For several weeks, SARS-CoV-2 seems to be resurfacing. This time, it’s less due to the ongoing alarmist media coverage; instead, critical voices questioning the pandemic’s course are increasingly heard. Past authorities are being reminded of their borderline-fascist behavior, and propagandists are being held accountable for their exposed lies.
One likely cause is the stronger societal backlash against socialist and woke experimental policies. Additionally, the leftist-green tactic of systematic defamation, denunciation, and exclusion is losing its deterrent effect, having been overused across various woke and ideological themes such as gendering, self-determination, racism, climate issues, and more.
The majority affected by pandemic measures are turning emotionally and angrily against politics and media, which continue to evade responsibility and refuse to conduct a proper inquiry.
Adding to the societal atmosphere, legal transparency deadlines are expiring, revealing previously unknown information from 2020 to 2022. This includes documents from American and European drug regulatory authorities (FDA, EMA), as well as German institutions like the Robert Koch Institute and the Paul Ehrlich Institute. Should it be confirmed elsewhere that, similar to the EMA, findings were concealed from the public due to political interests, severe political earthquakes may follow.
Moreover, the deadlines for approval documents from vaccine manufacturers Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca are lapsing, gradually leading to the release of documents. This triggered numerous independent research projects globally, investigating manufacturer design decisions regarding their mRNA vaccines. The results of reputable researchers and institutes can no longer be easily dismissed or completely ignored, as much of the media, politics, celebrities, and others reflexively did since 2020.
Another focus of research activities utilizes new insights to explain the observed excess mortality in almost all Western countries since April 2021. This, coupled with examining the long-term effects caused by vaccination (Post-Vac)1. We will now delve into the current state of understanding regarding the specific risks associated with mRNA vaccinations. At the end of this article, we will also provide you with a link where you can assess the risk level of individual batches and lot numbers of COVID vaccines.
The EMA’s Approval
Just last week, a small inquiry from Dutch EU parliamentarians to the EMA led to a surprising response. In it, the EMA admitted that COVID vaccines were never approved to reduce infections. Instead, vaccinated individuals might even have a higher likelihood of getting infected and transmitting the virus more easily. Additionally, the EMA anticipated more and more severe side effects shortly after vaccination.
If this statement holds true, it would mean that European government vaccination campaigns were deliberately based on misinformation. Furthermore, governments justified not recording vaccine side effects by claiming that the substance needed 14 days to take effect. Instead, any complaints during this period were attributed not to the vaccine but to a COVID infection. This constitutes a deliberate endangerment of human life.
Despite the EMA’s welcome new openness, questions arise about why the EMA remained silent for two years as everyone around them acted diametrically against their recommendations. And why is the EMA now starting the game of passing the buck?
mRNA COVID Vaccinations
Research on the vaccine itself increasingly suggests that the so-called vaccine spike could potentially be much more toxic than SARS-CoV-2 with its natural (or actually synthetic, created in Wuhan) spike proteins.
Previous vaccinations were based on introducing a dead or significantly weakened pathogen into the human bloodstream. The immune system identifies the foreign body, learns its surface structure, and produces defense cells that specifically destroy the intruder. Since the dead or weakened virus cannot replicate in the meantime, a serious infection is usually prevented during vaccination. In the event of a subsequent real infection, the immune system is prepared and produces enough defense cells to eliminate the pathogen before it can spread.
This differs with an mRNA vaccination: here, the vaccine contains the encoded blueprint of the pathogen. The body’s cells then undertake the production of the shell of the pathogen, in the case of SARS-CoV-2, the characteristic spike protein. After the cells produce this protein and release it into the bloodstream, the further course of immunization resembles the process described above.
A successful mRNA vaccination must overcome significant hurdles:
1. Administration: The mRNA must reach the cells of choice.
To solve the issue of administration (1), the mRNA is packed into so-called lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). These LNPs encase the mRNA like a small droplet, protecting it on its journey to the destination where it delivers its cargo to a cell. These LNPs are specifically designed for vaccination and are often optimized for new production batches. Fine nuances of the electric charge of the LNPs determine the path of the particles through the body and the type of cells the LPNs can dock onto. The durability of the LNPs is crucial: if they are too unstable, they lose their cargo before reaching the destination. The then-free, negatively charged mRNA strands interact with the positively charged remnants of the LNP capsule, causing blood clots and increasing the risk of thrombosis and embolism. Too stable LNPs pose the danger of transporting the mRNA to distant body regions where it might be transferred to cells. It’s already known that LNPs tend to accumulate in the liver, certain brain regions, and, in women, the uterus.
A vaccine dose contains about 250 to 500 million mRNA molecules. About 80% of these can be encapsulated by modern LNPs, while the rest enters the body without an LNP carrier, increasing the risk of blood clot formation for the same reasons as explained above. On average, a nanolipid particle carries around 6 mRNA molecules, but approximately 40% of the LPNs remain empty. An effective delivery rate of 50% of the transported mRNA to cells is considered good—put another way, even if everything goes well, half of the mRNA still ends up in the wrong place in the body.
Given that it’s not yet clarified if or why various LNP variants are inherently toxic or trigger inflammations, the high percentage of empty LNPs also appears potentially problematic.
2.i) Immunogenicity – Avoiding mRNA destruction by the innate immune response
ii) Degradation: Reducing mRNA breakdown by ribonucleases (RNases).
Immunogenicity and degradation are two interconnected problem areas that the manufacturers address together by substituting the nucleotide uridine in the mRNA.
