Vax end game post

[rachel]

It's all the same puppet show, with all the same players.

[Marfer]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58146567

The Times reported that a week after the conference at the Four Seasons Hotel, in Hampshire, in September 2019, the company was given a multi-million-pound contract for genetic sequencing without competition. The contract is with Genomics England, a company wholly owned by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

[rachel]

A press conference at the EU. Four of the five speakers in English.

"In this press conference, Marcel de Graaff (FVD MEP) and Joachim Kuhs (AfD MEP), Willem Engel (pharmacologist) and Vibeke Manniche (doctor) will discuss shocking revelations arising from the letter from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) dated October 18, 2023. This letter came in response to the request dated October 4, 2023 from Marcel de Graaff and Joachim Kuhs to immediately suspend the European marketing authorizations of Covid-19 vaccines."

press conference on the letter from EMA, by Forum for Democracy in the European Parliament



TRANSCRIPT

I would like to introduce you to the people who will be providing this press conference with me today. First of all, I would like to introduce myself. I am Marcel de Graaff, European Parliamentarian for Forum for Democracy. Next to me is Joachim Kuhs, also European Parliamentarian for the AfD. Willem Engel, not only trained in pharmaceutical sciences, but above all also a human rights activist who works very hard for the corona vaccines and the damage that this causes us. He puts everything in the fight to ensure that we remain safe. On my other side I have Vibeke Manniche and Max Schmeling. They are both authors of an article that deals with the differences between the different effects of the batches of corona vaccines. We call it batch dependency. Max is a statistician, Vibeke is a medical doctor who has specialized, among other things, in all these corona vaccines.

I will start, ladies and gentlemen. Last month, I wrote a letter to the EMA with Joachim Kuhs and six other colleagues from the European Parliament. The European agency responsible for the admission of medicines to the European market. We asked for clarification on the many problems surrounding the corona vaccines.These problems are so great that we asked the EMA to withdraw the market admission. This month, we received an answer from the EMA to our letter. And this answer contains shocking facts.

First of all, the EMA explicitly states that it has exclusively allowed the corona vaccines on the market for individual immunizations and absolutely not for the control of infection and absolutely not for preventing or reducing infections. And this is devastating for governments that have gone full circle with the message that you are doing it for someone else. Nothing is right about that. Not only did the EMA not allow the vaccines at all to go against infections, the EMA goes even further. It explains in its answer, and I quote, The EMA's assessment reports on the admission of vaccines emphasize the lack of data on contagiousness. In other words, the vaccines were not intended to prevent infections and there are no data at all that substantiates that the vaccines help against infections.

In fact, the EMA states that the exposure to the virus increases the chance of infections even in those vaccinated. The mass government campaigns to vaccinate yourself, to protect your parents, your neighbors, the weaker in society, were not only unauthorized, but also completely nonsense and not based on facts. But unfortunately it gets even worse. The EMA says that the vaccines are only for the protection of the vaccinated individual. And before the individual, the patient, is vaccinated, all safety information must and I quote the EMA again, be taken into account when administering or recommending a vaccination. So you were only allowed to make a recommendation for a vaccination after a doctor had determined that this was sensible in your case. And because almost no one under the age of 60 had a chance of serious complications due to the coronavirus, no one, but also no one under the age of 60 should be vaccinated after a single exception. So the sports halls full of vaccine prickers were completely in conflict with the use of which the vaccines had been administered by the EMA.

And it gets even worse. To assess the safety of the vaccines, it was essential for the EMA that side effects would be properly registered. And the EMA says about this, we expect many reports of side effects that occur during or shortly after vaccination. And that means that the complaints must be reported especially in the first period immediately following vaccination. The government supported a policy in which these complaints were not reported the first 14 days after vaccination, because the vaccine would need 10 to 14 days to become effective. All complaints in that period were written to the coronavirus, and that is not only fraudulent, but that is deliberately endangering people's lives. And I remind you once again that we are still fighting with a gigantic so-called unexplained excessive mortality. In short, this information from the EMA is destructive to the developed vaccination policy of Rutte and de Jonge.

