Studies, trials by Pfizer Biontech were “seriously flawed” and fraught with “many irregularities” German journalist finds. It’s all beginning to dawn on the media…
Emergency approval based on sloppy and deceptive trials and studies?
At Germany’s flagship daily Die Welt, journalist Elke Bodderas recently penned an investigative article: The Many Irregularities In The Pfizer Approval Study
Until recently, Germany’s mainstream media had refused to report on the glaring number of side effects of the COVID 19 mRNA vaccines, dismissing them has disinformation spread by rightwing crackpots. But now there’s no denying something has gone terribly awry, and that the “crackpots” had been right all along.
Cover-up?
In her article, Bodderas concedes that the Biontech/Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine appears to have been “based on incorrect documentation”, that there is “growing doubt about the data from the pivotal Phase 3 trial” and that “Pfizer is dodging the accusations and refusing to be scrutinized.”
The metropolis Buenos Aires was a key area for test phase with almost 6000 of the 43,548 test subjects worldwide. and things there, according to Die Welt’s Bodderas, “did not go as they should have”.
The “significant, consequential irregularities” that arose during the trials “cast the entire study of the efficacy and side effects of the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine in a different light.”
No one believes “safe and effective”, not even the media
In Germany, the days of believing the new mRNA vaccines by Biontech and Pfizer are “safe and effective” are finally disappearing as a reluctant mainstream media begins to report on the glaring adverse effects and the now well-known inadequately conducted trials.
In other parts of the world, it’s been long known that these new experimental vaccines not only did not work like they once had been claimed to do, but that they also never prevented the transmission of the virus and had numerous, dangerous side effects. Only now, months later, are these now well-known facts beginning to dawn on Germany’s mainstream media.
Shoddily conducted trials
Die Welt reports on how Argentine test candidate Augusto Roux, a 36-year old lawyer, felt unwell after having received his second dose in the trials, then “experienced shortness of breath, burning chest pain, nausea, and fever” and that “his urine turned black like cola” before passing out. After having been admitted to a hospital, physician Gisela di Stilio suspected an “adverse reaction to coronavirus vaccine (high probability).” But Roux was simply dropped from the December 2020 study, and never appeared in subsequent evaluations. Instead he was counted as having suffered from COVID-19.
Suppression of unwelcome results?
In total, “In one fell swoop, the test administration [in Buenos Aires] had said goodbye to 53 subjects on August 31, 2020. The test candidates had been ‘unblinded.'” reports Die Welt’s Bodderas.
Die Welt adds: “A total of 302 subjects of the vaccine group were deleted from the study after the second vaccination and thus not included in the evaluation. 200 of them came from Buenos Aires. Have unwelcome results been suppressed here?”
According to Bodderas, “Deaths were concealed, serious side effects were not registered, and the study protocol was violated several times.”
“The case casts a bad light on Pfizer, a company that has often been plagued by scandal in the past, but also on the regulatory agencies EMA and FDA.”
Bodderas also appeared on Bild’s Viertel Nach Acht: “Serious Flaws in Pfizer BioNTech Vaccine Study.”
I’ve read a FUN study where they found out that the m[iracle]RNA toxic spews nano stuff remains in the blood for at least 28 days after the innoculation!
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apm.13294As for the article itself, what’s the surprise?! Clearly the jab is safe because there are still Billions of modern moron slaves roaming around this Planet, some with already 6 doses of the juice.
Autopsies have found that the spike can be found in tissues of the inoculated for many months. In many of those same vital organ tissues, lymphocyte infiltration was associated with the presence of the spike, and significant tissue damage.
Here’s the video link. He explains clearly that the “vaccine” is the most likely cause in most pf the cases.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/uvc-arne-burkhardt/
Monty Python couldn’t write a script as surreal as what has transpired for going on three years or so. Ennui is here along with insouciance.
Some crazy bat was made into bat soup by some crazy China woman and now the world is in a world of hurt.
The whole world has gone crazy thanks to a bat.
Can’t blame Pfizer for developing a vaccine, strike that, a deadly snake oil concoction, you gotta do something.
Didn’t a princess in Thailand die after receiving the Pfizer snake oil?
The dark side of medicine has shown its soft yellow underbelly, one true color.
