In the previous article I asked if anyone had experience evaluating western blots. This was because, last week, while investigating one of the central questions we’ve had about the vaccines, we inadvertently discovered something highly suggestive of fraud.

Fraud is a huge allegation to put forward, so since that time we did our best to vet the discovery and sent it out to independent parties who could validate it prior to publishing. Based on the feedback we have received since publishing this, there is a chance one of my key allegations is false (that the image being a digital straight line means it was not representative of the actual proteins present) as there was an additional approach to evaluating this we were not aware of at the time of publication. I still believe the central allegation (that the vaccines do not contain what was advertised) holds true and is critically important to understand. At this point in time we do not presently have the information to determine if the numerous suspicious characteristics we specifically identified in Pfizer’s western blots could be explained by anything besides fraud and eagerly invite any clarifications on this issue.

One of the things that is less appreciated about governance is that governments will never have the resources to address every single problem that arises in their territory. Because of this, governments inevitably prioritize addressing problems which would otherwise cause them to lose money, and will prioritize protecting the (typically financial) interests of the upper class who support government officials (e.g., by paying for their election).

This has lead to the curious phenomena whereby there are much harsher penalties for institutional level fraud than there are for an institution harming members of the general public. For example, as I have tried to show throughout this Substack, pharmaceutical companies frequently commit egregious harm against consumers and clinical trial participants, but in spite of this, most of our institutions will refuse to prosecute them for this conduct. Conversely, one of my friends who is a paralegal in the industry has told me that pharmaceutical companies have to be honest with their investors, or they can and will be sued for financial fraud. For this reason, you can get typically get the most accurate information on their products by reviewing what pharmaceutical companies share with their investors.

Similarly, although by all reasonable standards, Pfizer and Moderna should be criminally convicted for allowing such a dangerous vaccine on the market (they clearly knew the vaccines had to be dangerous), nothing has been done. However, Brook Jackson is currently pushing through a whistleblower lawsuit against Pfizer which makes the case that Pfizer conducted their clinical trials in a fraudulent manner, and by extension, committed fraud. The sale of the vaccines to the US government was predicated upon their clinical trial data and thus if that data was fraudulent, Pfizer’s sales constitute fraud.

Because fraud has much greater standing in our legal system than harming the general public, Brook’s lawsuit is critically important, and if it succeeds in proving fraud on Pfizer’s end, can collapse this entire vaccination campaign. Likewise, Brook has an even stronger case if a smoking gun were to be present which:

1) Showed that Pfizer beyond a shadow of a doubt intentionally committed fraud.

2) This fraud directly undermined the entire basis for their product.

So understandably, we wanted to make sure our allegations were correct before moving forward.

One of the early observations with the COVID-19 vaccines is that the response to them was much more variable than what we typically associated with a pharmaceutical product. Many felt awful for a prolonged period, some people had severe reactions, far too many died, but many others had no reaction at all. This suggested to me that at least one of the following was true (none of these are mutually exclusive):
There are certain predisposing factors to having severe reactions to the vaccine.

The previous article detailed one apparent culprit: the inability to properly form antibodies that neutralize the otherwise toxic spike protein. There are also many other potential culprits which provide numerous invaluable insights about human physiology and illness (and will be discussed in the next article).

Hot lots (lots that are significantly more toxic) are being deliberately tested on the population. The argument for this was as follows:

1) I and readers here have observed small clusters of individuals who appeared to have been vaccinated at the same time or location and all died not long after vaccination. Given that sudden death, even after COVID-19 vaccination, is a rare occurrence, I do not believe this can be mathematically explained unless the lot those unfortunate individuals received (or at least the individual vial they both received) was hot.

2) A major challenge with the mRNA technology was establishing the appropriate dose. Every single drug needs to be given at a certain concentration to be effective, and has a concentration where it becomes toxic. The difference between these two is known as the therapeutic window, and safe drugs have wide therapeutic windows, while dangerous drugs have narrow therapeutic windows and have to be given under supervision. One of the major stumbling blocks for the mRNA technology prior to COVID-19 is that by the time enough of it was given to cells for the gene product to be produced, cellular toxicity also occurred. For this reason, I felt that there was a genuine need to find a way to determine the appropriate dosing of the mRNA vaccines and due to the time constraints being worked with and difficulty of the problem, this likely would not be possible until after they entered the global market.

