Fake Western Blots Submitted by Pfizer to Several Regulatory Agencies.

Props in a theatrical performance do not have to be real. Top EMA officials were clearly in on the scam, so were the FDA and TGA.

Jikkyleaks tweeted:

Jikkyleaks 🐭 @Jikkyleaks

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

This is about Pfizer’s Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) documentation submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia. I read the tweet with great interest. The part about “fragments” relates to the now well known, documented and never resolved issue of broken RNA pieces floating in the vats (batches) of Pfizer and Moderna and other defense contractors’ toxic concoctions of “medical countermeasures”. RNA is fragile and breaks easily especially when exposed to water, and while modifications have been made to make it more stable, mRNA still breaks into pieces of unpredictable length, some smaller some larger. For example, the EMA reviewers freaked out about this issue (rightly!), called it a genetic impurity (correctly!), and brought it up as a Major Objection (formal regulatory red flag) at the end of 2020, immediately before the deployment of these biological agents on the global population. If you are looking for proof these fake miracle potions are non-cGMP, look no further. Besides, there were an additional 100+ regulatory objections, including lack of cGMP status overall for the manufacturers (Major Objection #1). Here is a slide from the EMA-BioNTech meeting on November 26, 2020. This objection has never been resolved:

Note that with increased batch volume during scale up of manufacturing, this issue becomes even more pronounced, the variability between parts of the volume where some random broken RNA pieces are floating around and other parts becomes even larger.

What Jikky refers to as 3000nt and 2000nt (nucleotides) are the lengths of the broken RNAs. The specified sequence in Pfizer’s “countermeasure” that supposedly “codes for spike protein” is 4284nt.

I have one example of directly measured RNA lengths from vials of Pfizer by an independent scientist, and anything from 20-200nt to 3000+nt was observed, but not a single strand matching Pfizer’s exact length was found. Just like a dirty bomb - who cares how long the pieces of the flying shrapnel payload as long as they are delivered to the target, right?

The “humps” Jikky refers to are the signature of these different pieces, albeit only longer ones were assessed. The regulators completely disregarded the short ones, however, short RNAs, while they technically do not “code” for anything are nonetheless a designated class of biological weapons that can interfere with the native cellular processes and cause things like cancer. But let’s not split hairs.

The second part of Jikky’s post is even more interesting: Pfizer apparently pfaked images of the tests! The tests in question are the so-called Western blots. Western blotting is a laboratory technique used to detect a specific protein in a blood or tissue sample. The method involves using gel electrophoresis to separate the sample's proteins. The separated proteins are transferred out of the gel to the surface of a membrane. The membrane is exposed to an antibody specific to the target protein. Note that since the antibody is specific to the target, absence of a “hit” means target is not in the sample but DOES NOT exclude other proteins being expressed. “Don’t ask don’t tell”. “Don’t look don’t find”.

Binding of the antibody is detected using a radioactive or chemical tag. Because the antibody is labeled with a molecule that can be visualized, this shows whether the protein of interest is expressed in the sample and provides an idea of how abundant it is, and what size it is.

Pfizer was asked by the regulators to characterize the proteins that are being expressed by their injection. This is not only a reasonable request, it is a regulatory must-have. The manufacturer is obligated to fully elucidate the claimed mechanism of action of their product. In fact, as Phillip Altman, a highly experienced regulatory consultant from Australia points out, since Pfizer’s (and Moderna’s) products do not deliver the therapeutic/prophylactic substance directly, and make your own body produce it - these “countermeasures” are in regulatory terms “pro-drugs”. This puts an even more stringent requirement for demonstrating conclusively that the pro-drug is making the correct drug upon injection.

“Correct” means that everything declared by the manufacturer matches products of the experimental testing, every time, under a range of conditions, from every batch or vial or dose, and in everybody subjected to this. In case of the protein, the first thing would be to visualize and size them (Western blotting), but to fully understand what proteins are there, the sequences must be also analyzed.