The government knew that the vaccines would not protect against the spread of the virus, but did not share this information with the citizens. On the contrary, it forced the vaccines to our citizens with lies, obscured the side effects and thus brought the health of everyone who had taken such a vaccine into danger. The vaccination campaigns should be stopped as soon as possible, and it is simply not safe. And it does not meet the requirements set by the EMA. And the government and all political parties that supported this should be held accountable for their lies and fraud.

Thank you. And now I give the floor to Joachim Kuhs.


Thank you, Marcel. Thank you very much, Marcel. I beg your pardon for my bad pronunciation, my bad English, but if I would have known that I could speak in German, then I would have done it. But now I have an English script. Please pardon me. There are so many red flags in this COVID affair that it almost hurts your eyes. There is a big thing at stake for the health of our citizens. Many of them have decided to be repeatedly vaccinated against COVID based on the information they received from their government and doctors. They assumed that they had made a well-informed choice and have an informed consent. But informed consent is only possible when the information spread by the member states and its authorities regarding these vaccines is correct. When misinformation is spread by the governments of our member states, doctors can't give good advice. And people can't make a good choice whether they want to be vaccinated or not.

One of the major considerations for people whether or not to take a vaccine is the possible risks and side effects. IMA mentioned in its letter to us, they expect, I quote, reports of conditions occurring at or soon after vaccination. End quote. This implies that data on adverse events or side effects within 14 days of vaccinations are of the utmost importance to assess the risks related to the vaccines. However, member state officials adopted the policy that as it would take 10 to 14 days for the vaccine to produce spike proteins, adverse events within 14 days after vaccination were not to be registered as related to the vaccination. Statistically, they considered the person who got the vaccine as not vaccinated within those first 14 days. What a nonsense. Government policies and also governmental media campaigns to promote COVID vaccinations are thus leaving out the risks and side effects that might occur in those first 14 days.

Most allergic reactions occur within 20 minutes to two hours after getting into contact with the allergen. Side effects of regular vaccines our children get normally occur within one to two days. But yet somehow they just invented this 14 days story to create this fake feeling of security and reducing the amounts of registered side effects. And that's my impression. They did it because they knew from the reports of Pfizer and Moderna and so on that many and severe side effects will come.

Where are the governmental policies then based on? How can doctors correctly advise their patients whether or not to take the vaccines? How can a citizen who is thinking about vaccination then assess for himself the safety of the COVID vaccines? How can there then be a truly informed choice and thus a valid consent when this crucial information is not shared? And why did the EMA not intervene? How can they upheld the market authorization when there is no accurate registration of the risks?

It was also recently disclosed that the Side Effects Registration Institute in the US called VERS has one register that's public and another closed database that is only available for certain pharmaceutical companies and officials. The closed database contains more, more serious and more detailed side effects than the database that is not publicly accessible. That is of course unheard of and unacceptable. In this way the ordinary citizen who only has access to the public database is not correctly and fully informed about the risks and therefore the citizen cannot give a truly informed contribution to the vaccination.

In Europe we have a similar database called OITRA Vigilance. Do they also have a closed and a public version? Are they also misleading our citizens? I don't know the answers but we must get this question answered as soon as possible. The health of our citizens is at stake and the next COVID booster campaigns have already started.

Thank you for your attention. Thank you Jochem and now I would like to give the floor to Willem Engel.


So we are here today to inform you, the public and its representatives, about the grave errors and safety issues with the mRNA injections. You have heard from the previous speakers what political mortal sins have been committed by the EMA and the European Commission, willfully misleading the public and using pseudoscience and public office to nudge, push and even force people into participating in an uncontrolled and potentially deadly experiment.

The EMA has admitted that the information given to the public is not adequate for informed consent. Moreover, the lack of proof for transmission control from the start made the campaign of vaccinating for the other a scam, an illegal marketing campaign. That the EMA tries to hide behind the fact that it's just advising the European Commission is weak and unbecoming of an agency that was founded to protect the European public against medical and pharmaceutical mistakes. Moreover, the argument that it would be a disservice to the frail and elderly who are at risk from corona infection is a false argument as the whole population was forced in some way to participate in this real world experiment.