3) Approximately 30 years ago, a forced vaccination campaign with an experimental anthrax vaccine was conducted on the US military. I have written about this both because it was an unknown tragedy, but also because I believe it was the beta test for what happened with the COVID-19 vaccines. When it was all said and done, over 100,000 soldiers were significantly injured by something (which was almost certainly the vaccine). At the time, numerous investigations were launched (including congressional hearings) to find out what happened with these vaccines, although since that time most of what transpired has mostly been forgotten (as the result of this scandal was the military being forbidden from forcing experimental vaccines onto our servicemen, yet this is exactly what happened with the COVID-19 vaccines). Fortunately, this subject was recently revisited by a sitting member of congress.

One (but not the only) compelling theory to explain what happened was that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) needed to develop an oil-based adjuvant in order to make many of the vaccines they had in the pipeline viable. In turn, our soldiers were experimented upon in order to determine the appropriate dosing of the new adjuvant. The points of support for this theory were:

•Many of those involved in this operation (and never faced consequences for their conduct) decades later also played key roles in Operation Warp Speed.

•The entire operation was run in a very suspicious fashion and the vaccine that the soldiers received was only labeled as “vaccine A” on their cards but did not appear in their medical records.

•An antibody test to squalene was developed after one physician realized many of the symptoms that the Gulf War veterans were experiencing could have been caused by an injection of squalene, which created auto-immunity to it (later a doctor who received an experimental herpes vaccine utilizing a squalene adjuvant came forward, and testified that from that he also developed the symptoms characteristic of Gulf War Syndrome). This antibody test was positive, and many of the veterans who had severe issues after the vaccination were positive. To further support this link, servicemen who have no choice except to vaccinate, volunteered to provide their blood before and after vaccination, and it was demonstrated that the vaccination caused the development of antibodies to squalene.

•After the colonel of an Air Force Base suspended the vaccine because multiple severe injuries happened to his servicemen immediately following vaccination, the Pentagon sent high ranking officials to reinstate the program. At the town hall they hosted, they initially denied that a squalene-based adjuvant was being used, and then later admitted that adjuvant was being looked at but would never be used in the anthrax vaccines.

•Later testing of the anthrax vaccine lots suspected to be hot lots (performed by the FDA) found that they contained squalene, and that the concentrations present precisely matched what would be expected in a dose response study to evaluate the effect of the adjuvant on humans. Although the geometrical increase in dose concentrations found almost certainly could not have happened without them being intentional, this point of evidence is also disputed because of just how low the concentrations were.

•At the time this happened, one of the Airforce captains who tried to stop the horrific injuries he observed in his fellow servicemen from continuing remarked: ““I want you to burn these two letters and two numbers into your consciousness (MF59) so you will remember them because squalene will next be used in civilian vaccines.”
Years later, MF59 entered the market and is now used in numerous vaccines the general public receives as an adjuvant (squalene was also an adjuvant for some of the COVID-19 vaccine candidates that ultimately did not win the vaccine race).

This progression through a rocky “experimental” phase is somewhat similar to what happened with the hCG vaccines. These vaccines were the result of decades of research into how vaccination could be used to sterilize people in the third world (hCG, a hormone essential to pregnancy was eventually identified as the optimal target for sterilization through immunization). Initially the hCG vaccines were deployed covertly for forced “tetanus“ vaccination campaigns targeted to women of childbearing age. After what was happening was discovered, the authorities denied hCG could be present, but enough outcry met the campaigns that they were nonetheless suspended.

Years later, after Gates began funding the WHO, and shifting their priority to vaccination, the “tetanus” campaign was re-introduced to Kenya, and this time (knowing what had happened there before) local doctors were able to obtain evidence demonstrating that hCG was in fact in the suspect vaccines. Now, going further down the road, rather than it being a conspiracy theory, you can actually find numerous references to sterilizing vaccines if you search for “immunocontraception” on Pubmed.

