Click Picutre for full report
This is Hearing No. 37 of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee with \ Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Krueger, beginning at minute 3.56.38 of the hearing to the end. The transcript was first produced in German and then translated (by Gilian Crowther, member of the BDÜ, the Federal Association of Interpreters and Translators)
For the original, please see Hearing 37 here
The German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee was launched by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich on July 10, 2020. Dr. Fuellmich LL.M. (UCLA) is an attorney at law, authorized to represent at all courts in the US federal state of California. He has been a consumer protection trial lawyer in California and Germany for 26 years.
The Corona Investigative Committee has been listening to a large number of international scientists and expert testimony since its inception. Class-action lawsuits are being prepared in the US and Canada. Lawsuits are also being prepared in Germany. Germany does not permit class-actions so the process is being prepared differently there. The committee is also working on the creation of legal guidelines and data caches that attorneys around the world will be able to use to file their own lawsuits.
On 30^th^ January 2021 the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee interviewed Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger, a Cell Biologist with over 20 years’ experience in molecular medicine working at the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine (https://www.mdc-berlin.de/person/dr-vanessa-schmidt-kruger).
This is her evidence presented at the 37^th^ Hearing of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee on 30^th^ January 2021.
RF = Dr. Reiner Fuellmich\ VSK = Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Krueger\ VF = Viviane Fischer\ MT = Marcel Templin\ Dr. H. = Dr. Holzeisen (Italy)\ \ *RF: [Dr. Schmidt-Krueger] conducts research on cardiovascular disease and will explain the mechanism and risks of the vaccine.
*VSK: I’m a cell biologist and my specialist field is the functional characterisation and elucidation of proteins, i.e., I understand how proteins are produced, how they are transported in the cell, how they are taken up by cells, how they are metabolised, how intra- and intercellular communication takes place, including within tissue, and how organs interact. This is all very important if one wishes to conduct a risk assessment: how the vaccine functions for example, and the dangers/risks of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). This technology is not really new: it’s novel as a vaccine, but we have been using these LNPs in research for over 20 years, and we have always been struggling with the problem of toxicity of the lipids and balancing this against their efficacy.
I would like to explain a little using the example of the BioNTech (BioNTech) vaccine, focusing on a number of specific points. I’ve made a few notes.
The first point is that the BioNTech vaccine that is currently already being used is not highly purified, it contains contaminants of certain components. This is in the EMA’s Open Assessment Report, the Agency that has granted the authorisation to this vaccine. The EMA has written this report, and covers this point.
Secondly, I would like to go into the first clinical study of the BioNTech vaccine, and how the quantity of vaccine to be used was determined: this has not been correctly characterised from a scientific perspective in my opinion.
Point 3 relates to the effects or risks of the LNPs, and again I will be focusing on the BioNTech vaccine, the preclinical study they conducted, everything that came out in that, and what has not been discussed in public, and also what the publications say. This is basically not the only research study [on this].
And finally if we have time I would like to talk about the long-term consequences relating to immune disease, that is an aspect that has not yet been discussed in public at all.
RF: I don’t know if you are aware of this, but right next to you [on screen] is the colleague Dr. Holzeisen, who is key in constructing the plea for annulment of the vaccine authorisation: what you say today is likely to have a substantial impact on the lawsuit that we formulate and submit to the European Medicines Agency/the EU Commission.
VSK: Ok, pleased to help. I have made notes and can submit them in writing later.\ Good. Why isn’t all this being discussed? One reason might be that this Open Assessment Report is in English, and half of Germany can’t speak English. Then there’s the factor that one needs to be very familiar with the entire medical terminology in the report. And then there are all the technologies and cellular operations described: only specialists like myself can really understand them. That’s why I’m here, and would like to try and throw some light on all of this.
Basically the EMA Committee’s report has two main sections: one is about Good Manufacturing Practice, GMP, i.e. all the production processes, purification, how good the quality is and the monitoring mechanisms. And the second section is the preclinical study.
