Bill Gates-Funded Scientists Found NO mRNA in Breast Milk a Year Ago

They Tried Hard NOT to Find Anything!

My recent post about scientists finding mRNA nanoparticles containing Covid vaccine genetic code, in the breast milk of vaccinated mothers, and mentioning an infant documented to have died thereof, got quite a bit of traction online.

JAMA: mRNA Vaccine Shedding in Breast Milk Proven!

Today, I want to look at a study from a year ago that purported to NOT find mRNA nanoparticles in breast milk. We will see why exactly the team having Bill Gates and CDC-sponsored researchers, could not find what the independent scientists could find a year later!

I decided to compare the two studies (one that found mRNA in breast milk and the other that did not) very closely and compare their methodologies using the “Modern Discontent” method.

Modern Discontent has a great post about his method, but he mostly is saying “pay close attention and understand the whole f… thing”, which is basically what I usually do with something interesting and important anyway. He posted his method three days ago, and I had my substack for a while longer. So, I intuitively used many of his approaches, but he laid them out very systematically and clearly. His article is extremely useful for all people writing about biomedical science, so take a look:

How I Tackle Reading Papers

At first sight, both studies, which I will call the 2022 shedding study (which I discussed two days ago) and the 2021 no-shedding study, superficially appear to be similarly designed. They took several lactating women and tested their milk. One study found shedding, while the other did not. Upon a closer look, the differences between these studies turned out to be extremely important!

Here’s a summary of their differences:

You can see that the study that found mRNA lipid nanoparticle shedding, was done more thoroughly. The shedding study had:

• More participants (11 vs 7)

• More milk samples were taken (131 vs 13!)

• Samples better preserved (frozen immediately)

• Samples were taken at varied moments post-vaccination including within mere hours, and also days

• Looked at very important Extracellular Vesicles

As a result of being more thorough and covering more cases, the shedding study found actual shedding! Surprise!

What if the women in the shedding study, getting the same vaccines, were analyzed using the poorer methodology of the no-shedding study?

I took the chart from the shedding study showing five women with milk samples positive for mRNA nanoparticles. I crossed out samples that WOULD NOT BE DETECTED, if the no-shedding study methodology was applied to the samples of the shedding study:

You can see that if the researchers in the shedding study used the crippled methodology of the no-shedding study, they would detect only two positive samples, instead of seven.

The methodology of the no-shedding study would miss all extracellular vesicle (EV) samples because they did not look at EVs. That is shown in the column on the right that is entirely crossed out.

The no-shedding study would also miss the 1 hour and three-hour samples because they did not take those samples (save for just ONE woman who happened not to be positive).

As a result, had the less thorough no-shedding study methodology been applied to the shedding study, only 2 positive samples, instead of 7, would be detected!

Since the actual no-shedding study collected only 13 samples and not 131 samples and used deficient methodology, no wonder they missed all positive instances!

It is as if the no-shedding study was intentionally designed not to find anything. Hmmm…

Fishing Analogy

Let me give an analogy that many will understand — fishing using fishing nets.

Let’s say that a good fisherman (the shedding study) was asked to do his best job fishing to see if a particular lake has fish (mRNA nanoparticles). A bad fisherman, on the contrary, would be asked to design his fishing expedition to not catch any fish, so as to falsely prove that the lake has no fish. What would they do? This infographic shows the difference:

What’s up with Bill Gates and the CDC?

By pure coincidence, the study that did not find mRNA nanoparticles in breast milk (the no-shedding study), had key scientists sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They also received money from the CDC. You can see that Prof. Gaw and Dr. Flaherman were key participants, making the most important decisions and analyses!

Did these sponsorships influence the authors’ approach to designing the experiment? We cannot know this. We can only wonder.

Why would a fisherman try to NOT catch fish?