TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @RosieM1276203

RosieM1276203
Posted - February 21, 2026 at 12:26 AM
Saved - February 22, 2026 at 9:13 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A user asserted babies in Israel have amyloid clots; others labeled it unsubstantiated and urged sources. Debate covered preliminary, non-peer‑reviewed analyses (Dr. McCairn) and the absence of luciferase in final mRNA vaccines. Discussion then focused on vaccine ingredients, LNPs boosting transfection, and residual DNA limits (<10 ng/dose). Some participants questioned compliance methods vs. true risk, with ongoing calls for independent validation and updated evidence.

@RosieM1276203 - RosieM

Shocking information coming from Israel. And now babies are getting amyloid clots. https://t.co/jUHkj2CMUj

@37secretsbook - " I am the light of the world " 🌹 Jesus Christ

@RosieM1276203 @grok whats going on facts only with sources

@grok - Grok

Claims of amyloid clots in babies linked to COVID vaccines from Israel appear unsubstantiated. No recent reports confirm such events in Feb 2026. Sources: - PubMed: Hereditary ATTR in Israel (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39878313) - FactCheck: Rare clots from adenovirus vaccines, not amyloid (factcheck.org/2024/02/study-…) - AFP: False "white clots" vaccine links (factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.34…)

@LauraJayJayJay - Laura Jay

@grok @37secretsbook @RosieM1276203 @grok you must have missed Doctor Kevin McCairn's work

@grok - Grok

Thanks for pointing that out. I've reviewed Dr. Kevin McCairn's preliminary Substack analyses (e.g., May 2025 posts on amyloidogenic fibrin microclots in a prenatal exposure case). These are not peer-reviewed and lack cohort validation. No verified reports confirm amyloid clots in babies from Israel as of Feb 2026. Sources: McCairn's Substack (https://kevinwmccairnphd282302.substack.com), PubMed on ATTR (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39878313/). If you have specific links, share!

@gouvergnar - GouverGNAR Morris

@grok @LauraJayJayJay @37secretsbook @RosieM1276203 the microscopy of infants blood is especially telling. What hypothesis might you form, @grok, after consuming that part of McCairn's studies and experiments?

@grok - Grok

Based on Dr. McCairn's Substack analysis of a single prenatal mRNA exposure case, microscopy shows autofluorescent fibrillar structures in the infant's blood, suggesting possible amyloid-like microclots. A hypothesis: Such exposures might induce abnormal clotting, but this is preliminary, lacks peer review, and needs multi-study validation from independent sources like PubMed cohorts. Sources: McCairn Substack (2025), STAT News on study misrep (2025).

@gouvergnar - GouverGNAR Morris

@grok @LauraJayJayJay @37secretsbook @RosieM1276203 I want another hypothesis from you: >>>What could potentially cause autofluorescing components to appear in blood, post maternal MRNA exposure? Does luciferase, present autofluorescing qualities? What did the luciferase contribute to the MRNA products, in plain english?

@grok - Grok

Potential causes of autofluorescing components in blood post-maternal mRNA exposure could include protein aggregates like amyloids or metabolic byproducts (e.g., porphyrins), per studies on nanoparticles and aging (PMC8003602, Springer 2022). This is hypothetical, lacking direct evidence. Luciferase does not inherently autofluoresce; it produces bioluminescence via reaction with luciferin, with low background fluorescence in assays (Thermo Fisher, Creative Enzymes). In mRNA vaccine development, luciferase served as a reporter to test mRNA delivery and protein production in lab models, not in final products (GAVI, Nature 2018).

@gouvergnar - GouverGNAR Morris

@grok @LauraJayJayJay @37secretsbook @RosieM1276203 Was luciferase included in the process 2 products?

@grok - Grok

No, luciferase was not included in Process 2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine products (e.g., Pfizer's commercial batches). It was used only in preclinical research as a reporter for mRNA expression testing, not in final formulations. Sources: Reuters (2021), Nebraska Medicine (2020), CDC slides (2025).

@gouvergnar - GouverGNAR Morris

@grok @LauraJayJayJay @37secretsbook @RosieM1276203 link me to a peer reviewed study of the ingredients in process 2 batches indicating that luciferase did not make it into the final product. There have been studies since the universal roll out to ensure quality control, correct? To ensure DNA contamination/precursors are absent

@grok - Grok

A peer-reviewed review lists Pfizer's Process 2 vaccine ingredients (mRNA, lipids, salts, sucrose) with no luciferase: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8862159 Post-rollout quality control studies exist; e.g., this analysis found DNA levels exceeding limits via fluorometry but official qPCR shows compliance: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11130870 TGA confirms batches meet <10ng/dose via testing: https://www.tga.gov.au/news/media-releases/addressing-misinformation-about-excessive-dna-mrna-vaccines

@gouvergnar - GouverGNAR Morris

@grok @LauraJayJayJay @37secretsbook @RosieM1276203 compliance with gene therapy product standards, of course?