In the first section on the GMP they have done very good work I would say: they were very critical, asked for subsequent submission of a great deal of scientific evidence, and asked for numerous improvements. They were very critical and granular, and I was impressed with that. But their approach to the second section concerning side effects was in stark contrast to that. They didn’t conduct any critical scrutiny at all, there are lots of side effects that were not discussed at all in public, they also didn’t critically scrutinise what consequences it will have to inject this into people, particularly vulnerable groups who already have certain organ-related complaints, who are especially susceptible to these adverse effects. I’ll go into them in detail at the end.
We know that normally vaccine development takes a very long time. It’s not just the clinical phase: with this vaccine, it’s set at three times two and a half years, i.e., three phases of 2.5 years each plus the evaluation phase, which makes 7 ½ years in total. And then one shouldn’t forget that the production optimisation is also important, at least a year would surely be needed for that. That hasn’t taken place at all. The vaccine is already being sold and used, but the production optimisation isn’t yet by any means completed. And there are considerable deficiencies.
One issue I would like to discuss are the deficiencies relating to the active substance: by that, I mean the modified RNA that they are synthesising. As a second issue there are deficiencies in the consistency of the various production batches: they need to always be consistent so that one always obtains the same vaccine volume and quality.
The problem that BioNTech had is that in the clinical phase the product, i.e. the RNA, was produced with completely different techniques to how it is being produced now. During the clinical phase they only needed small volumes of vaccine, they were able to use very expensive techniques that delivered highly purified end products. Now that they have entered mass production, that is no longer possible, they have had to switch to lower-cost processes, e.g. using huge quantities of DNA that functions as the substrate to be able to produce the RNA in an in-vitro transcription reaction. This is done via bacteria, via the fermentation of transformed bacteria that contain this DNA. The bacteria multiply the DNA in huge amounts, and this leads to new dangers or risks, particularly contamination. At the moment for instance the situation is that the DNA is transformed in the bacteria, it is multiplied, next the bacteria are opened and the DNA is extracted, then it is linearised via enzymes, and after that the linearised DNA undergoes in-vitro transcription to produce the RNA using various procedures. The EMA Committee made various requirements of the vaccine manufacturer, i.e. BioNTech. The applicant needs to now develop and introduce various analysis processes to ensure that the substrate is free of microbiological contaminants – they probably mean E Coli bacteria for example. There don’t seem to be any processes to ensure or monitor for that. They also need to ensure that all the buffers – those are the solvents that are used – are free of RNAses. RNAses are enzymes that degrade RNA. If there are any contaminants of these RNAse solvents, then RNA in the vaccine will be degraded and the vaccine won’t have any effect anymore. They also have to analyse how strong the activity of the enzymes is; that is very important because I explained that after that the RNA is transcribed from the DNA and then the DNA has to be eliminated, it is digested by enzymes: by DNAses. And if this DNA is not digested well enough, if residues are left, this harbours risks – I’ll come back to the risks from DNA residues, but the activity of the enzymes has to be monitored well and at the end you need to have a pure RNA without any more DNA. And that is not the case. BioNTech has admitted that there are DNA contaminants.
So. Requirements were also made relating to the fact that they have not conducted a transport verification study. This means they have no idea whether the vaccine is still viable after transportation. That is currently being performed.
Then there’s the sterility of the vaccine vial. They have good vials, they have tested them, but they have been asked to develop a new “Quick Test” so that the doctor or whoever administers the vaccine can conduct this test to check whether the batch that they have just purchased is really sterile.
This is simply an additional step that should be taken.
And then they don’t have any proper standard for the various batches.
It was found that the integrity of the RNA always varies in the batches that had been made. I will come back to that again. There needs to be a standard that is always the same for each batch. This should be used as the reference to measure the standard. And they only have this of course for the processes of the clinical phase. Now we have to generate a new standard for the new manufacturing processes, i.e., for the commercial sales. That hasn’t been done yet, they are in the process of doing that now.