You kill them with kindness after the tar and feathers.
It’s only fair.
Some crazy bat was made into bat soup by some crazy China woman and now the world is in a world of hurt.
WRONG!
Dr Fauci/Ecohealth sent a Coronavirus sample to Wuhan Bioweapons lab and it went from there.
AND I and Many others were correct years ago but banned…now we await our apology…
I read that the bio-lab is located in Winnipeg, Manitoba, the bio weapon was absconded from the lab by Chinese researchers and then off to Wuhan.
Lots of rumors surrounding the origin.
A researcher at the lab in Winnipeg was fired in July of 2019.
https://www.macleans.ca/longforms/winnipeg-virus-lab-scientist/
True about Monty Python, Drumpfish, but The Goons used to do it all the time.
So many appear to be oblivious of the two central problems of these products: 1. What they are, and 2. What they do.
1. They are not any sort of advanced vaccine technology. They are a deliberate and hasty off-label use of 30-40 year old molecular biology cell transfection reagents. Here are the principle methods used in labs around the world to introduce exogenous gene constructs into stable cells lines for expression and study of protein behavior in a living system:
A. Introduce the gene directly into a cell using a special needle.
B. Introducing the foreign gene into the cell using magnetic fields.
C. Introducing the foreign gene into the cell using ultrasound.
D. Introducing the foreign gene into the cells using electroporation to make the membrane temporarily leaky,
E. Introducing the foreign gene into the cells by precipitation of the gene in its viral vector by chemical means to make nanoparticles which stick the plasma membrane and are then internalized. I used the phosphate precipitation method in both my doctoral and post-doctoral research. Pfizer uses this approach.
F. Introducing the foreign gene into the cells using lipid micelles containing or other lipid particles incorporating the foreign gene in its viral vector. These products stick to the lipid bilayer of the cell’s plasma membrane, merge with it, and deliver their contents to the cytosol of the cell. I used these products (such as Lipofectin) when generating stable transfectants. Moderna and Johnson&Johnson use variations on these methods.
G. Introducing the foreign gene into the cell by the use of a bio-engineered adenovirus that uses its coat proteins to manipulate cell surface receptors to endocytose the adenovirus. The virus does what it normally does, falls apart, and exposes the viral genome, or the gene construct of interest. AstraZeneca uses this method. It believed its approach would be safer and lead to fewer adverse outcomes because it would be restricted only to those cells with a specific cell surface receptors, unlike the others (E and F) that are indiscriminate and will enter any cell they bump into.
2. What they do. Their mechanism of action is not that of a vaccine. They contain nothing at all against which and adaptive immune response can be raised. They are also made to be as invisible as possible by the innate immune system to prevent them from entering healthy cells and infecting them with C19 viral RNA. This primary mechanism of action of ALL viral RNA products of hijacking a healthy cell to produce viral protein from a viral gene is simply the primary mechanism of action of viral infection.
In contrast, a viral protein vaccine introduces bits and pieces of viral proteins. These are detected as such by the innate immune system, cleaned up, and presented to the B and T cells of the adaptive immune system. If recognized from a previous encounter, specific antibody and killed T cell production is ramped up. If never before seen, then as many different specific antibodies and initiated T cells are produced as there are different epitopes on the viral debris cleaned up by the innate immune system. Since no cells were compromised with viral RNA (because viral protein vaccines are viral proteins and have no means of entering healthy cells) the innate immune response is quickly extinguished but, without infection, one is left with adaptive immune protection IF one’s adaptive immune system is not impaired. If it is, one derives little or no adaptive immune benefit, but one also suffers no harm to healthy cells or further immune inflammatory response.
Such is not the case with viruses and viral RNA products
In either case, the introduction of viral genomic material and the hijacked production of viral protein from it have the following effects:
A. The compromised cells have cytosolic sensors that detect the presence of both viral mRNA and viral protein. This is the minimum necessary condition for the cell to alert the innate immune system that it has been compromised by a virus and is in viral replication mode. The inevitable result is attack and destruction of host cells by innate immune inflammatory attacks. This is a disease process.
Since the innate immune system operates using a defense in depth strategy and since normal viruses can be detected at earliest points of entry, the innate immune system acts to sequester and take out the viruses at the earliest possible point and fewest possible numbers to prevent the viruses from gaining entry to more cells over a wider area.