From the EMA and other national institutes we keep hearing that the benefits outweigh the risks for each specific case or group. Yet we have seen no assessment or calculation. We have to assume this is a marketing line as it is not backed up by facts. The reality is that we are dealing with a public health crisis as we speak, not caused by a virus but by these mRNA injections. Many thousands have been injured and cannot live a normal life because they were forced to participate in a potentially deadly experiment.

Ignoring the Aarhus Treaty is a violation of international law that we have raised and with us national institutes like the Commission for Genetic Modification, the COGEM. In their report they argue that the exemption under Directive 2020 slash 1043 should be void as it cannot be in the interest of the public to skip studies on environmental impact and human health due to genetically modified organisms. Which were used to produce the mRNA injections. To be very clear, the mRNA is non-human and part of a GMO. Moreover, the recent publications on plasma DNA contamination in these mRNA injection fluids proves beyond doubt that we are dealing with a GMO product. Regardless of the attempts to redefine the term GMO, following an EU court ruling from 2018, any innovation containing or derived from the use of genetic engineering techniques is to be considered the same as a GMO and subject to the same regulatory approval system. Now, integration of bacterial or viral genetic code into the human genome has been associated with a higher risk of cancer. Whether that will be the case, we don't know. But we should have known. More precisely, the EMA should have known before giving a positive advice.

Another serious concern is the interaction with the microbiome each person carries. By integration of antibiotic resistant genes, some bacterial or fungal strains could become a health risk. An attempt was made to classify these injections as vaccines. An attempt that continues to this day. In Regulation 2009-120, a line is misinterpreted. Using redefinition, omission and skewing, an appointed expert group has tried to circumvent the regulations guarding the safety on gene therapy by silently changing the classification and conditions for the marketing application of these mRNA injections. In the Directives 2019-5 and 2021-756, the words corona and coding sequence were added to the conditions after the granting of the original marketing authorizations, making these authorizations themselves proof of fraud. The EMA, in her reply, is well aware of what happened, but tried to evade answering the questions about the legitimacy of the marketing applications by stating this is a political matter and should be taken up with the European Commission. Rest assured, we will. We will not stop until all mRNA injections are taken off the market. All victims are acknowledged and those responsible for the biggest scandal in medical history are held accountable.


Thank you for your attention. Thank you for having us. I do agree that it is a public health crisis we are in the midst of. I'm one of three scientists who are behind the study of batch dependency safety issues, and Max will talk about that in a minute. But what we actually have shown, just to put it shortly, is that there was and still is three patterns of the side effects, both the less serious side effects and the more serious side effects and also the death. Max will show in a minute, which shows that from the beginning the batches which were given were the so-called bad batches. Actually along the way it changed, whether it was Pfizer who changed the product, whether it was the transportation, the administration, we don't know. But what we know is that the patients or the people, the children, the young ones, the elderly, who had these side effects, they weren't informed by the risk. They didn't have the benefit, you didn't have the beneficiary and the risk ratio, and some were given very bad batches. And that we know from our study. And that reminds me of what the vice president from Pfizer said at one point in nature. She said that they were building the aeroplane while flying. And for me that's obviously what happened because we showed that one of the wings fell off.

And then I'm like, well, if you know you have a safety issue, why don't you handle that safety issue? Why don't you withdraw the batches? Why don't you communicate to the public? Which EMA and all the national similar institutes didn't. And what our study also shows is that you have this safety issue, but it also shows that EMA and the national institutions should have actually informed the public. Because Pfizer did that already in August 21. They actually informed EMA that there was a safety issue. They informed EMA that some of the batches, what we call the blue batches, gave many more side effects than some of the other batches. So we know that already. We have just replicated our data into Sweden, which shows us that it's a European matter. It's not just a Danish matter. It's a European issue. We know that now from Sweden, and I'm quite sure if we looked into the data from the rest of Europe, we would see exactly the same pattern. And what we are now into is that what we've shown was the short-term side effects, but we are very much interested in looking into the long-term side effects. You mentioned cancer. Will there be a relation of certain cancers toward the different batches? Will there be a difference between the all-cause mortality? You have mentioned, Marcel, the excess mortality.

