I love your approach and attitude. Thanks for your excellent work and communicating this information in a way that everyone that wants to can receive it.
In this article, the table is important, but there are two paragraphs worth noting:
"The scientists, Dr. Gerald Dyker, Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Ruhr University Bochum, and Dr. Jörg Matysik, Professor of Analytical Chemistry at the University of Leipzig, are part of a group of five German-speaking scientists who have been publicly raising questions about the quality and safety of the BioNTech vaccine (as it is known in Germany) for the last year and a half."
and
"Finally, we have the ‘yellow batches’ clustered around the yellow line, which, as can be seen above, barely gets off the x-axis. On Dyker’s calculation, the yellow batches represent around 30% of the total. Dyker notes that they include batches comprising some 200,000 administered doses which are associated with literally zero suspected adverse events.
As Dyker puts it, “malicious” observers might note that “this is how placebos would look”."
It was a "slovenian anti-vaxxer - malicious observer" who stupidly palmed herself off as a head nurse, so it was debunked primarily on the basis that she misrepresented herself, but also that it couldn't cause cancer. Here is a short clip from the video talking about the different batches..
Maybe Dyker took note, because she put the long video up in July 2021.
But this malicious observer noted that the Pfizer vaccine came in three lots.. Number 1 was placebo, which was 30% of the total shots, number two was mRNA and number three was mRNA plus oncogene (which she described as adenovirus, so she got that wrong as well) . She also said that politicians were getting number 1 vials, and in the longer version of this video, she said that the three different jabs applied to the whole of europe, and they were using the recipients of the 30% saline injections as the basis for a placebo controlled study.
From her point of view, it would have been better had she told the whole truth, particularly about who she was, however, it would seem that whoever her sources were, who she refused to reveal..., just might have been on to something.....
You have the most fascinating articles - that leave me totally blank as a non-scientist. I do know your posts are geared to the scientists but I would love a short layman "conclusion" posted on these. This one sounds interesting/intriguing ...but what's the general conclusion for us regular folk?
Wow. Excellent! Thanks very much for reporting this. I agree 100% about "peer review" - reproduction is way more important and informative. The truth wins. Peace.
From my experience, many journals are not eager to publish papers reproducing/debunking/correcting previous research. They say they "lack novelty" and therefore are not worthy being placed in high-IF journals. So, many topics are often touched only once and teams then try something else to publish their results. And keep their jobs.
Can it be reproduced — exactly. Have it be done by a couple students, then make them go through the dreaded consistency checks to find all their mistakes. Or multiple teams with competing methodology. Peer review is mainly cya for editors.
Non Template Control - water.
This is a measure of what happens to your PCR reaction when there is nothing present.
It’s a negative control.
Do you by chance have links to the lab work of those that reproduced or in the case of Willem Engel produce similar or confirming results? Thanks
Hope you and Dr. Goddek are enjoying your time together. Wonderful to see this collaboration.
I love your approach and attitude. Thanks for your excellent work and communicating this information in a way that everyone that wants to can receive it.
Anandamide, the more the merrier. On a seemingly unrelated note, I'm sure you have seen the Schmelling study from Denmark.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36997290/
And the discussion about it here: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/28/pfizer-vaccine-batches-in-the-eu-were-placebos-say-scientists/
In this article, the table is important, but there are two paragraphs worth noting:
"The scientists, Dr. Gerald Dyker, Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Ruhr University Bochum, and Dr. Jörg Matysik, Professor of Analytical Chemistry at the University of Leipzig, are part of a group of five German-speaking scientists who have been publicly raising questions about the quality and safety of the BioNTech vaccine (as it is known in Germany) for the last year and a half."
and
"Finally, we have the ‘yellow batches’ clustered around the yellow line, which, as can be seen above, barely gets off the x-axis. On Dyker’s calculation, the yellow batches represent around 30% of the total. Dyker notes that they include batches comprising some 200,000 administered doses which are associated with literally zero suspected adverse events.
As Dyker puts it, “malicious” observers might note that “this is how placebos would look”."
It was a "slovenian anti-vaxxer - malicious observer" who stupidly palmed herself off as a head nurse, so it was debunked primarily on the basis that she misrepresented herself, but also that it couldn't cause cancer. Here is a short clip from the video talking about the different batches..
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jUSY1higKF5O/
Maybe Dyker took note, because she put the long video up in July 2021.
But this malicious observer noted that the Pfizer vaccine came in three lots.. Number 1 was placebo, which was 30% of the total shots, number two was mRNA and number three was mRNA plus oncogene (which she described as adenovirus, so she got that wrong as well) . She also said that politicians were getting number 1 vials, and in the longer version of this video, she said that the three different jabs applied to the whole of europe, and they were using the recipients of the 30% saline injections as the basis for a placebo controlled study.
From her point of view, it would have been better had she told the whole truth, particularly about who she was, however, it would seem that whoever her sources were, who she refused to reveal..., just might have been on to something.....
https://www.poynter.org/?ifcn_misinformation=the-chief-nurse-of-the-university-of-ljubljana-medical-center-uncovered-that-politicians-and-other-high-ranking-officials-in-slovenia-are-being-vaccinated-with-saline-instead-of-the-mrna-vaccine-the
Well done Kevin and Team. Since you have the Ct values have you calculated the copy number and the absolute mass of the ds vector DNA? Just curious.
You have the most fascinating articles - that leave me totally blank as a non-scientist. I do know your posts are geared to the scientists but I would love a short layman "conclusion" posted on these. This one sounds interesting/intriguing ...but what's the general conclusion for us regular folk?
Wow. Excellent! Thanks very much for reporting this. I agree 100% about "peer review" - reproduction is way more important and informative. The truth wins. Peace.
What is an NTC, please?
Awesome work.
From my experience, many journals are not eager to publish papers reproducing/debunking/correcting previous research. They say they "lack novelty" and therefore are not worthy being placed in high-IF journals. So, many topics are often touched only once and teams then try something else to publish their results. And keep their jobs.
Can it be reproduced — exactly. Have it be done by a couple students, then make them go through the dreaded consistency checks to find all their mistakes. Or multiple teams with competing methodology. Peer review is mainly cya for editors.