⟵ Return to index
Related Gates: tgagate
05-01-2024
breaking cheese 🧀🧀🧀 #humpgate #tgagate 1⃣ we found the humps. 2⃣ the ema knew about them 3⃣ the analysis appears to be synthetic@chrismartenson @stkirsch @daoyu15 @kevin_mckernan
just a reminder that these are the same humps that we found in the tga batch analyses here they are contaminants at 3000nt and 2000nt length. the main mrna should be about 4000nt length. https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1607609244576256002
the ema knew about these humps because they had them analysed. but only to a point. not only did they only perform on analysis on the assumption of what they thought was in the product, but they accepted what now appear to be synthetic western blots as evidence.
here is the full documentfiles.catbox.moe/sg745z.pdf the analysis was done by the swedish medical products agency.lakemedelsverket.se/sv
so someone spotted the humps that i also found and decided to separate them out from the main spike. "peak 1" is the non-spike rna "peak 2" is the spike rna
according to their analysis, the additional rna had the 5'cap (which is the start of the rna) but missed the end (the poly-a tail) so it looked like it was broken fragments of the main rna - but only the first part. where was the second part?
the whole fragment is 4284nt long. so if there is a 3000nt fragment with a 5'cap (with no poly a tail) there should be a 1284nt fragment floating around with a polya tail! think of it like a lizard losing it's tail...
so what did they do to investigate this? well, they assumed it must be spike rna and therefore ran some western blots (looking for protein) looking for spike protein fragments. they showed that you need both the 5'cap and the polya to produce the protein...
these are supposed to be western blots with antibody staining each section of the spike protein (s1 and s2). these showed that you need both ends to make spike. you don't always need a polya tail to make protein but ok, let's accept this.
now they do the western for peak 1 (non-spike) and peak 2 (spike) and stain with spike antibody. the non-spike (peak 1) doesn't stain in either sample. this means either it is not producing spike protein fragments, or it is producing another protein.
in fact the document specifically requested "to further characterise the truncated and modified mrna species present" it's not just me. of course, that never happened. the only way to characterise these rna fragments is by sequencing, and it has not been done.
so, to recap at this point we have: 1⃣aberrant mrna at 3000nt and 2000nt, which cannot be a broken spike (4000nt) 2⃣those mrna do not code for spike 3⃣no sequencing has been done to characterise the mrna. 4⃣the fragments have 5' caps and are therefore active
now the worst bit (as if the rest wasn't bad enough)... those westerns are not right. here's what normal westerns look like (this is from the same document). they are gels so they contract randomly, which is why nothing is ever a straight line.
(i'm not even going to start on the many different spike fragments in that gel). here are some more examples. note the typical features: ▶️not straight lines ▶️bleeding ▶️rounded edges ▶️uneven lines/bars
now let's look at the first gel picture in the document "from the sponsor" it's the straightest gel ever. not just that....
but look how regular and symmetrical these bands are. it's impossible. it even contradicts their own gel in figure 8. and the document itself is dithered which means...
the ema have the original hi-res document with pictures and they copied it with dithering to black-and-white to obfuscate any attempts at assessing the probity of the gels. just to push the point, this is what happens when you synthesise an image like this with dithering.
so the westerns appear to be totally fabricated. i'm happy to be proven wrong on this. my guess is that the ema or the swedish medicines agency know that there is something else in that product, and it isn't degraded spike. oh well. russian roulette it is.
h/t to @jm125reasons for providing this important document
Related Gates: tgagate
06-01-2024
breaking: after uncovering gross incompetence (or negligence) at the tga @senatorrennick asked them what they did about the clearly contaminated batches. their response: "we didn't see any problems"#humpgate #tgagate https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1607609182743834625
the response confirms that the tga were not competent to assess this product, given that the ema identified the contamination. full thread below:https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1610888191342710787
this response was completely disingenuous because you cannot find a protein that you are not looking for. without mrna sequencing (which they didn't do) they would have no idea what protein to look for. protein sequencing is complex, but they didn't do that either.
full document archived here t.me/jikkyleaks/397@chrismartenson @tonynikolic10 @double_christ
here's a request @senatorrennick @mrobertsqld please ask every person on the next estimates.. "how many molecules of spike protein were found to be circulating after 3 weeks in a recent study in young adults with myocarditis?" see what happens. https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1611465508616036353
Related Gates: blotgate
09-01-2024
stinky cheese🧀🧀🧀 what do you call something that's too good to be true from a company that has previously been convicted of fraud? yep. more cartoon westerns, this time from pfizer directly. nobody checked them. #blotgate 👇👇👇
the source document sent to me appears to be from those released under @aaronsirisg @iambrookjackson legal actions to investigate fraud in the pfizer vaccine study that the fda said they needed 75 years to release the documents. yet they assessed the 450,000 pages in 24 hours?
i'll say that again. there were 11 million total documents (44,000 patients, minimum 250 pages per patient plus 350,000 assessment and summary documents). the fda was given the glossy summary on the 10th december. the vaccine was "approved" on the 11th december.