We know from the data that since May 21, it was like literally on the spot that excess mortality happened in all the European countries. We have seen those graphs or made those graphs ourselves. And we can see that the excess mortality is still there. Some places may be waning a little, but there's still an excess mortality. And that is very varying. And that brings me back to that I think I would have expected as a citizen, I'm not a politician, I'm just a doctor, I would have expected EMA to react on these data.

Even before we published the data in April, I would have expected that they saw the safety issue, that they saw that in the database, and that they halted some of the vaccination, at least withdrawn these blues batches, and also informed the population, the young ones, the elderly and so on. We do have a problem. So going back to the thing that the Vice President from Pfizer said, that they were building the aeroplane while flying, I must say the wing fell off.

Thank you. Thank you. And now I'd like to give the floor to Max Schmeling, who is the statistician who did all the data processing.


Max, you have the floor. Thank you very much. My name is Max Schmeling, and I'm the statistician behind this study, where Wibige is the medical capacity behind it. As you can see in front of you on this screen is the result, the main result of our study. It shows from the official Danish data that we queried for the study, it shows each batch and how many adverse reactions were present in each batch. You can see that along the y-axis, the vertical axis, and along the horizontal axis, you can see how big were the batches. I should perhaps just mention a batch is a unit of vaccine that is produced, filled into vials, packaged up and sent out to different countries.

As you can see from the graph, some of these batches are very small. Some of them are very big. And in this case, if we assume that we would see a normal vaccine, a really good vaccine, something that was very consistently produced, we would see a near-perfect line, one near-perfect line. If we, on the other hand, produced a really horrible vaccine, the worst one we could possibly conceive, we would see no line.

We would see just scattered dots. In this case, we see three, not one, but we see three lines, and they are actually near-perfect. The problem with this is that it's obviously something that is completely outside the category of what we should expect to see in adverse data. And in this case, it very clearly shows right away that it was because of the product nature, it has been impossible for the participants, for the vaccines, people who receive the vaccines, to give informed consent. Because if you cannot know the risk, how can you make informed consent? How can you give informed consent? That's the main finding of this study. But something that is also very troubling is this shows a system. It shows a structure in the data. Adverse reactions, errors in production, are by nature, they're random, but this shows structure. We do not know yet why, but we are obviously researching this issue, as Vivica also mentioned. But as of now, we do not know why this, but the only thing that we do know is that this should by no means be present. And that is why it's a very alarming safety signal, as has been mentioned. And I would like to stress again, this makes it absolutely impossible to give informed consent.

And I think I would like to stop there. Thank you. Thank you, Max.


I think you made it very clear that there are three different types of batches, and every batch gives another risk. And the blue one gives the highest mortality risk. And nobody knew upfront which batch you would get. Nobody knew that there was this difference between these batches. Nobody knew. But the EMA gets samples of every batch, and they can test it, and they can see whether or not they are identical. And that's their job, because their job is to protect us from mistakes made by pharmaceutical industries. And they didn't. So that's very worrying. Thank you for making that clear, both of you. And that is also something that in a second letter to the EMA, we are going to address. Be sure of that. As are the things as contamination by DNA of bacteria in the vaccines. As are the things that Joachim mentioned about are there two databases with adverse events? How come that the EMA never warned us? And how could it be that they accepted governments to campaign for off-label use?

Is there anyone who would like to ask a question? We still have some minutes before we round up.


Yes, please. First of all, thank you very much for your contribution to this press conference. I have a question. In the letter of summons, one of the arguments you have made with regards to the suspension of the marketing authorizations is that in the SMPCs of Pfizer and Moderna, that they are now very comprehensive and unreadable. However, one thing is very clear. I saw on page four of the document of the SMPC that is by now 574 pages. It's literally mentioned some cases required intensive care support and fatal cases have been observed, quote unquote. And my question is how is it possible that the marketing authorizations have not been suspended and also withdrawn immediately by the EMA since Pfizer and Moderna themselves admit that the remedy is now worse than the disease?