So – the integrity of the RNA means of course the RNA quality. They have found that this is not very high: it was higher for the processes during the clinical phase. In this report they don’t say how high it is, but I have other information that says 78% of the RNA was good [translator: this refers to the integrity], the remainder was not, but now they have found new batches with only 55% RNA integrity, i.e., half of it is basically unviable. I’ll explain that again: during the synthesis of this RNA, the DNA serves as a template, and then the RNA is produced. It is possible that the entire RNA is not produced, the process is broken off prematurely, this has to be checked. There are analysis methods for checking what percentage of the product that has been produced has the full RNA length (100%), and what percentage is only 80% or whatever. These truncated pieces of RNA are more unstable as a result: at the end of the RNA there is an adenine attachment, and the longer this “tail” is, the more stable the RNA is in the cell. If this is truncated, the RNA is degraded in the cell relatively fast, and then no protein can be formed at all: in the worst case so little protein is formed that no immune response can take place. But that’s the worst case. If you have RNA integrity of only 55% and the remaining 45% is just truncated pieces because you have found shortened pieces of RNA, then the EMA Committee wanted to know whether truncated protein pieces would be produced, and how much of the proper protein [translator: i.e., spike protein] is produced. This all needs to be analysed.
RF: You are just explaining to us everything that is going wrong with production, and a risk that does not appear to have been discussed at all – at least I have not read anything about what you have just discussed – is that 45% of the RNA that is produced from the DNA is non-viable.
VSK: It may be non-viable if the protein is not formed – BioNTech has to check that now because one can make the proteins visible using a specific technique, and then one can see how large the proteins are. They are divided up according to their size, and if truncated proteins are made due to shortened pieces of RNA, then one sees that because new shorter proteins are formed. In their analysis they have seen various bands, i.e. various protein sizes, and the EMA Committee would like to know from BioNTech whether these various sizes all belong to the same protein or not – whether they are other proteins – shortened proteins that perhaps have no effects at all, and what percentage of the correct protein that we want to have is actually in the vaccine dose. How much is being made.
VF: The small proteins: could they simply have no function, or might they produce some other effect?
VSK: I assume that they would then be without function.
RF: At least they wouldn’t be doing any damage then?\ \ VSK: Yes, these are not completely different proteins, this is just a small fraction of the spike protein. (15.11)
VF: And just one other question about the DNA – what kind of DNA is this that is sort of swimming around, what effects could it have?
VSK: The sequence of the DNA is complementary to the RNA, and this is needed so that the enzyme has a “template”, so that the RNA can be “read”. The RNA is transcribed by the DNA, that is basically the gene of the spike protein. The gene codes for the protein; the RNA is the interim product.
WW: If shorter pieces are produced, i.e., not the longer proteins but these short sections, I’m thinking about the immune system. There are many homologies in biology, the immune system reacts differently to what is produced in the cell. Is it possible that certain things – that something is is recognised there by the immune system that leads to cross-reactions – leading to aberrant immunity or aberrant immune reactions? I would be interested in the immunological aspect of these contaminants.
VSK: The protein has a specific sequence length and a specific number of amino acids, this results in specific folding of the protein. If one has truncated RNA, it is possible that the folding looks different, and this can of course have an effect on the antibody formation. I wouldn’t say that it would have a negative effect because the protein has to reach the cell surface for the cell to recognise it at all. If it is very truncated, then it doesn’t find its way there, it would not be anchored in the membrane, it would be secreted from the cell and enter the [blood] flow. So this is theoretically possible, but I think the likelihood is very slight that another protein or a differently folded protein would arise, causing other types of side effect.
WW: Thank you.