4) ) In addition to making a very strong case that there were “hot vaccine lots,” Craig Paardekooper’s team has also discovered many concerning patterns within the toxic lots. For example, they observed in Pfizer’s case, the toxicity of their vaccines directly correlated to their sequential lot numbers. This is highly suggestive that a dose response trial was being conducted and as sequentially higher doses of the drug are coded in a simple manner researchers can understand.

5) A few of my colleagues who are excellent diagnosticians have told me that they are relatively certain some (but not all) of their “vaccinated” patients had received a saline placebo.

Assuming you do not adopt a nefarious interpretation (e.g., depopulation) the primary motivation behind the vaccines was almost certainly to make money. This was either by:

•Getting the mRNA technology to the market (as it represented an enormous market I would guess is in the trillions for an industry that is presently struggling to find new products as it is getting harder and harder to identify new drug candidates within the current drug development model).

Or

•Being fast enough to make it to the finish line and land a lucrative government contract for the Operation Warp Speed vaccines.

The impetus behind Fauci’s vision for mRNA vaccines was that it always takes a significant amount of time to produce the antigens that all vaccines require, especially in large quantities. This issue is particularly evident with the annual influenza vaccinations, as production of its antigen takes time and has to start well before the strain that will circulate for that year is known. As a result, regardless of the modeling used, the strain that is ultimately picked for the vaccine is frequently the wrong one.

The promise of the mRNA technology was that once the genetic sequence for the antigen in question was known, it would be possible to plug it into the mRNA platform and rapidly produce the vaccines. This is essentially what Pfizer and Moderna attempted to do for COVID-19.

The problem with this approach was that the technology to pull it off was still not there. One of the largest stumbling blocks encountered in biotech is moving from having a viable prototype you can produce in the lab to being able to manufacture it on a large scale. This is always extremely challenging to do, and the idea that it could be done properly with a brand new technology with numerous major obstacles, in a fraction of the time frame that would be required, was quite frankly, delusional.

Frequently, when you observe how big business and government approach complex problems, you run into the scenario where the best that they can do is produce a square peg that is meant to fit into a round hole (the problem at hand) before them. Whenever this happens, the solution will be to use all the force that can be mustered to pound the peg into the hole rather than taking the time to make it correctly fit (as this is typically the primary tool they have access to regardless of the problem which presents itself).

With COVID-19, that translated to forcing“imperfect vaccines,”, upon the population with all the might that could be mustered (e.g., the obscene degree of 24/7 propaganda throughout the media and the criminal vaccine mandates).

However, be that as it may, doubling down on pushing the vaccines upon the public could not actually solve the underlying technological challenges that were being faced in developing them.

Out of the three possibilities, I presently believe that the third (poor quality control) is the most likely explanation (and could have easily resulted in very high or very low mRNA doses in different batches effectively creating hot lots and saline lots). I also believe that individual susceptibilities play a role, but I do not believe they could be accounting for the extreme variance and responses to vaccination observed.

Finally although I still think it entirely possible that secret clinical trials were conducted (and may still be ongoing) on the general public with the vaccines, much of the evidence for that conjecture is ultimately based on inference rather than fact. Additionally, I do not believe that there is any possible way enough of the vaccines could have been produced to conduct a trial on the entire population (but it is possible some lots were developed for that process).

Note: Sasha Latypova has written much more on the production and quality control issues here.

My general impression from having spent years of study in the field of scientific fraud is that while many are comfortable with committing “soft” fraud, very few will commit “hard“ fraud (although this cannot be said of India or China and I have seen many examples where hard fraud emerged from these countries). To clarify the differences between these:

•Soft fraud is when the data is presented in a misleading way in order to propose a conclusion that it’s not actually supported by the data, or some of the data is intentionally omitted (e.g., you do not publish an incriminating study or you find a way to reclassify an adverse event so it does not show up in the final clinical trial report).

•Hard fraud is when the data itself is just fabricated.

Since most of the fraud we encounter is soft fraud, that makes it possible for outside investigators like the substack community to identify where it happened and to determine what the results of a given study should have been had it not been twisted to provide the results its sponsor’s wanted. Conversely I believe the general reluctance to commit hard fraud (which is much harder to identify unless it is done very badly) exists because it crosses a line that even the fairly corrupt academic and legal system still stands behind.

