Kontrakty Pfizera i Moderny z podmiotami DoD ujawniają, że preparaty mRNA na Covid-19 mają również "zastosowanie militarne", a niektóre serie mogły być użyte świadomie celem powodowania zgonów
Nieprzestrzeganie "Dobrych Praktyk Produkcji" preparatów na COVID, bliższe standardom partie odpowiadają za więcej zgonów, zastanawiające odniesienia do militarnych zastosowań w kontraktach.
Śledztwo dziennikarskie Sashy Lipowej, mającej za sobą 25 lat doświadczenia w przemyśle biotechnologicznym, ujawnia dalsze sensacje związane z preparatami mRNA na COVID.
Dla przykładu partie mające 69% nieuszkodzonych mRNA okazywały się 10x bardziej śmiertelne (0.05%) od tych mających 55% nieuszkodzonych mRNA (0.005%)_. (EMA oczekiwała początkowo 80% nieuszkodzonych mRNA, ale zrezygnowała z tych wymagań))
Zdaniem autorki, kontynuowanie dystrybucji serii Moderny zatrzymanej w Orange County z powodu częstych reakcji anafilaktycznych, w innych rejonach kraju, skutkujące 58 zgonami i 870 ciężkimi powikłaniami, ma znamiona celowej zbrodni.
Niedopuszczalny poziom zanieczyszczeń w nielegalnie przebadanych fiolkach. Np. DNA, którego powinno być ponizej 10 ng było między 1300 a 2600 ng. Jedno z 26 laboratoriów znalazło nawet magnetyczne kuleczki. Ponieważ jednak kontrakty z Pfizerem i Moderną zabraniają badania produktów, uzyskane ekspertyzy są nieoficjalne.
Głównym odpowiedzialnym za produkcję preparatów w USA okazuje sie być DoD Departament Obrony USA a główna produkcja odbywała się u kontraktorów DoD Emergent BioSolutions and Ology Bioservices (RESILIENCE).
więcej w
COVID-19 Vaccines: More Questions Than Answers
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/covid-19-vaccines-more-questions-than-answers-f5d416aa
“Safer When Broken”
Using the term, “safer when broken,” Latypova notes that SAEs declined dramatically from October 2020 to December 2021 for the Pfizer product. Likewise, Moderna’s vaccines had two massive spikes in SAEs for batches from July 2020, and by May 2021, the numbers were much lower. In the case of one lot, Ms. Latypova opines that 870 SAEs and 58 deaths should be considered “intentional.”
This is because as to this lot, Orange County in California “paused” use on January 18, 2021, due to allergic reactions. This pause was widely reported, yet the rest of the lot was used around the US, without any recall or other action, resulting in the above-described SAEs and deaths. Looking at the data from another angle, Latypova found wild variation in deaths per 100,000 vaccinations across US states. For example, California had 1.92 deaths and Utah had 1.7, yet South Dakota had 33 deaths and Kentucky had 24. This put the later states “way beyond” two standard deviations from the average across all states.
Although not part of a peer reviewed analyses, Latypova’ s ongoing research, nonetheless, continues to lead to serious questions that should be further investigated. Assuming veracity in the data, what could explain these vast discrepancies?
What is In the Vaccines?
Next, Pfizer’s declared product labeling states that the vaccine should have 30 nanograms of mRNA per vial, along with describing the other ingredients that should be present.
In independent testing all over the globe, no vials were found that conform to these labels. A recent TrialSite review explains some of these studies, noting why the findings tend to not be uploaded to any preprint server.
Pfizer’s international contracts forbid this independent testing at the vial level. That hasn’t stopped 26 groups around the world from conducted vial level tests. While not considered evidence by the scientific community, these informal study outcomes indicate none conformed to the putative mRNA levels. Again a caveat: these findings as TrialSite reported cannot be considered scientific “evidence” in the strict sense as the output hasn’t been subject to the scrutiny of the peer review process.
These independent researchers claim to have found large structures appearing as crystals, fibers, and squares. See the link for a TrialSite take on some of these informal studies. In one case, the authors claim they found “leftover” magnetic beads which are used in production but are supposed to be removed from the final product.
Perhaps, this could explain the unusual, outlandish claims by individuals that magnets would stick to their skin where they received the vaccines? Also, all of the vials evaluated in these independent endeavors claim to have found DNA, which should not be present. But again, these claims would need to be verified scientifically.
Pfizer documents reveal that while DNA should be below 10 nanograms per dose, the independent, unverified testing efforts discussed herein claim a presence of 1,300 to 2,100 nanograms. If accurate, why would the manufacturing process have gone so bad—seemingly so out of control from a good manufacturing practices perspective? Latypova suggests it is just not feasible scientifically to scale-up the mRNA batch size without producing a “garbage soup” of impurities. In her opinion, the batches with the “correct” amount of RNA produced the most adverse events.
Who’s In Charge?
Turning to the question of who is actually in charge of vaccine production, the vaccine-making process is positioned as a “public-private partnership,” with the government paying private firms to produce vaccines in an “arm’s length” contractual scenario. Yet reviewing government contracts reveal that the Chief Operating Officer for vaccine production appears to be the US Department of Defense (DoD), with the pharma firms not being directly in charge of this process.
This could make sense, given the emergency declarations associated with COVID-19. Latypova, again an expert in “GmP manufacturing and supply chain, suggests that the DoD and Moderna relationship needs further scrutiny---even systematic study (with peer review) of vaccine samples and an assessment of overall product quality processes during the pandemic response.
Latypova argues that it wasn’t feasible to fulfill the vaccine production contracts without established DoD vendors, given constraints of time. She points out that it should be firms like Pfizer contracting with the manufacturers, yet as noted at least in some instances, this appears to have been done between the DoD and the subcontractor. Contracts reviewed also revealed that the vaccine products are designated as having “military application.” This aligns with the concept that the medicinal products are in fact, DoD-driven “countermeasures” developed in response to the invisible enemy—the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen.
Likewise, upon review, the Moderna-DoD contracts convey that the vaccines are being developed for both “civil and military application.” All of the issues raised by Ms. Latypova should be cause for question, if not concern.
TrialSite’s review of Public Citizen’s analysis of COVID-19 contracts with various nations revealed disturbing findings. See “Pfizer’s Power in the COVID-19 Vaccine Space.” What force(s) empowered Pfizer to essentially compel so many nations into in many cases, what read like adhesion contracts?