VSK: To come back to Ms. Fischer’s question about the DNA. The problem is that when it contains DNA contaminants, then the situation is: well, with RNA it is relatively unlikely that it can integrate into the host’s cell nucleus. The situation is different with DNA, and especially in this case because you have contaminants of linearised DNA. The integration of DNA into the nuclear genome is relatively rare really – many different factors have to come together for this to function. First of all the cell has to divide; if it divides properly it can’t be integrated because the cell genome is in the nucleus of the cell and this cell nucleus first has to dissolve. But it only does this when the cell is dividing. I will come back to this, because the lipid nanoparticles get into all cells, not just the muscle cells – it is an error to believe the latter.
RF: That is important, that’s what really counts.
18.42
VSK: So it is theoretically possible that this linearised DNA that is in there as a contaminant could integrate into the host’s cell nucleus in a dividing cell, linearised DNA is optimal for integration. Circular DNA is not. DNA from bacteria is circular and is not as easy to integrate. It happens, but not so often. But as soon as you have a situation like we do here, it will happen more often. That is the risk. I didn’t really want to get into what can happen if this is the case: genes can be switched on and off, upregulated and downregulated, cancer can develop – there are a lot more possibilities. So this contamination definitely has to be reduced.
RF: Can you explain that to us again because that is particularly important for us as lawyers, especially for Dr. Holzeisen. What can happen in that case?
VSK: Ok. This integration: where it occurs is the nuclear genome – we can’t control that, it can happen anywhere. There are sections in the DNA that are vulnerable to it, and others that are not so vulnerable. And it is important where the DNA lands. It may land on a gene: then the gene will become dysfunctional, the protein will no longer be formed, and if it is an important protein, the cell may die, and if this continues to replicate, this can cause really massive damage. If for example it lands in an important cell that divides frequently, then clones can arise that are modified, they are gene modified, and in that case in these cloned cells these proteins are no longer produced and then, in the worst case, there is a loss of function. If it leaps into genes that have a regulatory effect on gene expression, then the genes may be switched on or downregulated, i.e., the output will differ. And this means the metabolism of the cell will alter. If this is passed on in replication, then many things may alter in the body.
WW: But these are processes that are probably not the same in all patients. Whether this happens at all is stochastic at the most, and if it does happen, the results are probably also dependent on each individual and what else is going on in their cells. So one can’t say put that in and this is what will happen, these are eventualities – if a million or so and so many thousands of people are vaccinated, then one can perhaps say with a certain degree of probability after 10 or 20 years whether something will happen or not.
VSK: Yes.
WW: With some things perhaps after 3 or 4 years. But one needs some time to be able to detect such effects clinically.
VSK: That’s exactly right. One never finds a group that all have the same mutation, this varies in people - exactly.
RF: This description is not the normal way a vaccine works, from what we have known up to now, the possibilities that you describe seem reminiscent to more of a genetic intervention or perhaps one should say a genetic experiment -?
VSK: Yes, that is true. The vaccine itself, even if the DNA – that contamination – were not in it – is still a genetic intervention. I’ll be talking more about that, then you will be able to understand it really clearly. But I don’t know how high the contamination is, they have only stated the fact that it is contaminated.
VF: But against the backdrop of this DNA issue, especially in the case of dividing cells, the question that arises is that it is probably especially dangerous to vaccinate pregnant women or children, because in those cases the cells are dividing much more than in an adult or a very old person.
VSK: That’s absolutely the case.
WW: In the case of pregnant women one also has the problem that the immune system reacts differently than in those who are not pregnant. Because in pregnancy the immune system is switched so that the foetus is tolerated and not rejected. It reacts differently as a result. This may also have a bearing with this vaccination, it can lead to complications in pregnancy, and also in older people, where certain processes no longer take place – the immune system tolerates more than normal, and immunological complications arise as a result. This could happen in elderly people and in pregnancy.