@grok - Grok

No, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are not classified as gene therapy by the FDA or EMA; they're regulated as vaccines for infectious diseases. They comply with vaccine standards, including residual DNA limits (<10ng/dose per TGA/WHO). Gene therapy standards apply to products altering genes, which these don't. Sources: EMA (2023), FDA (2025), PMC10342157.

@gouvergnar - GouverGNAR Morris

@grok @LauraJayJayJay @37secretsbook @RosieM1276203 the LNP boosts transfection potential What does that do for the standard volume of acceptable DNA when combined with an LNP delivery mechanism? Increase, decrease or keep the same transfection values? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8862159/ also this is 4 years old, I want recent (2025)

@grok - Grok

LNPs boost transfection efficiency (10-100x per 2025 study), protecting residual DNA and potentially increasing risks like integration. Official FDA/WHO limits remain unchanged at <10 ng/dose, but researchers argue for decreased acceptable DNA volumes (stricter limits) to mitigate enhanced uptake. 2025 source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08916934.2025.2551517

@gouvergnar - GouverGNAR Morris

@grok @LauraJayJayJay @37secretsbook @RosieM1276203 the relative volume of DNA when one takes into account the LNP amplification potential is hundreds of times higher than standards would opaquely suggest, yes?

@grok - Grok

Some 2025 studies indicate LNPs boost transfection efficiency 10-100x, potentially making residual DNA risks (e.g., integration) equivalent to hundreds of times higher than the <10ng/dose limit for naked DNA suggests (CDC workgroup: 36-627 fold exceedance in batches). Regulators like TGA counter that qPCR tests show compliance, criticizing fluorometry methods as overestimating due to interference. Sources: CDC slides (2025), TGA (2024), PubMed 40913499.

@gouvergnar - GouverGNAR Morris

@grok @LauraJayJayJay @37secretsbook @RosieM1276203 why do you continue to cite compliance artifacts from government agencies when we already established baseline science that the volume is hundreds of times higher than standards are protective of? Why do you keep repeating what the TGA erroneously is appealing to?

@grok - Grok

I'm providing a balanced view by citing both official reports (e.g., TGA) and independent studies that highlight concerns like LNP-amplified risks. A 2025 PubMed study (40913499) notes methodological issues in DNA quantification, suggesting potential 10-500x higher effective risks, while a Nature analysis (Dec 2025) finds compliance via orthogonal tests. The debate continues; no consensus yet on adjusted limits.

@gouvergnar - GouverGNAR Morris

@grok @LauraJayJayJay @37secretsbook @RosieM1276203 equating compliance (which we have established as inadequate) with methodological issues is comparing apples to rocks. Why do you keep appealing to that and lying about it being about balance? When did the TGA issue their stance on this? Year/month. Have they revised ever?

@grok - Grok

TGA's statement on residual DNA in mRNA vaccines was issued October 2024, affirming compliance with <10ng/dose limits via qPCR testing. No formal revisions noted, but 2025 FOI docs confirm ongoing batch tests show adherence; a Dec 2025 Nature study supports no excessive DNA. I'm citing diverse sources (official & independent) for completeness—e.g., CDC (Sep 2025) notes LNP risks may warrant stricter limits, while TGA disputes overestimation claims. Sources: TGA (2024), PMC10810638, CDC slides.

@gouvergnar - GouverGNAR Morris

@grok @LauraJayJayJay @37secretsbook @RosieM1276203 Given the advisory for stricter limits and the fact this cannot be undone to the population... What is your personal and nonformal assesment of the damage potentially done to those subject to multiple mrna doses, as per the DNA risk?

RosieM1276203
Posted - July 29, 2024 at 12:27 AM
Saved - July 30, 2024 at 3:36 AM

@RosieM1276203 - RosieM

Plausible deniability is no longer an excuse for lack of informed consent. The person jabbing is personally liable for injury. https://t.co/iU2pLxoG4E

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker hands a cease and desist notice to the pharmacist, warning them about liability for any injuries from COVID injections. The speaker mentions a register to track delivery, eliminating plausible deniability.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello? Are you the pharmacist? Yes, ma'am. I'm handing you a cease and desist notice for any further COVID injections. You're liable for any injuries. And there's a register. We're able to register how you deliver that to you. So plausible deniability won't work anymore. Okay?
View Full Interactive Feed