Could you maybe elaborate on that a little bit? I can tell you this. That's a question for the EMA. The EMA needs to assess all these statistics, the safety, and then take the decision. We demanded from the EMA to withdraw market approval immediately because of all these signals of people dying, of the myocarditis, pericarditis, people with this heart failure, dropping dead on the football field in front of television. That is all related to these vaccines. And that is what has been obscured by bad registration. So yes, it's a valid point.

It only stresses that even now the pharmaceutical industry is making these clear statements in their additional information of 574 pages. I mean, that is not accessible information for a medical doctor or for a patient. They need to make a very concise, small, clear list of side effects and the probability. How often does it occur? Like one in 10,000, for instance. If one in 10,000 vaccinated will drop dead, sorry to put it that blunt, because of the vaccine, then it is much worse than getting a COVID infection. So that stated, I think the ball lies now with the EMA to take measures.

Thank you. Other questions? None? Okay. Well, maybe one more, because it seems that you have to have separate SMPCs per booster.


Could you elaborate on that maybe a little bit more, Mr. Engel? It's very strange that we see one document for all the variants they have produced. The reasoning of the EMA is that it's still the same marketing application. It's a very concerning point. We see that the clinical trials were just ongoing for three weeks, yet the XBB 1.5 booster was granted a market authorization. So the EMA really does not follow its own guidelines, and they have created a sort of punch, a hole in this eudravigilance safety registration. So now we have untested medical products on the market.

Okay. Well, sorry, we have to end this. No more questions. Thank you all very much for attending this press conference. Thank you very much for listening or watching us via the social media channels, and we'll inform you about our follow-up. Thank you.

You will never see it coming. What did you think, all the people? Let it be that I can start talking about the family. I'm working on the family.

[rachel]

https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1718955557564878883

This was posted by CNN in 1996.

No, really. This is a legit CNN article from 1996.

'LETHAL DANGERS OF THE BILLION-DOLLAR VACCINE BUSINESS WITH GOVERNMENT APPROVAL'

https://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneyma ... 01/218857/

[rachel]

https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1720019216433320420

It's time to rest this account.

It has been a hard road fighting against corrupt entities that I never knew existed to such an extent in the halls of power. And against the relentless propaganda that has seemingly usurped most if not all of academia and medicine.

This account came about because I knew that we had been lied to in February 2020 about the origin of COVID and with the help of others we were able to prove it.

Since that time there has been a pyre of lies that we have had to unpick, whilst showing ourselves to be the ones that endeavoured to uphold the values of real science that required the pursuit of truth over politics and corruption.

The time is right to retire now because two things have happened.

The first is that the public is now becoming aware not only of what is true, but how to discern what is truth against that which is untrue. I believe that was my task and much of that work has been done.

The second is that the threats against me from groups with proven ties to pharma lobby groups have intensified. The people involved know who they are and they attempt to justify their activity by creating a bogeyman story directed at us. But that's all it is. When the dust settles and the horrendous death tally is finally counted, the people that will be most responsible are those that used their unlimited resources (supported by pharma corporations and corrupted government departments with unlimited funds and power) to silence those of us whose only crime was to highlight scientifically evidenced dangers to the public about interventions that could - and did - cause death and disability.

Those groups - mainly #shotsheard in the US and #muttoncrew in the UK with their groupies on social media, all coordinated through a central point - are merely an extension of the same groups that did exactly the same things 20 years ago in relation to Vioxx (where 30,000 people died because doctors and scientists were threatened into silence) and before that thalidomide (where 20,000 children were born without limbs because doctors and scientists were threatened into silence).

We care about this but the majority of the public and the government appear not to. There are no resources available to us and the government - who many of you trusted - have never offered any resources or protection to accounts such as ours or the people behind them. On the contrary they have shown - in the US, UK, Europe, Canada and Australia - that they will be the ones to silence us. In some cases they have threatened to imprison us.