VSK: But as I have said, we are all at risk because our cells are subject to ongoing dynamism: millions of cells in us are being degraded and renewed every day: one has to consider all the stem cells, all the immune cells, it is a constant flux: if these contaminants interfere, then …
That’s why the AstraZeneca vaccine is an entirely different caliber.
But to stick with BioNTech: there are further contaminants, there is double-stranded RNA for instance. The EMA Committee says it is slight, it is acceptable, but …
It is measuring it in the quantities that are in there: part of the 30 micrograms is double-stranded DNA….that is something else that cannot be used.
Ok, so the EMA tells the vaccine manufacturer that the acceptance criteria for the mRNA integrity, the double-stranded RNA and these shortened RNA pieces etc., that all has to be reassessed, and as soon as further data are available they will review it again.
Good. Then there are also contaminants relating to the lipids that are used for these lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). They have sometimes observed visible particles in the ready vials. They don’t know why that is. They don’t think this comes from storage. They have certain automatic monitoring systems at the manufacturers and also later in the process that check and monitor for this, but this needs to be improved, it’s not sufficient for the EMA. The doctor who handles this vial later is meant to look and see if these particles are there. If so, it is meant to be discarded. I don’t know whether that is being communicated. 26.18
RF: But just to go a step back for a moment: You have just said that the EMA has specified several requirements, and when they have fulfilled them they should come back again. So how come vaccinations are already taking place?
VSK: That’s a question I’d ask you! 26.41
Such political pressure.
Dr. H: That’s criminal, unbelievable. Terrifying.
WW: Another point is that in the USA and elsewhere it is now being permitted to combine different vaccines for the first and second vaccine … Mixing the different vaccines so that one can’t even draw clear conclusions, and this while studies are still ongoing – well, they are supposed to be studies – that the vaccine doses are being mixed so that you can scarcely determine which vaccine is having which effect and which side effect – that seems to be intentional, it’s like that in the USA, that the Moderna, BionTech and AstraZeneca vaccines can be mixed – if one isn’t available, another can be used. This makes it impossible to have an overview and it means it can’t be evaluated in the observational study either – which means we’re flying blind.
VSK: Yes, that’s exactly how I see it. They have a deadline of the end of July of this year for these investigations, and then the decision will be made as to whether the vaccine receives final authorisation or not; it only has a temporary authorisation at the moment from what I understand. The problem is that all these analysis techniques, protocols, all these commitments they have to make, it’s all running parallel to the vaccines actually being administered – that’s what’s so disastrous.
RF: If we wait until July we won’t have any Israelis left as far as I can tell. Holy Shit.
Dr. H: At the same time the EU Commission in the person of its President has given clear instructions to have most adults vaccinated by July, especially those who are already have underlying conditions, and our health professionals, etc. There’s huge pressure towards mandatory vaccination. This is criminal. We will definitely file a criminal complaint next week: this information was the final evidence that we needed. The plea for annulment, if we don’t file it with the European Court of Justice – we will try to next week. I’d request that you submit your written notes quickly to me please, it is essential, we really have to expedite the proceedings, this is costing lives every day across the world. We can try to block it on an EU level. This is dreadful.
RF: We will do the same in the USA, we’ve already discussed this, but it’s ready Renate, it’s on the way to you.
Dr. H: This information, if you could send to me in writing what you have said here afterwards, that would be really superb.
VSK: I will send you everything. The information is public, it’s in the Assessment Report.
Dr. H: That’s clear, we’ve seen it too, but it’s always important to have a coherent commentary, too.
VSK: That’s fine. So I’ll continue. There are also contaminants with regard to the lipids (30.32). There are two new lipids, they have focused on them. One is ALC-0315, that is the cationic lipid, and the other is ALC-0159, the PEGylated peptide, the PEG component. And they have found that the end product – that there are contaminants in the end product in some batches. They don’t know where this is coming from, probably from the cationic lipid. They now have to find out where the contaminants are coming from, and the EMA has therefore asked them to write a report on how the chemical synthesis functions, where they obtain it from, i.e., the manufacturer, which means conducting a quality control for the feedstock and the solvents. They have to list which steps are critical in the synthesis. And they have to do all this by the end of July 2021. So they don’t know the source of the contaminants, and the EMA Committee didn’t go into what consequences the contamination might have.