We have had many absurd papers written attacking hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. In one such instance however, after it was discovered that the entire dataset from Surgisphere (used for a study in the Lancet to prove hydroxychloroquine was killing people which result in the WHO suspending trials of the drug for COVID-19 around the world) was fake, the Lancet immediately retracted its paper and issued a profuse apology. Typically the Lancet or an equivalent journal would never do anything like that (e.g., consider how many extremely misleading, intentionally deceptive or incomplete papers they’ve published and stood behind that supported the narrative—Pierre Kory has dedicated his Substack to exposing this issue). However, as you can see, directly fabricating data is treated differently.

Similarly, I recently covered an enormous scientific scandal where it was revealed that much of the key data which funneled billions of dollars in Alzheimer’s research down dead ends, resulted from fraudulent data. More specifically, western blots (a method of detecting proteins) were repeatedly faked by a particular researcher in order to validate his amyloid hypothesis, and since it is easy to detect fake western blots, an outside researcher years later discovered the fraud. This discovery has sent shockwaves throughout the research community and has been discussed in top scientific journals. I chose to write about the scandal because I feel it is immensely tragic that we have diverted resources away from research into treatments for Alzheimer’s which actually do work and are relevant to developing treatments for COVID-19 vaccine damage.

This is what we have been taught to believe is the lifecycle of mRNA vaccines:

This is a more accurate description of their lifecycle:

If you think it through, the mRNA production process requires all of the following to happen successfully:

•The correct genetic code to produce the needed mRNA product is placed into all the bacteria it is intended to end up in.
•Large amounts of bacteria with that genetic code are able to reproduce and do not mutate.
•The bacteria can accurate produce the mRNA they were engineered to make.
•The mRNA they produce can be properly modified (e.g., through pseudouridation or adding a 5’-cap and a poly-A tail, and then separated from the bacteria without damaging it.
•Enough mRNA can be produced through this process to vaccinate the planet.
•The mRNA can be appropriately combined with its lipid nanoparticles without damaging or altering it.
•Those mRNA lipid nanoparticles can be appropriately combined with a vaccine vial and a standardized concentration.
•Those mRNA liquid nanoparticles which are highly susceptible to environmental degradation, can be kept fully intact until the time of injection.
•If by some miracle, the vaccine vials still contain have the same mRNA dose at the time of injection, the vials contents must still be appropriately mixed at the time the vaccine is drawn. Furthermore, the large numbers of people with minimal training in injecting vaccines who were recruited to vaccinate the world for Operation Warp Speed must be able to do it correctly and in a standardized fashion.

Major issues exist with each of these steps each of which has a realistic chance of destroying the integrity of the final product. However, from that list of potential stumbling blocks, the three biggest issues appear to be:

1. Producing sufficient quantities of the vaccine product.

2. Having the correct form of mRNA present within the vaccines (as opposed to partial fragments of it).

3. Protecting the mRNA from degradation (e.g., keeping it in subzero temperatures until immediately before vaccination.

In regards to the first point, the Highwire recently visited Ryan Cole’s lab, where it was demonstrated that researchers have found immense variability in the contents of the vaccine vials (e.g., varying quantities of the vaccine product and numerous contaminants being present). All of this is consistent with an attempt to rush the production of a large amount of vaccine product without the ability to scale it into production.

Note: immediately prior to the vaccines hitting the market, members of the skeleton crew of FDA personnel responsible for inspecting their sites of production came forward to testify that there were serious quality control issues at the plants responsible for making our vaccines. They stated the FDA would almost never do anything to address the concerning issues they found and that the inspectors believed these issues would significantly worsen when those same plants were used during Operation Warp Speed (as it required cutting additional corners so regulatory oversight was removed to expedite the COVID-19 production process). Similarly, outside parties have made a very strong case the COVID-19 vaccines are not GMP compliant and by the previously existing standards in the pharmaceutical industry, they should have been pulled long ago. Finally, earlier in the campaign attention was brought to the fact Japan identified Moderna vaccines that were contaminated with metals.

