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"
The paper confirms that aerosolisation of cloned live viruses (aka vaccines) was the previous method of "innoculating" their target population (see #spraygate), but now they can do this in drinking water.
The point being that, if you can do this with live viruses for the purpose of vaccinating chickens, you can do this with live engineered vaccines for the purposes of shutting down the world (or farms) on a PCR-based scare.
All funded by the NIH @DrJBhattacharya
And just for shits and giggles the paper's first author - directly into nature - is a guy called "Flavio Faccin", who never published a paper before last year.
Are they mocking us?
Florian Krammer there to rub it in.
Oh, and if you don't believe me that this is GOFROC (DURC) research - funded by the NIH after @DrJBhattacharya demanded that all GOFROC was stopped - just upload the paper into ChatGPT and ask how the live viral vaccine was prevented from degradation in chlorinated water.
I guess this gives a new meaning to "watch the water"
/end
#Spraygate #WaterGate #Clones #GOFROC
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.
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.