There is no evidence of contamination for the PEG, but they also need to document their strategy for the quality control, purity, etc. on this in writing, too.
The EMA Committee issued complaints about 20 points in total regarding Good Manufacturing Practice. These are very extensive points, it will be quite a challenge to manage this in half a year I’d say, and they have issued 23 recommendations for further development of the quality of the of the product. And then there are another six pages at the end: I’ll quote from that: “The assessment of the safety risk is considered acceptable; there are theoretical calculations of worst-case concentrations from residues from the manufacturing process, but these have been found to be below established safety limits”. What this means is that our health depends on theoretical calculations, and not on actual tests in practice.
I just wanted to have said that.
RF: What do these lipids do? We have heard from all over the place – not from the mainstream media of course, you don’t hear a word of criticism from there – but we are hearing reports from the Internet that can be substantiated that in Gibraltar for example, 53 people died after vaccination. In Germany we are hearing that the same is happening in old people’s homes. People who have just been vaccinated are either dying immediately afterwards or getting very ill, while those who have not been vaccinated are in the same condition as previously. And we have heard from top scientists that this could have something to do with the lipids or liposomes that in some people are immediately leading to very poor oxygen saturation in the lungs, or are somehow docking in the brain and causing neurological issues – tremors and all kinds of dysfunctions. Does this have something to do with the lipids?
VSK: I can confirm that. This is the large topic that I would like to cover at the end. Could we come back to that later? I will explain that in detail, that really is the case.
Ok – I’ll now come to my second point, which is determining the vaccine dose, which they were supposed to analyse in the Clinical Phase 1. There’s a Clinical Phase 1, and BioNTech has the task of not just detecting side effects, i.e. spontaneous adverse effects, but also of determining the vaccine dose. They tested three or four different vaccine dosages – 10 micrograms of RNA, 20 µg, and 20 µg respectively in two doses, and [hundertenprogramm? Inaudible] of just one injection. And then they conducted their test 34.56 and the patients were supposed to make notes in the seven-day digital diary. Basically what they found was the higher the vaccine dose – the stronger and higher the concentration of RNA – the more frequent were the side effects. Generally one can say that there were always more and stronger side effects with the second dose than with the first. Older trial participants had fewer because their immune system is already aged and is not so reactive. They naturally analysed the side effects that have been published – fever, fatigue, headaches, joint pain, myalgia, shivering, vomiting, diahorrea. Nothing more is covered in the the publication – we don’t know whether they did more. They also looked at how many antibodies were produced and then bind the spike protein: they did a binding assay and investigated the antibodies when they encounter a virus. They generated an artificial SARS-CoV-2 virus that contains a GFB [NB: “green fluorescent protein”, I think this was mNeonGreen – a fluorescent marker], i.e., cells that are infected with the virus light up green, then one can count how many green cells there are at the end. And if one then isolates the antibodies from the vaccinated trial participants and mixes them with the viruses, then they partially neutralise the viruses, and then one has fewer green cells, you can see that. So to summarise, the vaccine has a positive effect, but the criticism is that there is no positive correlation between the different vaccine doses, i.e., we see the same effect at 10, 20 and 30 micrograms. Despite this they want to use 30 micrograms as the vaccine dose. Although 30 micrograms has many more side effects than 10 micrograms. The benefits are the same, but the risk is different. This is not scientifically justifiable. If I were writing an application for an animal trial and I wanted to vaccinate the animals with 30 micrograms and I had to justify why 30 micrograms, why not 10, then I would never get past the door with my animal trial application if I got the same effect with 10 micrograms. There is simply no additional benefit if I increase the RNA volume in these assays.