The public remain quiet. Anger is brewing but the government and media will ensure that that anger is directed at us - the very people who showed you where corruption and malfeasance exist in establishments that should be above reproach. I predict that there will be no public protests to "protect medical whistleblowers" or "bring back Jikkyleaks". There will for instance be no public protest at the supreme court in Victoria where
@realMarkHobart
will be fighting for the right of a doctor to protect the fundamental and global right to bodily autonomy of patients. There will be no clamour for the pharma-affiliated bully organisations to be prosecuted for what they have done for the last 20 years. Nobody was jailed for Vioxx - or thalidomide - because the public did not demand that they were.

The media played the biggest part. They universally disparaged people as "antivaxxers" who merely wanted to retain their human rights as declared in the UN declaration on human rights. Instead they protected the very people who created this pandemic (and by extension previous pandemics). And more importantly they failed to give any voice to those of us with scientific and medical expertise who tried to raise concerns and advocate merely for the retention of the human right to bodily autonomy.

Instead, the media gave a platform to the likes of David Gorski, Tony Fauci, Albert Bourla and Peter Daszak as if they were saints instead of the face of a global biomedical mafia. Their support group of minions who threaten scientists and non-scientists, scouring their personal files and tracking their homes, children and employers know who they are. So do I. Everything is archived.

The result of this collusion between pharma, government and media (with minions acting on their behalf for a pittance in reward) was millions of deaths with not a sniff of culpability. This is not their first rodeo, but this time instead of 30,000 deaths it was 6 million and counting. And the general public never raised an eyebrow in criticism of the biomedical corporations and governmental and military entities responsible and acting in lockstep.

So the result will remain. 6 million deaths and counting this time. The next time will likely be more. And if the public again rely on the media without question to guide them through it will never stop. There is too much money to be made and power to be gained. Why would those involved stop when there was not a single protest at any regulator or any government or academic institution despite the fact that deaths were known to have occurred and been covered up with no transparency from government agencies - who should have been desperate to release every document they possess to prove to the people that they were above reproach.

The silencing of this account is just a symptom of a disease so insidious that cannot remain untreated. One person - or mouse - cannot treat this disease. I have served my time here as far as I possibly can and must now devote time to other avenues, for what they are worth.

But without the help of the public we cannot do any more. Apathy feeds corruption and only the public en masse can stop feeding it.

To those that have supported this account please now that I appreciate everything that you have done and many thousands, if not millions, either do already or will do so in time.

For now I will bow out. I will continue for the time being to interact with other accounts posts, replies and existing DMs. But there will be no more new posts, exposures or #Gates on this platform until real protections are put in place for whistleblowers.

Just one caveat.. if the threats directed at me or those around me persist or resurface, I will have no choice but to return.

Good night. God speed.
And may the #mousearmy continue its fight for truth and against corruption in science.

[rachel]

For the first time, German TV MDR covers DNA contamination in Pfizer's mRNA vaccine!

---------Transcript-----------

We are in a private laboratory in Magdeburg. Professor Brigitte König is examining Corona vaccines here. The result, all samples are contaminated.

"With foreign DNA that should not be in the vaccine in this quantity. From my point of view, the alarming result is that all 5 batches had significant foreign DNA in them, which are well above the limit. It's about the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine. 5 batches were given to the Magdeburg laboratory because there was a suspicion."

Foreign DNA could be contained in the vaccine, and beyond the limit. According to WHO, the limit is a total DNA content of 10 nanograms per dose. It is important that this is not exceeded, because there is a risk that foreign DNA could penetrate human cells.

Brigitte König is an external professor at the medical faculty of the University of Magdeburg. She shows us the result of her privately conducted investigation. All 5 examined batches are contaminated. For the lowest concentration, the limit was exceeded by 83 times. The highest concentration found was 354 times the limit to König.

