I blocked a commenter on their thread as they have been abusive and redundant.

They voiced 2 complaints.

Unless the vials are straight from Pfizer the whole study has custodial bias.

True. But straight from Pfizer has its own bias in that can cherry pick what they share.

We need to know what is in the field and Pfizer hasn’t been very religious on storage conditions for these new products. They changed the cold chain. The vials were sealed and showed no evidence of being tampered with.

The only question is age and RNA degradation.

The evidence against degradation is that the RNA integrity isn’t much worse than what Pfizer describes in public documents.

If the vials we degraded, we see worse RNA integrity than the TGA documents and we don’t see that.

2)second comment was attempting to be a spicey gotcha. The EMA doc above has a date of Nov. 2020. They claim this means Pfizer fixed everything after this.

What they fail to appreciate is the section that demonstrates Pfizer already had low RNA integrity lots in the trial and they make note of having to delete that data from the trial.

We also know the manufacturing for the trial was in flux between synthesized DNA and the migration to plasmids in ecoli.

So low quality shots made it into people and those results were omitted from the trial and the detractors of this work don’t care.

Expand full comment
Apr 30Liked by Anandamide

Well, that's embarrassing but not surprising. There was no way they could get these 'vaccines' out in a short time frame using proper manufacturing and distribution practices. I'm no biochemist, but I know enough about various disciplines of engineering to scoff at the claims of high quality manufacturing.

"The Next Gen Sequencing data exist but is largely hidden and only summarized."

Now that is bad news. Why didn't regulators ask for the results of modern sequencing? I've actually worked a little bit with reads from various machines, but as a software engineer building cloud computing infrastructure. Those files are large but I assume that there are a bunch of common tools that can be used to analyze them efficiently. You have to wonder about the regulators as well, since they allowed this.

Expand full comment
Apr 30·edited May 1Liked by Anandamide

Anandamide, what you are experiencing is nothing unusual. You talk about the "three lettered cathedrals".

Well, I'm an old enough dinosaur to have been long time personal friends with Dr J Anthony Morris, and known Bernice Eddy. Those names might not mean much to you, but both were employees of the then three lettered cathedrals called DBS, which was later transformed into the FDA. Which was merely a matter of changing from spots to stripes and leaving the same criminals in charge. The DBS then the FDA, sequestered both into fenced in corners because their work showed the opposite of what the relevant heads were spouting at the time. We are talking about a time period from 1960 right through to 1976. Both Tony and Bernice were determined to fight the system. There were other scientists employed at the time, also finding contrarian science, but none of them chose to fight. Tony told me their names though... most of those took severance and went and lived a real life, but Tony chose to stay and fight.

He could at least sleep at night, knowing that his work was correct and he told the truth.

In 2010, some doctors decided to indulge in something similar to what you are facing now. Being personal friends of Dr Morris, I decided to weigh in, with the result that the interchanges not only became a blog but were all sent to Dr Morris and his lawyer.

Not that that meant anything to the Priestly Pillocks, who came from the research school of Ignorami.

You might find the blog somewhat amusing, and to know that you have entered the Hall of (in) fame (y) of the really truthful scientists, the likes of which your critics wouldn't have had the brains to emulate:


Expand full comment
Apr 30Liked by Anandamide

Nicely done. I am directing all of my self accolading “scientific” friends a link to this post.

Expand full comment

In Max Schmeling's data from Denmark, the largest "tell" is the big clear space between the blue and green dots. Does this pattern look random uncontrolled? Or does it look like a specific experimental design?

Expand full comment
Apr 30Liked by Anandamide

Dear Kevin, you mention a “T7→Kozak region” - because I looked at other documents and never found which RNA polymerase is used. Is it T7? Which makes me really wonder why there are elements of SV40. Or is the plasmid truly ‘dual usage’ for in vitro and in mammalian cell use? Or was it a case of being sloppy to have such a plasmid?

Expand full comment
May 1Liked by Anandamide

The double standards in this whole debacle are astounding. When did the onus change to the people having to prove its unsafe as opposed to Pharma proving it’s safe? This is way above my knowledge base but thanks for allowing me to get the gist of the deception 🙏

Expand full comment

GMP seems to be rather like GLP - Good Laboratory Practices - for which the Chief Scientist from Australia's food regulatory authority was happy to stand up and praise as regulatory Gold Standard. Yet, Monsanto made its own statements on whether they complied with GLP, inside the front cover of their application documents, where they acknowledged they didn't follow GLP, GLP which is at least 10 years out of date of state of the art science.

But your compilation above is bald and shocking.

I don't think that batch graph is about GMP - that looks more like intentional batch variation to me. Yellow for the media and politicians, green for the masses, and a few bits of blue here and there to try something out.

Expand full comment

Quality piece of writing and work. I wonder how many of those questions/objections raised by the EMA have been answered or satisfactorily addressed by the Manufacturer as of May 2023?

Expand full comment

Well now we know my Marion Gruber and Phillip Krause resigned from the FDA.

Expand full comment

Can someone explain to this novice how "Blotgate is vindicated"?

Expand full comment

As a complete lay person with only limited knowledge of blotgate (I was aware it was being discussed but found it largely impenetrable), I obviously struggled with this. But understood enough to know it's significantly damning. How can this analysis be used to be damning beyond Twitter & substack? I'd like to share it (amongst similarly 'lay' folk) so could anyone provide a precis I could use? (I fear anything I could come up with wouldn't do it justice or I'd just literally say something stupid). Thankyou 🙏🏼

Expand full comment