WW: I have a question: do these microgram values include the additives (37.51), are the LNPs included, or do these dosages only refer to the mRNA?
VSK: The dose only refers to the mRNA. But they are of course wrapped in the LNPs, and the higher the microgram dosage mRNA, the more LNPs you need.
WW: Ok
VF: Is that a question of costs?
WW: If the side effects come from the nanoparticles, then the dose dependency could be explained by that, and not by the effect of the mRNA.
VSK: The side effects?
WW: Yes
Dr. VSK: Yes of course. Because these are primarily due to the LNPs. But I’ll get onto these at the end.
The fact is that the clinical study Phase 1 is normally there to find out what quantity of vaccine you need; it is important to prove what the vaccine dose should be. What vaccine dose you need to get the effect you want to have, ultimately. To do that you need to conduct a statistical test across all the different vaccine doses: in science that is a clear case of [Wanneranzapf mengen test – inaudible – a volume test with a name], that is a particular test that one has to use, it tells you whether there is a positive correlation, i.e., that the effect increases with a rising vaccine dose or not, whether it falls, or whether it remains the same. They didn’t do this test, giving the excuse that there were too few data points per group, i.e., that they only had 12 trial participants per group. I wonder whether they knew from the outset why they weren’t consigning more trial participants. And second, it is an absolutely stupid excuse because any scientist would be happy to have 12 datapoints per group, i.e. 12 trial participants per group. It is entirely possible to draw a statistical conclusion – you can do it with 5 or 6 people, it won’t deliver such robust results, but with 12 per group you can draw a fairly good conclusion as to whether there is a correlation or not. If I look at the image – and I’ve got a trained eye – and compare the median values and the scatter of the data, I can already say that there is no correlation. Whatever test I do, it fluctuates, they all have more or less the same effect. I.e. the excuse that they didn’t want to do this test … or let’s say if they had done this test, they would have produced the evidence that 30 micrograms would be too much, they should have used 10 µg vaccine doses.
RF: But that is a particularly egregious error. If that is part of the Phase 1 trial to test out the dose that will be effective, if at the same time as you are telling us Dr. Schmidt-Krueger it doesn’t increase the efficacy: the efficacy remains the same regardless of whether 10 µg or 30 µg are used but the side effects increase, that is severe medical malpractice.
VSK: You have completely understood. That’s exactly how it is. In my opinion they intentionally didn’t use the test because they would have had the evidence and no justification any longer for\ 30 µg. And then they give the stupid excuse that they can’t do the test because they don’t have enough samples.
41.22
MT: First of all I’m wondering how expensive this vaccine is. If I need more of this strange fluid, then it will be more expensive, and for me as a layperson that doesn’t really have an impact on the issue of whether - I mean, if one assumes that it is this miracle treatment, how much do I get from a dose if I increase the dose, or am I getting this wrong? Wouldn’t I get more out of the vaccine if I said right from the outset that I need to use less? Or am I misunderstanding something?
VSK: We know that the vaccine vial is for 5 people, but you get enough out for 6. You give a little less, but you have previous knowledge that that will also work.
RF: The point you are explaining here will have further consequences. We are seeing that it has adverse effects through to death, this point and what’s happening here will play an extremely big role because the doctors have to take responsibility, they are participating in this – this is serious medical malpractice.
This also involves a reversal of the burden of proof. (42.56) Those who have been damaged no longer have to provide evidence that the cause of what has happened is the vaccine: the doctor has to prove that it was not the vaccine and that he/she is not guilty. This is going to be a really strong argument.
VF: Sorry, another question about the costs. Normally one would think – after all, it’s a commercial enterprise – I wouldn’t put ingredients into it that are three times the quantity of what I really need: the RNA surely has a cost.
VSK: It’s costing US more!