This is concerning. The client of the analysis is also a private individual. The biologist Dr. Jürgen Kirchner. He has been one of the vocal critics of mRNA vaccines for years. He operates a website called Gene Vaccines. There he also advertises his books written under a pseudonym. His last one is called "Sullied." He has also appeared on YouTubers like the controversial Corona critic Paul Brandenburg. And discussed with him his theses on vaccines. Also the findings from Magdeburg. When DNA contaminations are found in a vaccine, that are as far above the limits as we have found, then in my view a special paragraph of the Medicines Act automatically applies, that is paragraph 5. It says if a medicinal product is questionable, then it must be taken off the market. And the biologist tries to achieve this.

In September, he was at a hearing in the Bundestag's Petitions Committee on the topic of pandemic planning. Here he used the opportunity to present the analysis results from Magdeburg. These are gigantic exceedances of a limit for a really very questionable medicinal product. But do the vaccines actually contain foreign DNA? The accusation is not new.

Already in April 2023, American scientists found foreign DNA above the limit in the vaccines from BioNTech and Moderna. Also in this pre-publication of a Canadian study from the end of October, several scientists come to a similar conclusion. The researchers write, our results extend the existing concerns regarding vaccine safety. But are such traces of foreign DNA actually dangerous?

Humans constantly carry foreign DNA in themselves. This can come from food, but also if bacteria enter the lungs. These floating DNA snippets are digested in the gut by enzymes. But there is a difference with the mRNA vaccination. The vaccine contains so-called lipid nanoparticles. They smuggle the mRNA into the cells. They do not differentiate, however, whether they transport mRNA or DNA. Could foreign DNA thereby directly penetrate the cell nucleus?

That is at least the concern of this American researcher, Prof. Dr. Philip Buckhaults. He is a clear proponent of mRNA technology. Yet he too says he found DNA residues in Pfizer vaccine. Here at a hearing in the South Carolina Senate, he explains the potential consequences of DNA. By email he writes us, at the moment no one knows for sure, whether the foreign DNA has caused damage or will cause damage. But there is clearly a justified theoretical risk of genetic damage to long-lived stem cells. We asked several renowned German scientists about this concern.

Only a few reply to our request. Among them is Prof. Emanuel Wyler from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, an institute funded by the federal government. He deems it extremely unlikely that the DNA could have negative consequences. Further, he writes, DNA in vaccines is not a new topic and is also tested for, for example, in a flu vaccine. Until now, no one has been interested, or one rightly trusts that the Paul Ehrlich Institute as the responsible authority performs the testing work correctly. In my opinion, this shows that this is not about DNA in vaccines, but either about fundamentally questioning vaccinations, our best weapon against infectious diseases, or about creating a sensation with the issue of Corona.

However, Prof. Gerald Dyker, a chemist at the Ruhr University, does think that negative consequences are conceivable. He writes to us, against the background that one was under extreme time pressure, that the manufacturer decided, either without knowledge or with the acquiescence of supervisory authorities, to release the product with the remaining DNA impurities for mass vaccination. For Prof. Bernd Mühlbauer of the Drug Commission, however, it is still not clear at all, whether the vaccine is actually contaminated to a worrying extent. But he writes that residual amounts of DNA in the case of an mRNA vaccine cannot penetrate the cell nucleus and cause damage. Such experiments, including animal tests over several generations, are necessary and perhaps have already been conducted. And how do the authorities respond to the debate?

The Paul Ehrlich Institute is responsible for the surveillance and safety of vaccines. We want to know, whether they themselves have tested the vaccines for foreign DNA or at least checked the results from Magdeburg. The written response is that parameters such as the residual DNA content in the vaccine are only experimentally tested by the manufacturer. The Institute thus does not test the vaccines themselves for DNA contamination but relies on the manufacturers' test protocols. The fact that the authority neither tests itself nor checks the analysis results from Magdeburg causes surprise to Professor Brigitte König.

"I would have expected, or assumed, that the authorities would at least randomly check the end product for contamination and purity. Depending on the product, or if something else is inside. As I said, the authorities can do that. Especially the Paul Ehrlich Institute has the equipment for it."