The innate immune system’s levels of response range from local and limited to multi systemic and extreme and all depend on a number of different factors:
i. Detection of viral protein in the extracellular fluid compartment, either as attached to a virus or alone (as found in viral protein vaccines). It triggers the innate immune system to sequester, clean up, and dispose of the viral debris.
ii. Detection of viral protein and viral mRNA inside compromised cells, whether by a virus or virus-like product. This is a signal of a higher danger because it means more viruses in the pipeline. It triggers the innate immune system to attack and kill virus or viral RNA product-compromised cells. The intensity of the attack depends on the number and distribution of the compromised cells. The more cells compromised and the more widespread in the body they are, the greater and more intense the innate immune inflammatory chemical attack on these cells. Other healthy cells in the tissue can be damaged, leading to disability or death. iii. as more organ systems are compromised, the innate immune attack is further ramped up. iv. As cells are disrupted by the overproduction of viral proteins, viral proteins flood the extracellular fluid compartment, triggering the innate immune system to expand efforts to clean up. And since contact with a single viral protein by an innate immune system player is indistinguishable from an encounter with a virus and since compromised cell signaling has already indicated the presence of viral replication, encountering viral proteins in the extracellular fluid compartment only increases the urgency to control the infection. v. if viral proteins are found adhering to the membranes of otherwise uncompromised cells, those cells are destroyed by both the innate immune system as well as by any killer T cells initiated to recognize the viral epitope. vi. If the viral proteins are not cleared from the extracellular fluid compartment, which is drained by the lymphatic system, when the contents of the lymphatic system are dumped into the circulatory system through a portal near the heart, detection by the innate immune system in the circulatory system triggers the innate immune system of the existence of viremia, meaning the entire body is now at risk of viral infection.
In a normal viral infection, this is the next to last stage leading to multi system
viral infection. But with the viral RNA products, there is multi system compromise without innate immune detection from the very beginning because the products are designed to be undetectable. As a result, their earliest point of detection is after they have compromised healthy cells throughout the body, giving the appearance of a sudden, widespread, multi systemic infection and THEN the viremic condition is detected.
It make no difference whatsoever that only one C19 viral gene and one C19 viral protein are in play. Their detection will signal everything that a full viral infection will signal. And because of this, they will trigger exactly the same immunological consequences. As a result, the viral RNA of a C19 virus, that would be detected in the respiratory system as soon as it gains access to the ACE2-expressing cells and is sequestered in the pulmonary system by innate immune response from the earliest stages, is introduced in the worst possible way across the broadest possible number of cell targets simultaneously and generating some of the most powerful innate immune responses by the deliberately-engineered and unavoidable action of the primary mechanism of action of these viral RNA products.
And unlike viral protein vaccines which, if your adaptive immune system is impaired, will cause you no harm, the viral RNA products WILL compromise your healthy cells and WILL provoke innate immune inflammatory attacks to kill those compromised cells. The effect? If you are immune compromised and suffering multiple comorbid conditions, the viral RNA products will have AT least the same immunological consequences as any viral infection, but worse because they start suddenly in widespread distribution and signaling multiple danger levels.
So, because of folks wanting to save a buck on real vaccine development (not that it was ever needed) by the dangerous off-label use of an invaluable research protocol to deliberately infect the recipients’ healthy cells as cheap, liability-free bioreactors, more people (over 5.61 billion) have been infected more times (between 1 and 4 times) and in much more serious ways with C19 viral RNA and in a shorter time than would ever have been affected by the actual virus.
And ALL of this stuff was known from the earliest moments both by those companies and by almost everyone in the biological sciences who have used those cell transfection techniques and the slightest amount of knowledge of immune function and the viral primary mechanism of action. Especially critics like Robert Malone and Peter McCullough, who appear to be talking about everything BUT the primary mechanism of action and appear to be reluctant to identify it as something they have worked with (as I have) for decades, but in a safe fashion.
And one of the weirdest things is that, as nutty and overreactive as FB is on the most ridiculous of things, they have not taken down any of this that I have described now since early 2021.
Edited version of the above:
So many appear to be oblivious of the two central problems of these products: 1. What they are, and 2. What they do.