the committee meeting is still online - 8 hours long. the whole day was used for the meeting. the drug was approved the next day. nobody read those documents before approving a novel gene therapy@mrobertsqld @senatorrennick #blotgate
buried in those documents were the comedy western blots. anybody that has ever done a western in a lab would have known they looked fake. .@chrismartenson.. we have a new hashtag#blotgate
give me a break. these images should have been enough to prompt an investigation but nobody cared. the deal was already done. the vrbpac committee meeting was kabuki theatre.#blotgate
another impossibly perfect western blot. every single one is like this. absolutely impossible. @maryannedemasi @daoyu15 @doorlesscarp @humblesci
just a reminder as to what this is about - this is what a normal (and technically relatively clean) western blot might look like - from the ema official analysis. note that this image has severe dithering artefact close-up. none of that malarkey for our pfraud-convicted pfriends!
and more examples of real westerns in the thread here https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1610888275438505984
so we now have evidence of: ▶️extra mrna in the product that has never been analysed by sequencing. ▶️fabricated protein analysis ▶️rubber stamp approval with no assessment the tga & mhra copied the fda and did not perform any independent assessment. doctors4covidethics.org/regulation-or-…
so did john skerritt, head of the tga, lie? judge for yourself.#blotgate and #humpgate are not going away. skynews.com.au/australia-news…
here is the full document that was sent to me. if anybody has the phmpt.org direct url for this please let me know. files.catbox.moe/egah0n.pdf
related:#humpgate https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1610888191342710787
Related Gates: blotgate, pfizertaggate
12-01-2024
whoa!!!! absolutely busted. great work on #blotgate @midwesterndoc to put this into a visible format. now we need criminal investigations. #blotgate #humpgate and #pfizertaggate are not going away. @chrismartenson @jesslovesmjk https://twitter.com/midwesterndoc/status/1613216030876176390
#blotgate https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1612579431666847744
#humpgate https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1610888191342710787
#pfizertaggate (to be continued)https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1613114836086591489
Related Gates: blotgate
17-01-2024
new cheese 🧀🧀🧀on #blotgate - the emerging scandal that keeps on giving. the ema and fda reviews of the pfizer bnt162b2 molecular biology assays were not independent reviews at all. pfizer wrote their documents. @chrismartensonhttps://twitter.com/adhesionsorg/status/1615180960290729984
the paper that david is referring to is published as a "peer reviewed" paper in @jpharmsciences except it wasn't that at all, it was a submission by pfizer in response to the ema and fda questions posed in relation to their gene therapy product. [pdf: jpharmsci.org/action/showpdf…]
it has simply been reconstituted as a "peer reviewed" manuscript. these are the claims in the paper but they are not shown to be true. let's ignore the "safe and effective" claim for obvious reasons
the claims are that (1) the mrna has been isolated and characterized. this is not true as no sequencing has been performed on the mrna - the same mrna "extras" identified in #humpgate these humps with big red arrows@kevin_mckernanhttps://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1607609182743834625
and (2) that no additional (off-target) proteins are made because the mrna that is in the product is truncated and unable to produce a protein product. again, not true based on this published data. we saw this in #blotgate https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1612579431666847744
so this paper - just published in january 2023 - is the exact same document as in the submissions to the ema and fda seen in the earlier threads. here is the #humpgate graph - the exact same one as the ema document.
and the comedy western blots are also the same. these as we saw are not western blots at all but awbs or "virtual blots". these are computer reconstructions that are easy to fake. that's why papers are not normally accepted just based on awbs. this one was.
those blots are meant to show that no other protein is made but simply show that no truncated spike protein is made (because they were only looking for spike protein fragments). they did not exclude a different protein altogether.
there was in fact one genuine-looking western blot in the whole paper, that was meant to show that no other proteins were being produced. this one:
the only problem is that the negative and positive controls were not specified, and there was only ever one of these produced - from one "special" batch not seen anywhere else. they were meant to repeat this with 3 more batches. they didn't
so who was it exactly that produced this "peer reviewed paper"? it was a pfizerfest. all pfizer employees. every single one.
the first author, himakshi k patel has no history on pubmed.gov so likely doesn't have a phd.
the supervising author, thomas f lerch had a handful of first author papers prior to moving to pfizer. there are no university affiliations at all and no independent oversight of this paper. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=lerch%2c…
which means that pfizer wrote their own holiday brochure. nobody checked the hotel.
and it's not just me - the ema said they need to "further characterize the mrna" in july 2021. no further characterisations were done. we said so, so it's true. the paper was published in january 2023.
which is interesting, because this paper was approved on the day of the submission of the revised document. which was two days after we first exposed #humpgate what are the odds?
of course, you should trust pfizer to make the product, investigate the product, write the assessors' brochure for the product and monitor their own clinical trial for the product. why wouldn't you?justice.gov/opa/pr/justice…@jesslovesmjk @midwesterndoc
more on this from @jesslovesmjk ....https://twitter.com/jesslovesmjk/status/1615352253342420993
for reference this is the ema documentfiles.catbox.moe/sg745z.pdf and here is the pfizer (biontech) fda response documentfiles.catbox.moe/egah0n.pdf