Pfizer never provided full characterization of the protein(s) expressed by the shots. This requirement was added to the list of conditions of the Conditional Market Approval in Europe by EMA, and simply shrugged off by the FDA in the US as a “theoretical concern”. The CMA condition was never fulfilled, and the requirement was ultimately abandoned by the EMA in 2022. Maria Gutschi made a great presentation covering this and other issues with Pfizer’s documentation:

Maria Gutschi, PharmD, on Lack of Manufacturing Quality of mRNA Injections

We still don’t know what exact set of proteins is produced by these shots. Pfizer did provide something - the Western blots showing that the 2000-3000nt RNAs were not coding for spike (Fig 7). Where they coding for anything else? Don’t look don’t find.

Figure 8 above is Pfizer’s own test of “degraded” BNT162b2 from a set of experiments that they ran in mice showing how it is very important to have “intact full length mRNA” for their concoction’s “efficacy”. Oh, the irony!

I consulted a friend, a doctor and scientist who had helped me figure our several technical questions in the past, about these images. Here is his response:

In that PDF, there seems to be only one real Western Blot -- Figure 8.
Fig. 7 and all the others must be fakes.

Note how everything in the simulated blot is perfectly regular and
rectangular. In real life, there are always some distortions, brought
about by salt or other stuff contained in different samples, and also
simply by high sample concentration -- the proteins themselves carry
charges and thereby modify the electric field strength in their
vicinity, which in turn affects their migration.

Note how in the real blot the thicker bands tend to broaden out
horizontally and "smile" a bit. In the fake blot, everything stays
nicely in its lane -- even to the point of leaving perfectly white
vertical stripes between lanes. That is clearly not the case in the real
one.

The light spot near the center of Fig. 8 is probably caused by an air
bubble between the gel and the blot membrane onto which the proteins
were transferred before incubation with the antibodies. Lighter and
darker areas generated in this manner are also a common artifact.

I could go on, but IMO there is absolutely no doubt about it whatsoever
-- those things are fake.

There probably is a legitimate use for such fake blots in practical
research -- namely, to help choose the best conditions for an actual
experiment. One such choice contains the concentration of polyacrylamide
in the electrophoresis gel, which influences the size-dependent
migration speed of proteins within the gel; you could simulate different
PAA concentrations and see which ones would give the best separation and
resolution in the size range you are particularly interested in.

However, the program used to generate those fake blots is clearly not
optimized for creating a fully true-to-life impression. I think that the
programmers did it this way deliberately -- they wanted to discourage
people from passing off this stuff as real. The smarter lab supervisors
would certainly see the point of that. But apparently with EMA, anything
goes.

To summarize: the images in Pfizer’s documents submitted to EMA and TGA are fake. Not only they are fake, they are so obviously fake that there is no possibility that the regulatory professionals, experienced PhDs familiar with these lab techniques (and simulation software) would make the mistake of thinking Pfizer’s images were the real deal. It’s like accepting fake Monopoly money when you sell your house. In fake rubles.

I thought that maybe, just maybe these simulated images in the EMA documents were a type of a redaction, since the document contained other redactions as well. I looked into my collection of leaked EMA documents, which were unredacted, from the end of 2020. Lo and behold, in a document titled “COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162, PF-07302048) BB-IND 19736 S.2.2 Description of Mfg Process and Process Controls (modRNA) [BNT Mainz and Rentschler]”, submitted to the FDA, on p.107 (of the pdf file) I found these images:

Fakes.

At least three global regulatory agencies - FDA, EMA and TGA, all accepted fake Western blot images as if they didn’t know any better. Of course the did. They did know. Nobody made a mistake. These documents were “props” in a theatrical performance. Use of EUA-covered medical countermeasure products, once designated as such by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (March 10, 2020, retroactive to February 4, 2020) “shall not be considered to constitute a clinical investigation.” 21 USC 360bbb-3(k). EUA law, adopted 1997 and amended 2003, 2004, 2005, 2013, 2017.   Props do not need to be real.

Art piece for today: portraiture is my favorite genre. I see people as the most beautiful part of creation. Human form is God’s form and God is perfect. Artists spend lifetime studying and trying to understand how it is simultaneously so complex and so simple. What makes it beautiful? Sophia in a Finnish Hat, oil on panel, 18x24 inches.