1. I am playing in the data sandbox with the idea of lot variability - ie: some lots are more toxic than others (and thus resulting in higher reporting to #VAERS ) - and made the following plot. The graph shows the SAEs/100,000 doses shipped for the first 21 batches shipped, and the last 21 batches shipped. Keep reading... @OpenVAERS @aravindmc @jikkyleaks @Kevin_McKernan @DJSpeicher @CanningPharm @AdhesionsOrg 2. Now, the thing that bugs me about this (and always has) is that no one has any idea how many of these shipped doses went into arms. I would bet that it would be very few in the case of the latter since people are smartening up.

We also have no idea about other confounding factors like reporting bias.

Anybody claiming self-amplifying RNA is not potentially disastrous doesn't understand how it works. Ahem.
Here are my slides for Japan. @ics6tokyo
"Is the risk of recombination with endogenous RNAs going to be assessed? How?”

1. Another BS study. Every single kid in this 'study' was injected prior with Pfizer product so there's no actual control group. You can't inject someone with a placebo AFTER they've been injected with a drug and call it a placebo.
link.springer.com/article/10.100… 2. Phase I BioNTech sponsored kid dose testing clinical trial compared with the Phase III BioNTech sponsored kid 'boosting' …. Interestingly, no results and no patient data are posted for either on http://clinicaltrials.gov57clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04816…
clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04955…

"There are two potentially big problems with the proteins being produced in the context of the COVID modmRNA products. The first one is that on-target proteins are being produced with high fidelity. The second one is that off-target proteins are being produced with low fidelity." "The reason the former is a problem is due amyloidogenic peptides encoded in the spike gene. The reason the latter is a problem is due to the issue of misfolded proteins or otherwise aberrant proteins."

Uncanny. Amyloid fibrin. Confirmed. More reproduction of results please... @P_McCulloughMD @drcole12 @Drs4CovidEthics @Inquiry_Canada @SenRonJohnson @SenatorRennick @SenatorAntic @senatorbabet @MRobertsQLD @RobertKennedyJr
fullmeasure.news

I am posting this for posterity.
"Question: Were the mRNA-based COVID-19 shots designed to promote cancer/tumorigenesis?

Notes:

1. The expression vectors/plasmids released do not match those found from independent sequencing - T7 promoters were released - SV40 were not. 2. The expression vectors also contain SV40 enhancers that are not required for transcription - they are additives.

January 30th, 2021: "Now that they have entered mass production, that is no longer possible, they have had to switch to lower-cost processes, e.g. using huge quantities of DNA that functions as the substrate to be able to produce the RNA in an in-vitro transcription reaction." "This is done via bacteria, via the fermentation of transformed bacteria that contain this DNA. The bacteria multiply the DNA in huge amounts, and this leads to new dangers or risks, particularly contamination."

BNT162b4 not only has mRNA for spike but something new and insane: mRNA encoding nucleocapsid, membrane, and ORF1ab proteins! So not only will T and B cells be aimed against spike, they will also be aimed at these other self-made foreign proteins.
cell.com/cell/fulltext/… Wherever they are made. See the problem? Am I missing something here? How the hell can these designers not know that this is a bad idea? clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study…