1. What they are
They are not any sort of advanced vaccine technology. They are a deliberate and hasty off-label use of 30-40 year old molecular biology cell transfection reagents.
Here are the principal methods used in labs around the world to introduce exogenous gene constructs into stable cell lines for expression and study of protein behavior in a living system:
A. Introduce the gene directly into a cell using a special needle.
B. Introduce the foreign gene into the cell using magnetic fields.
C. Introduce the foreign gene into the cell using ultrasound.
D. Introduce the foreign gene into the cells using electroporation to make the membrane temporarily leaky,
E. Introduce the foreign gene into the cells by precipitation of the gene in its viral vector by chemical means to make nanoparticles which stick the plasma membrane and are then internalized.
I used the phosphate precipitation method in both my doctoral and post-doctoral research. Pfizer uses this approach but with mRNA, skipping the gene in a viral vector cassette.
F. Introduce the foreign gene into the cells using lipid micelles containing or other lipid particles incorporating the foreign gene in its viral vector. These products stick to the lipid bilayer of the cell’s plasma membrane, merge with it, and deliver their contents to the cytosol of the cell.
I used these products (such as Lipofectin) when generating stable transfectants. Moderna and Johnson&Johnson use variations on these methods.
G. Introduce the foreign gene into the cell by the use of a bio-engineered adenovirus that uses its coat proteins to manipulate cell surface receptors to endocytose the adenovirus. The virus does what it normally does, falls apart, and exposes the viral genome, or the gene construct of interest.
AstraZeneca uses this method. The company believed its approach would be safer and lead to fewer adverse outcomes because entry would be restricted only to those cells with a specific cell surface receptors, unlike the others (E and F) that are indiscriminate and will enter any cell they bump into.
2. What they do.
Their mechanism of action is not that of a vaccine. They contain nothing at all against which and adaptive immune response can be raised.
They are also made to be as invisible as possible by the innate immune system to prevent them from entering healthy cells and infecting them with C19 viral RNA.
This primary mechanism of action of ALL viral RNA products consisting of hijacking a healthy cell to produce viral protein from a viral gene is simply the primary mechanism of action of viral infection.
In contrast, a viral protein vaccine introduces bits and pieces of viral proteins. These are detected as such by the innate immune system, cleaned up, and presented to the B and T cells of the adaptive immune system.
If recognized from a previous encounter, specific antibody and killer T cell production is ramped up.
If never before seen, then as many different specific antibodies and initiated T cells are produced as there are different epitopes on the viral debris cleaned up by the innate immune system.
Since no cells were compromised with viral RNA (because viral protein vaccines are viral proteins and have no means of entering healthy cells) the innate immune response is quickly extinguished but, without infection, one is left with adaptive immune protection IF one’s adaptive immune system is not impaired.
If it is impaired, though one derives little or no adaptive immune benefit, one also suffers no harm to healthy cells or from further immune inflammatory response.
Such is not the case with viruses and viral RNA products
In either case, the introduction of viral genomic material and the hijacked production of viral protein from it have the following effects:
A. The compromised cells have cytosolic sensors that detect the presence of both viral mRNA and viral protein.
This is the minimum necessary condition for the cell to alert the innate immune system that it has been compromised by a virus and is in viral replication mode. The inevitable result is attack and destruction of host cells by innate immune inflammatory attacks. This is a disease process.
Since the innate immune system operates using a defense in depth strategy and since normal viruses can be detected at earliest points of entry, the innate immune system acts to sequester and take out the viruses at the earliest possible point and fewest possible numbers to prevent the viruses from gaining entry to more cells over a wider area.
The innate immune system’s levels of response range from local and limited to multi systemic and extreme and all depend on a number of different factors:
i. Detection of viral protein in the extracellular fluid compartment, either as attached to a virus or alone (as found in viral protein vaccines).
It triggers the innate immune system to sequester, clean up, and dispose of the viral debris.
ii. Detection of viral protein and viral mRNA inside compromised cells, whether by a virus or virus-like product.
This is a signal of a higher danger because it means more viruses in the pipeline. It triggers the innate immune system to attack and kill virus or viral RNA product-compromised cells.