Nucleotides are the ladder rungs of the DNA double helix: they consist of either a connection of cytosine and guanine or adenine and uridine. Although the mRNA blueprint consists of only a single strand with half-steps, it essentially carries the same information content as a double helix. Since 1950, it’s been known that in nature, uridine is occasionally replaced by pseudouridine, contributing to RNA stabilization and reducing the immune response. However, despite its structural and building similarity to uridine, pseudouridine exhibits unpredictable behavior in protein production. Unlike uridine, which exclusively bonds with adenine, pseudouridine can bond with all other nucleotides—adenine, guanine, or cytosine. Achieving an exact replication of the virus’s spike protein becomes challenging with pseudouridine.
Therefore, Pfizer has shifted to modifying mRNA with N1-Methylpseudouridine, discovered in 2012. Like uridine, N1-Methylpseudouridine exclusively bonds with adenine. Additionally, it not only stabilizes mRNA molecules but also demonstrates positive attributes in suppressing the innate immune response and in camouflaging the mRNA to protect against RNases. Furthermore, it’s been found to enhance the efficiency of cell protein production.
N1-Methylpseudouridine is rarely found in nature. In a natural RNA, about 0.2-0.5% of uridine blocks are substituted by N1-Methylpseudouridine. Cells incorporate this stabilizing N1-Methylpseudouridine at selected, strategic points. The extent and subtleties of this process are as yet not understood, much like the fundamental biological role of N1-Methylpseudouridine. This nucleotide remains largely unexplored: the first scientific work on N1-Methylpseudouridine was only published in 2016!
Therefore, it’s surprising that Pfizer and Moderna have decided to replace all uridine elements with N1-Methylpseudouridine in the mRNA manufacturing. This modified mRNA strand with 100% instead of 0.5% N1-Methylpseudouridine is unlike anything we know from nature. There’s no empirical data on its biological properties, such as extended spike protein production, durability, localization of the nucleotide in the body, toxicity, or carcinogenicity. Despite none of the above points being investigated, the FDA, as well as the EMA, approved the vaccines. They allowed hundreds of millions of people to be injected with and continue receiving an experimental substance.
Also unknown are the consequences of reducing the innate immune defense caused by N1-Methylpseudouridine. This system, known to be fatal with even minor misdirections and causally involved in many serious illnesses.
The suppression of the innate immune response has been showing initial problems in vaccine recipients for some time. Vaccinated individuals are demonstrably much less capable than unvaccinated individuals in producing sufficient interferons to maintain numerous downstream immune sequences protecting the body. This directly leads to a downregulation of critical systems like cancer surveillance or infection control.
Contamination with Bacterial DNA
Moreover, it has been proven that Pfizer’s vaccines are contaminated with the DNA of the bacteria involved in producing the mRNA strands during the vaccine manufacturing process. Since removing this DNA is laborious and costly, only the vaccine doses used within the approval process were purified. All others, depending on the production batch, remained contaminated to varying extents. In contaminated vaccines, this DNA, together with the mRNA, is transported by the LNPs to the cells and enters the cell interior in a similar way. Although the DNA fragments do not disrupt the production process of the spike protein, during cell division, they can sabotage the copying process of human DNA, with currently incalculable consequences for the natural cell renewal processes of the human body.
In Vivo, Not In Vitro?
At this point, a more fundamental question arises: previous medical uses of mRNA focused on diseases caused by malfunctions of the body’s own cells. Essentially, specific body cells needed to be induced with mRNA to produce the proteins they couldn’t produce or produce adequately due to an illness.
In those cases, in vivo application of mRNA therapy was inevitable. However, the same doesn’t apply to producing a toxic and foreign spike protein. This could have been equally achieved in vitro without even requiring human cells. Wouldn’t immunization with spike proteins manufactured in the laboratory be equally effective? Or is it possible that after 30 years of mRNA research without a single approval, the primary goal of the pharmaceutical industry was to break the dam for further mRNA technology applications with a swift approval of the COVID vaccine?
Toxicity of Vaccine Batches
The extent of DNA contaminations varies greatly between individual production batches. Additionally, the type of LNPs used, compliance with cold chains, and general quality differences in vaccine production can influence the toxicity of a production batch.
In this regard, a look at the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) operated by the American authorities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is worthwhile. It’s considered an early warning system for detecting potential vaccine safety issues and is the standard system for recording potential vaccine side effects for healthcare professionals in the US and Europe.
Batch numbers are recorded there, but unfortunately, manufacturers do not disclose their batch sizes. Therefore, the number of reports (deaths, hospitalizations, etc.) doesn’t allow conclusions to be drawn about the absolute danger of the batch. Only comparing the number of critical side effects to the total number of reports per batch can provide clues to problems.
It should be noted that VAERS is an open system that anyone can use. This openness can lead to misuse and, for example, interest-driven false entries, which can also distort individual evaluations. Hence, sometimes, criticism is leveled against using VAERS-based evaluations, especially in spreading misinformation.
Nevertheless, on 18th November 2022, the EU requested the CDC, the operator, to delete over 500,000 suspected cases of COVID vaccine side effects recorded in Europe. Due to deletion, some batch numbers have completely disappeared from the system, and for others, the assessment according to the aforementioned criteria has massively improved. An official explanation for the deletion request is not known. However, it doesn’t seem to be a measure against misinformation.
Original Data for Testing the Toxicity of Your Batch
We have the database status from 12th November 2022, a week before the EU-initiated deletion, available in our systems. Using the link below, you can test the quality of the batches based on the complete database. You can send us your batch number and we will compile and send the relevant information to you.
Disclaimer / Conflict of Interest:
The authors hold a short position in an mRNA vaccine manufacturer. The authors will continue to trade securities of this issuer and will be directly and/or indirectly invested in securities such as stocks (and/or options, swaps, and other derivative securities relating to the stock) and bonds. The commitment can be long, short, or neutral at any time, regardless of an opinion presented here.