In regards to the second point, within the leaked European Medicines Agency (EMA) documents, the European drug regulators’ primary concern with Pfizer’s product was that the mRNA in their final product was not intact, and therefore, for a variety of reasons not suitable to inject into the general public (e.g., what would partial mRNA fragments do within the body—as an example its plausible that they could create autoimmunity due to the spike proteins many overlaps with human tissue). From the EMA leak, we know that at this stage, the clinical batch had around 75% in RNA integrity, and the production batches were around 55% (this is really bad).

For some reason, Pfizer was ultimately given a pass on this, which was one of the major red flags to independent reviewers who later saw these documents, because under normal circumstances, this should have prevented any type of approval by the European Union.

In regards to the third point, this has almost certainly been an issue, and has created the hypothesis that the most severe vaccine injuries are occurring in the vials which have not had the opportunity for their mRNA to degrade. For example, there is evidence supporting this contention that shows adverse event reporting becomes rarer the further from its production site a vaccine is administered.

One of the things I have discovered from studying the vaccine issue for years is that most physicians cannot appreciate exactly what vaccine manufacturing entails, or how messy and variable it must inevitably be. Despite this, the way the mRNA vaccines were produced is in a class completely by itself. It is my hope that when this entire scandal comes to light, it will be one of the areas where are the medical field is best able to comprehend the fraud that has occurred, as it is relatively straightforward and devoid of complex interpersonal human dynamics (which are much harder for doctors to rationally understand than a straightforward bioengineering process).

The overall goal of the mRNA vaccines is to produce a precise sequence of spike protein within the human body for a brief period of time, which is sufficient to elicit the necessary antibody response. On the quantity end, as I attempted to highlight in the previous article, at the time these vaccines were developed, I did not believe it was yet technologically feasible to ensure vaccine the spike proteins were present for the appropriate amount of time that was needed.

To address this issue, the manufacturers’ attempted to prevent the body’s degradation of the foreign mRNA by pseudouriating it. This appeared to have been an all or nothing type approach rather than something that was calibrated to ensuring the appropriate longevity of the vaccine mRNA (which would have been much more difficult to develop). For this reason, there are likely many individuals who have mRNA in their body which is producing spike proteins for far longer than is appropriate or safe and now there is now some data suggesting as such.

On the quality end, we also suspected, for the reasons described in the previous section, that it was very likely that the final spike protein would be different from the spike protein that Pfizer or Moderna intended. For example pseudouridation and codon optomizating, modifications done to increase protein yields of the vaccine, also carry the risk they will negatively affect the fidelity (continued accuracy) of the mRNA and in turn the proteins they eventually created.

The regulators thus had the grounds to question what protein(s) are actually ultimately being produced by the mRNA. Doing this requires demonstrating what the final product is, which was accomplished my transfecting cells in a culture and then using a western blot to identify what was produced. This is why the accuracy of the western blots is so important.

We were thus, extremely happy to get our hands on the raw data Pfizer provided to certify the purity of their final intended product. From looking at it, we concluded:

•The advertised protein is not being produced.

•Pfizer likely deliberately doctored their western blots to imply that it was.

• Pfizer was so rushed to get their submission together (it was an impossible timeline) it appears that they even went so far as to cut corners on fabricating the western blots.

Quite a few people we have spoken with have reached the same conclusion we did, and yesterday Jikkyleaks recently published an exposé confirming our assessment. For all these reasons, I suspect that these accusations are valid. If any of you can see a justifiable reason to refute these conclusions, we would greatly appreciate receiving it. We will now present the evidence.

