"SINCE THE INFORMATION DOES NOT PERTAIN TO A PARTICIPANT INVOLVED IN THE STUDY, THE INFORMATION WILL BE KEPT SEPARATE FROM THE STUDY.”
EX 1.) • A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by INHALATION or SKIN CONTACT⁉️
EX 2.) • A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study
intervention by INHALATION or SKIN CONTACT then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.
• Be ABSTINENT from heterosexual INTERCOURSE WITH A FEMALE OF CHILDBEARING POTENTIAL as their preferred and usual lifestyle (ABSTINENT ON A LONG-TERM and PERSISTENT BASIS) and AGREE to REMAIN ABSTINENT.
https://t.co/hRE8wDPqR9
Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers
https://t.co/AdrrmtWp4d
Fact Sheet Recipients and Caregivers
https://t.co/1I4wpKyyLb
Professor (Ret.)Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila
https://t.co/zTJpVcZzmP
https://t.co/6B8Y2PKMrU
LINK🔻
https://t.co/UqiFgM5Yvo
https://t.co/fNwC13MdQO
1. \U0001f6a8 \u27a1\ufe0f But their approach to the second section CONCERNING SIDE EFFECTS WAS IN STARK CONTRAST to that. They DIDN'T CONDUCT ANY CRITICAL SCRUTINY AT ALL, THERE ARE LOTS OF SIDE EFFECTS THAT WERE NOT DISCUSSED AT ALL in public... pic.twitter.com/wUgwe4zQQA
— TXgrlWatching\U0001f4bb\u2694\U0001f6e1 (@VeritasTXgem) March 30, 2021
https://t.co/h2hxh6hQK0
Thread\U0001f9f5
— TXgrlWatching\U0001f4bb\u2694\U0001f6e1 (@VeritasTXgem) April 8, 2021
Dossier by Dr David Martin https://t.co/ZQzLRlpr9Hhttps://t.co/kgrz6kQzyU pic.twitter.com/sSzvAWB5JE
More from TXgrlWatching💻⚔🛡
You May Also Like
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