The competent Federal Ministry of Health questions the analysis from Magdeburg and points out that some of the tested batches were already expired, according to Dr. Kirchner's notification. However, for the found foreign DNA this is irrelevant, says the scientist. The DNA in these lipid particles does not multiply. And is more likely to be decomposed. That is, if the vaccine is not expired, we might expect even higher values but not lower ones. The DNA does not multiply in a sterile vaccine.

Since the authorities apparently doubt the investigation results from Magdeburg, we want to have various batches tested ourselves. We contacted more than 20 laboratories, some of them at German universities, but also private providers who can conduct such analyses. From all, we received rejections or no response.

So, we failed to have a DNA analysis conducted independently once again. It would indeed be important to conclusively clarify the question of the DNA content. Because one reason for suspected DNA contamination could be the manufacturing process itself, which is different from the one used during the authorization study.

The vaccine used for the clinical studies was manufactured mechanically without the involvement of microorganisms. This production path is named Process 1 in the documents of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Pfizer then switched to a different production technique, referred to as Process 2. Only very few subjects in the authorization study received this vaccine. Here, the material was supplied by genetically modified bacteria. This process was apparently less complex.

But did it actually pose a higher risk? That there were differences between the batches of the two different manufacturing processes has been a concern. Questions about comparability, characterization, and clinical suitability were raised. We ask BioNTech why the manufacturing process was changed nonetheless, but we do not receive an answer to this question. Regarding the suspected DNA contamination identified by the Magdeburg scientist, the company writes that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is not contaminated with DNA.

Furthermore, it states that the batches were subjected to comprehensive quality control by the manufacturer. The Magdeburg scientist says that she has now examined additional vaccine batches. Here too, she found foreign DNA.

However, we as an editorial team were not able to conclusively answer whether this analysis is indeed accurate and, most importantly, whether the suspected DNA contamination can cause harm. The most recent act in the debate is this official-looking letter from an association called Medical Treatment Association, which warns doctors about the vaccine. However, as informed by the responsible authorities, this is said to be a false report.

Another link from the thread about contamination.

[napoleon]

oh by the way rach the trannies makeup and masks reference was excluding all the other fantastic research you do ,i just said them topics because the intelligence level of fakeologists has dropped considerably ,by design of course

id listen to you breath sweetheart xxx

[napoleon]

not in a weird way ,i meant whatever you research interests me

[rachel]

Most of my stuff on the COVID thread is copy and paste. I just think it is important from a fakeology perspective to have a running commentary of real data. Because we know they'll try to memory hole it and convince us black is white.


https://x.com/JTylerHagen/status/1737540253236224131

Cumulative incidence of Covid-19 is lower in those “not up to date” on their modRNA programming. Weird how this keeps being shown across studies, right?

It’s almost like the Covid “vaccines” don’t “vaccinate”.

Maybe we shouldn’t have changed the definition of “vaccine” to incorporate non-vaccines. Just a thought

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0293449

[rachel]

Dr. Renata Moon explains how she came full circle on her views of mRNA:
"We have trusted these regulatory agencies...I have, for my entire career, up until now. Something is extremely wrong."

Interview talking about the above statement.

KILL SHOTS FOR KIDS! -- DR. RENATA MOON

Dr. Renata Moon continues to be persecuted by the state of Washington for daring to speak the truth about the experimental covid vaccines and "side effects" which are maiming and killing people around the world. Now these bioweapons are listed on the traditional child vaccination schedule in the United States, just imagine what horrors result from that horrific mandate. Dr. Moon's courage and tenacity in the face of such evil should serve as inspiration to truth tellers and whistle blowers at Pfizer, Moderna and around the world.

The problem with her argument that Covid-19 is real is that she has already lost and seeded power to the satanic cult. We don't know what flu is, but we do know flu went away for two years when Covid-19 appeared. And we do know around the same numbers that usually account for flu in the statistics suddenly became Covid-19 statistics. Therefore we know Covid-19 is bullshit, and always was a statistical slide of hand. So her saying, "children are at no risk", it might be true, but it is a truth that is a branch of a tree of lies, and she is still very much part of that tree of lies, hence why the cabal can cut her off.