reimbursement was potential fraud against the government

•Deborah's detailed allegations were enough to meet the strict legal standards for fraud claims, even without access to internal billing records

•Her retaliation claim can move forward - the court found she was probably fired for trying to expose the hospital's failure to report adverse events

• This decision establishes critical legal precedents:

1VAERS Reporting is Not Optional:

• The court confirmed that adverse event reporting requirements are "material conditions of payment" - not just bureaucratic paperwork

2Hospitals Can Be Held Accountable:

• Healthcare providers who take federal money while failing to meet safety reporting obligations can face False Claims Act liability

3Whistleblowers Are Protected:

• The court recognized that employees who try to ensure proper adverse event reporting are engaging in protected activity

• Deborah's case involved 170 serious adverse events that the hospital allegedly prevented her from reporting

• 160 VAERS reports she successfully submitted on her own initiative

• Specific patient examples of adverse events following vaccination that went unreported

• The court found these allegations painted a picture of systematic non-compliance with federal safety monitoring requirements

• This ruling is significant beyond just Deborah's case

• It establishes that:

1) healthcare providers cannot ignore federal safety reporting requirements while continuing to collect taxpayer money

2) the False Claims Act can be used to hold institutions accountable for COVID-related misconduct

3) whistleblowers who expose these practices have legal protection

• We estimate over 500,000 were killed by the shots, millions lost their jobs for refusing them, and Big Pharma received billions for dangerous and experimental treatments

• This case reveals a legal pathway to begin holding the system accountable

• The case now moves to discovery, where we will seek the hospital's internal “vaccination,” treatment, and billing records to uncover the full scope of unreported adverse events which we believe are in the 1000s in this hospital system alone
covidlawcast.com/p/covid-accoun…

• First Amended Complaint: documentcloud.org/documents/2556…

• Covid Vaccination Program Provider Agreement - the basis for liability for all C19 shot providers:
documentcloud.org/documents/2589…

Read 4 tweets

Nurse Lyndsey 💜🐭

@HouseLyndseyRN

Jul 10

Make Jumping Rope Great Again

oh and thank you God for mens Sweatpants ;)

enjoy this thread ladies and comment which one is your favorite

~<3 nurse Lynz

Read 17 tweets

Nurse Lyndsey 💜🐭

@HouseLyndseyRN

Jun 12

1~ A THREAD EVERY HUMAN BEING NEEDS TO READ & WILL AFFECT EVERY PERSON ON THIS PLANET REGARDLESS OF VACCINE STATUS ~

~> Amyloidogenic Fibrin Microclotting Following Prenatal mRNA Vaccination Exposure <~

*** HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM ***

(@KevinMcCairnPhD)
05.24.25 at 20:59

2~ PREAMBLE: Houston, WE HAVE A PROBLEM!

•Scientific investigations involving emerging & potentially paradigm-shifting findings often walk a difficult line between the need for caution & the imperative to inform

• While early publication of case studies carries inherent risks—such as overinterpretation of individual data points or lack of statistical power—it also provides critical, time-sensitive insights that can drive new lines of inquiry & inform ongoing clinical & public health departments

• This report forms part of a robust, real-time investigation into the proteopathic & vascular consequences of prenatal exposure to mRNA-based SARS-COV-2 “vaccines”

• The intention is not to draw definitive epidemiological conclusions at this stage, but to publicly document the emergence of novel findings as they occur

• This transparent approach is particularly important in areas where existing safety literature has not yet integrated proteomic misfolding or amyloidogenic biomarker screening into its framework

• This investigative format mirrors the best practices seen in real-time pathogen tracking & pharmacovigilance

• In such contexts, timelines & transparency are essential for mitigating long-term risk & prompting refinement of public health frameworks

(@KevinMcCairnPhD)

3~ *Clinical Case Summary*

SUBJECT
• Patient B3

MATERNAL VACCINATION
• Pfizer
(BNT162b2)
• mother received 2 doses
• 1 dose
(at 32 weeks gestation)
• 1 dose
(at 34 weeks gestation)

Gestational age at BIRTH
• 35 Weeks
(preterm)

AGE AT SAMPLING
• 3 years old

HISTORY
• Premature delivery
• resuscitated at birth
(reuired CPR)
• dead on arrival
(DOA equals no VS)
• immune dysregulation (tonsillectomy, repeated ear infection/surgery
• congenital heart murmur

SAMPLE INTEGRITY
• Excellent

METHODOLOGY
• Thioflavin T staining
• autofluorescence imaging • UV Light Microscopy
(4X, scale bar 50 um scale)
• samples preserved
(for SEM/EDX)

(@KevinMcCairnPhD)

Read 9 tweets

Nurse Lyndsey 💜🐭

@HouseLyndseyRN

Jun 8

~NOT SAFE & NOT EFFECTIVE: Full Evidence Dossier Packet~

*Prepared By: James Roguski* (@jamesroguski)

~Chapter 1: Evidence Dossier~
“The article discusses the urgent need for a global moratorium on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines due to their severe adverse events & unresolved safety concerns”

“The vaccines have been linked to a 6-fold increase in deaths, & their mechanism of action & potential harm are detailed in a comprehensive document”

“This free online resource provides EVIDENCE that the mRNA platform is a biological weapon delivery system & its ongoing & expanded use constitutes a grievous crime against humanity”

~ full evidence dossier packet below - use to follow along with this thread ~
(notsafeandnoteffective.com)