The intensity of the attack depends on the number and distribution of the compromised cells. The more cells compromised and the more widespread in the body they are, the greater and more intense the innate immune inflammatory chemical attack on these cells.
Other healthy cells in the tissue can be damaged, leading to disability or death.
iii. As more organ systems are compromised, the innate immune attack is further ramped up.
iv. As cells are disrupted by the overproduction of viral proteins, viral proteins flood the extracellular fluid compartment, triggering the innate immune system to expand efforts to clean up.
And since contact with a single viral protein by an innate immune system player is indistinguishable from an encounter with a virus and since signaling by compromised cells has already indicated the presence of viral replication, encountering viral proteins in the extracellular fluid compartment only increases the urgency to control the infection.
v. If viral proteins are found adhering to the membranes of otherwise uncompromised cells, those cells are destroyed by both the innate immune system as well as by any killer T cells initiated to recognize the viral epitope.
vi. If the viral proteins are not cleared from the extracellular fluid compartment, which is drained by the lymphatic system, when the contents of the lymphatic system are dumped into the circulatory system through a portal near the heart, their detection by the innate immune system in the circulatory system triggers the innate immune system of the existence of viremia, meaning the entire body is now at risk of viral infection.
In a normal viral infection, this is the next to last stage leading to multi system viral infection.
But with the viral RNA products, there is multi system compromise without innate immune detection from the very beginning because the products are designed to be undetectable.
As a result, their earliest point of detection is after they have compromised healthy cells throughout the body, giving the appearance of a sudden, widespread, multi systemic infection, and THEN the viremic condition is detected.
It make no difference whatsoever that only one C19 viral gene and one C19 viral protein are in play. Their detection will signal everything that a full viral infection will signal. And because of this, they will trigger exactly the same immunological consequences.
As a result, the viral RNA of a C19 virus (that would be detected in the respiratory system as soon as it gained access to the ACE2-expressing cells and is sequestered in the pulmonary system by innate immune response from the earliest stages) is introduced in the worst possible way across the broadest possible number of cell targets simultaneously and generating some of the most powerful innate immune responses by the deliberately-engineered and unavoidable action of the primary mechanism of action of these viral RNA products.
And unlike viral protein vaccines which, if your adaptive immune system is impaired, will cause you no harm, the viral RNA products WILL compromise your healthy cells and WILL provoke innate immune inflammatory attacks to kill those compromised cells.
The effect?
If you are immune compromised and suffering multiple comorbid conditions, the viral RNA products will have AT least the same immunological consequences as any viral infection, but worse because they appear suddenly in widespread distribution and signaling multiple danger levels.
So, because of folks wanting to save a buck on real vaccine development (not that it was ever needed) by the dangerous off-label use of an invaluable research protocol to deliberately infect the recipients’ healthy cells as cheap, liability-free bioreactors, more people (over 5.61 billion) have been infected with C19 viral RNA more times (between 1 and 4) and in much more serious ways and in a shorter time than would ever have been affected by the actual virus.
And ALL of this stuff was known from the earliest moments both by those companies and by almost everyone in the biological sciences who have used those cell transfection techniques and have the slightest amount of knowledge of immune function and the viral primary mechanism of action.
Especially critics like Robert Malone and Peter McCullough, who appear to be talking about everything BUT the primary mechanism of action and appear to be reluctant to identify it as something they have worked with (as I have) for decades, but in a safe fashion.
And one of the weirdest things is that, as nutty and overreactive as FB is on the most ridiculous of things, they have not taken down any of this that I have described now since early 2021.
Thank you for the original comment and the revised version. Much needed.
@ Gregorio Enrique Sandoval
I have had a brief opportunity to perform CaPhosphate precipitation of DNA into a cell line. It was only stable if we maintained the cultures in selective pressure. Antibiotic resistance to the selective agent was a component of the DNA we transfected the cells with. I haven’t any hands on experience with any of the other techniques you mention in the very nice overview.
Aside – A neighbor years ago told me of how they do it in plants, whose cell walls aren’t permeable. They literally use a “shotgun” method, where the DNA is loaded into a .22 cal shell (in place of the projectile) and delivered into the plant tissue by shooting it in. Whatever works, I guess.
No comment: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history
Same criminals, different crime.
Awesome post
Interesting article. Thanks