Our primary sources are this FDA document (obtained here)

And the EMA document (obtained here which came from this Tweet)

Ema Type Ii Group Of Variations Assessment Report

12.1MB ∙ PDF File

Download

Download

A textbook-nice western blot looks like this (note the curves at the bottom which always result from the process):

If we look at the Blots on pages 66 and 107 of the FDA submission, they look like this:

Those are awfully straight. Let’s zoom in on them:

Although that should be sufficient to remove any doubts of fraud, we decided to go a step further. Since we suspected that the illustrator was probably just going for the fastest way to make these, and may have done so by simply duplicating elements that were common across panels, we extracted the size ladders and put them side-by-side:

Although we were relatively certain by this point that this “blot” was a quick computer job, we went a step further and plotted their darkness against distance. This is what their profiles looked like when stacked together:

The following (almost certainly) synthetic (fake) characteristics can be observed:
A perfect alignment of 5 ladders, all peaks fall off symmetrically, they are in a Gaussian distribution, with (except for one) identical ratios of intensities.

We spent the last week asking everyone we could about this. To our knowledge, the only possible way blots this straight could form was if they were made on a computer. The fact that no one at the FDA spotted this either means that they did not read Pfizer’s submission (which is likely as they had an almost impossible amount to go through in a very short time and signed off without looking at it) or that they were simply not willing to challenge any aspect of Pfizer’s approval process and the submission was a formality to present the veneer of it being scientific.

Let’s now look at the EMA document (within which you should take note of the redactions such as Table 3.2.x. of the batch quality assurance results…)

If you zoom in on it, it appears to be the same synthetic illustration technique being used, although it must be noted that the EMA document is a printed copy that was then scanned, so that needs to be accounted for when the image is zoomed in on as you will see the printers pixels instead of the digital ones. Compare this to the next figure from that same document:

In case there was any doubt whatsoever beforehand, this shows Pfizer they clearly knew how to make the blots.

The fact that different suspect blots could be found in separate Pfizer submissions (the FDA vs. and EMA one) which occurred for away from each other should indicate the scope of the issue here.

For some additional context, the blot below was made by independent researchers evaluating the final protein products of Moderna (although not identical, both Pfizer and Moderna used the same amino acid sequence for their final spike protein). Note how much more irregular it is than Pfizer’s results. This difference from the perfect blots obtained for Pfizer by Pfizer’s researchers suggest the lack of irregularity (which is almost inevitable) observed in the final western blot was a result of Pfizer misrepresenting their results and providing the false impression they had no irregularities.

This is a plot-profile of those same independent results (particularly note the overlapping peaks):

Let’s now compare the two (we tried to highlight the sections that appear to have been copy-pasted):

For those wishing to do a more detail forsenic investigation of these blots, the best “independent” paper we’ve come across showing Western Blots of Pfizer’s final product can be found within this study. The point to keep in mind when looking at all of Pfizer’s blots (both within that article and with those presented in this article) is that the western blots do not match each other.

Additionally, when reviewing this study, it should be noted that the authors of that study had much better quality control for ensuring the correct synthesis of the protein within their laboratory conditions, whereas real life production conditions would not be possible to subject to this same level of quality control on each batch and thus would have produced a different final product.

I think the points made here are pretty straightforward. Please let me know if you see any errors or mistakes in this analysis. If not, please share this as far as you can. The only competing hypothesis we have at this point from any of the people we have contacted is that these blots were made in software designed for simulating western blots to optimize lab conditions, but that would still not invalidate that they were fraudulent.

Lastly, Jikkyleaks has also drawn attention to the other key sign proteins that should not be but are, in fact, present. Although this data does not prove fraud (as these results were likely not faked) they do prove that there is a major problem with the final product (the humps represent protein that should not be in the final product but is) which no one has addressed:

Once this is ironed out, I will make a shorter version of this article on just the blots as I believe this is a critically important message to get out. In the final part of this series I will discuss the immense amount we can learn from the wide variations in physiologic responses to the spike protein vaccines.

Additionally, today Sasha Latypova wrote more on this subject as well and highlights some of the regulatory implications for all of this.

Fake Western Blots Submitted by Pfizer to Several Regulatory Agencies.

Jikkyleaks tweeted…

Read more

15 hours ago · 138 likes · 54 comments · Sasha Latypova

Finally, one reader did what I had hoped and pointed out an issue none of us were aware of which may refute my allegation (I am honestly not sure if it does as there are too many other “irregularities” with the blots as well). Please see the pinned comment and my response. Arkmedic likewise had some additional important points to share:

This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share





Source link

By GIL