This may only be the tip of the iceberg, and it appears this story is so big, no one wants to get the ball rolling, according to Israeli and German scientists familiar with the situation.
According to a report by Multipolar in Germany , new documents confirm that Pfizer used different methods for the approval process and then for production when they developed the vaccination against COVID-19.
One was clean and expensive and was presented to get emergency authorization for the vaccine in the United States.
The second one was cheap but caused unclean injections and a massive number of side effects. Almost everyone injected with Pfizer received the second unknown and unclean version of the vaccine.
A German expert, Dr. Florian Schilling, explains the reason any authorization given by a recipient should be invalid based on these findings.
In a recent podcast interview published by Radio Munich in Germany, the author opened this session:
What we discuss today is so unbelievable, and we don’t know the extent of this yet.
Non-published and confidential material by Pfizer explains that this company provided different ingredients for the vaccine for a study that resulted in approval to use, compared to the ingredients given to the public as the actual vaccine.
Israeli scientists Joshua Guetzkow and Retsef Levi managed to clarify the situation after they went to court again and again and managed to get documents upon documents from Pfizer. They were able to secure these documents and send them to the British Medical Journal in May 2023.
The documents e xplain process 1 (the legitimate process) and process 2 (the other process) which were published in the journal.
Surprisingly, the public, including the media, has not yet reacted to the finding and the posting in the British Medical Journal.
Process 1 explains the procedure of how the vaccine was developed. 22,000 people received a test shot. Based on the data of process 1 and based on the side effects documented for those receiving the vaccine under process 1, the COVID-19 vaccine was approved in an emergency process.
According to the author, in reality, the vaccine circulated around the globe was not the same approved version that was based on the data of Process 1. They were manufactured using the hidden process of number “2.”
According to Dr. Schilling, who was interviewed by Radio Munci, the vaccine using process 2 ingredients had dramatically different data in regard to effectiveness and side effects.
Schilling explains in the interview broadcasted yesterday by Radio Munich:
The procedure used in the registration studies is a sterile procedure. This is purely in vitro. This means that the RNA is amplified here by a machine using PCR. The advantage is that there can be no contamination. We receive a highly pure product that essentially consists of RNA. The other method that was used and circulated for general use to most was based on the fact that the RNA is not copied sterile by machine, but by bacteria.
QUESTION:At the beginning of the vaccination campaign, in February 2021, the German media also reported that the corona preparations were produced with the help of bacteria. A spokesman for the pharmaceutical industry appeared on ARD German TV who explained about the manufacturing process that the RNA reproduced by bacteria is initially surrounded by “DNA and many other enzymes and other factors” and that it therefore has to be “super cleaned” from these unwanted bacterial substances.
German magazine “Der Spiegel” also explained the process at the time and reassured: “The state-run Paul Ehrlich Institute checks samples and monitors the production facilities.” The RNA is copied with the help of bacteria. What exactly happens here?
Dr. Florian Schilling:
These bacteria are provided with the desired genome. This is implanted into the genome of these bacteria. The division of bacteria can be specifically stimulated, that is the bioreactor we are talking about.
With every division, the target genome is also copied and multiplied. Finally, the bacteria are killed, and lysed, and the desired genome is removed through a purification process.
The disadvantage of the process is obvious: We do not have sterile material from the outset, but rather have to bring this material, which is massively contaminated with bacterial components, to a sterile status. This is extremely complex, especially at the scale we are talking about here, at the scale at which production took place. Clearly, there are significant quality deficits here.
QUESTION:There are documents from the EMA, the European Medicines Agency, which was responsible for approving the preparations at the end of 2020, which show that the EMA knew from the start that there were major problems in this regard.
What is in these documents? What did the EMA complain about back then? And what happened at the end of 2020 shortly before approval?
Dr. Florian Schilling:After the first batches were delivered to the population, it was discovered that the quality of the material in these vaccines that Pfizer delivered did not correspond to what was known from samples from the approval studies.
RNA integrity is simply the state of this RNA strand, which is packaged here in the nano-particles – exactly what it was supposed to be according to the blueprint.
So nothing is missing, and there is nothing in there that shouldn’t be there. It was found here that there are extremely large numbers of RNA fragments.
This means that this genetic code is not present according to the plan, but parts of it, fragments. The problem is that, firstly, it does not produce exactly the protein that is supposed to be created according to the plan, in this case, the spike.
When these fragments are read, small proteins, so-called peptides, are created in an uncontrolled manner that have not been examined before and are not wanted.
What these peptides do in the body is unknown.
So we have two effects: Firstly, the actual desired end product is no longer produced by the cells from such fragments.
Secondly, there is a high risk that proteins will be produced that are not wanted, with completely unknown effects on the organism.
The EMA discovered this and criticized Pfizer.
QUESTION:What was the magnitude of the contamination that the EMA discovered at the time?
Dr. Florian Schilling:Solid! The requirement was that deviations from the target RNA could occur in the range of a few parts per million (ppm).
That is a frequency of faulty genomes in the range of about one in 300,000 to one in a million. That was the range that the EMA had declared acceptable in advance. However, it turned out that the integrity was dramatically lower. We’re talking about percentages here.
In fact, only about 55 percent of the RNA in these first batches was intact. 45 percent was garbage that no one knows what comes out of it.
QUESTION:How did EMA react?
Dr. Florian Schilling:The EMA sat down with Pfizer to discuss this.
The manufacturing process was already very advanced and the first batches should theoretically have been completely destroyed and the production process stopped until these quality defects were identified and corrected.
This would of course have been a catastrophe in terms of the vaccination campaign, as it would have had to be delayed indefinitely.
If this had been communicated honestly, one would have had to point out very specific risks of this technology, which were fully evident in the first attempt.
That’s why the EMA agreed with Pfizer to relax the quality standards.
It was written into the contracts that it is completely sufficient if 55 percent of the RNA is intact. So, what was previously non-compliant has now been made compliant by subsequently adapting the supply contracts.
QUESTION:So much for the professionalism and independence of the EMA?
Dr. Florian Schilling:Yes, that is a significant scandal in itself.
What makes it even more difficult is that no subsequent study or research has been carried out to determine what effect these RNA fragments have.
If one decided to bring this material into the population, one could at least have made the effort to investigate what consequences could be expected. Does this lead to stronger inflammatory reactions?
What kind of peptides are created here? What risks are associated with it?
I would have liked to have seen large-scale animal testing at least once here. But nothing happened at all.
Quality standards have been quietly and secretly relaxed here. The risks that could arise from this – and it was clear to everyone involved that risks could arise here – were ignored and not discussed further.
QUESTION:There are findings from regulatory authorities in Australia that more contaminated batches have had significantly more side effects. What is known about this?
Dr. Florian Schilling:There is now a database here. It was created by an initiative from the USA and is called:
How bad is my batch?
They looked through the American reporting system, the VAERS.
The situation here is that for every report of suspected vaccination side effects and vaccination complications, the batch number that was vaccinated must be stated in the report.
We’ll now take the VAERS as it is. It has massive weaknesses, but let’s ignore it for now.
The VAERS shows whether the frequency of side effects is evenly distributed across all batches. If the vaccines had a homogeneous quality standard in production, the side effects would have to occur with approximately the same frequency in each batch. They would scatter a bit, but in the end, a statistical average would be found.
That was not the case. What emerged from this analysis was that a large proportion of vaccination complications are caused by a small number of batches.
What we have here is that over half of all reported side effects are caused by less than 5 percent of the batches.
There are really dangerous production lines here, where hundreds of deaths have been reported for a single batch.
Leave a Comment