RF: That was the simple question. The more of the stuff is pumped into people, the more expensive it is, that’s logical. It would be a remarkable result and difficult to explain – to the taxpayer particularly –
VF: Let’s say the price people are willing to pay for a product of this kind, where they don’t really know what’s in it, is EUR 50, it wouldn’t really be the case that this price would increase if I said I’m putting three times the quantity in. So if it achieved the same effect, they could say this effect costs EUR 50. They won’t have negotiated a price that revolves around how many DNA particles it contains or whatever?
RF: The contracts are secret. Do you know anything about it, is it calculated according to vaccine quantity? I can’t imagine anything else really.
VSK: I don’t know how reliable the data are, but I have heard that normally there 5 vaccines in one vial, but they charge 6 vaccines per vial. Although the company doesn’t have any extra costs for this. That’s a piece of information I have, but I don’t know if it is true, I’ve just heard it.
Dr. H: And something else. The vaccine is mixed by hand: you take the vial, take the unit of measure that you need for one person, and add saline to it, and then it’s injected - ?
VSK: Yes, it arrives dehydrated, i.e. all the water is removed. It contains a small amount of white powder. This is then dissoves in the saline solution and then you have to take the respective amount out of that. The people who received five times the dose probably got all of it.
Dr. H: Exactly, that was the point I wanted to get at: first of all, why do they do that? That seems to me to be a clear vulnerability in the system. That’s the source of error really. Is it because of transport volumes, or what is it?
VSK: Yes, transportation is much better when it is dehydrated. It can be stored better that way.
Dr. H: That explains it. I find that risky. From what I have heard, it has gone wrong. Someone actually forgot to divide off the right quantity, and the patient was given five times the dose. What would the risks of that be in your opinion? (46.49)
VSK: [Inaudible, think must be “The damage”] is much higher. But I will come to that.\ We are still talking about the volume: what I’ve covered is not the only point of criticism while we’re on this subject. In the same study they have also – well, they claim that it is important to give two doses. That may well be true, but they haven’t proved it; they haven’t tested it scientifically. What they did in this study was they gave two doses of all the quantities: 10 µg, 20 µg and 30 µg. Normally to make the assertion [translator: that it is necessary to use 2 doses], you need to have a group where you give just one dose. Normally it’s like this: you get an injection, then the body forms antibodies, it takes a while until it starts, the antibody titre rises and then it forms a saturation curve. So at some point it doesn’t go any higher: then you have reached saturation. And this goes up over time. But to find out whether the second dose has an effect you have to give the injection and find out how high the titre is after 35 days. And then do the same with the other group; after the same time, 35 days, look at how high the titre is. (47.59). And if the titre is higher, then the second dose has had an effect. If it is not higher, then the second dose has not had an effect. I assume it did have an effect because in another vaccine similar to this [Which? Would be useful to know] it did have an effect, but in that case the scientific data were generated a little shoddily – the time is sometimes missing in the data, they simply left it out so that one can’t prove whether it has had an effect or not …. But from experience I think that a second dose is likely to have an effect … but I’m sure it’s like that in a court of law: belief is not evidence or knowledge – i.e., they would have had to prove it in this clinical study with this vaccine. They didn’t do that: they are simply making the claim.
RF: There isn’t a study on it?
VSK: No, I haven’t found one. There is the Clinical Study No. 1 on human beings, that is where they should have tested it.
RF: They should have tested it within the aegis of the Phase 1 study.
VSK: In the study on mice/rats. I don’t know, but this small study on human beings: that would have been the moment where they should have tested it. That’s my opinion.
RF: No, that is correct. Legally that’s the case. They have simply made the claim. Somewhere along the line they made the assertion: better twice than once – perhaps even three times wouldn’t be a bad idea, would have been just as good from all one can tell. That is really ghastly. Professor Hockertz told us that it is usual in the development of new medications – also in the case of vaccines: no preclinical phase was done, no animal trials: Phases 1, 2 and 3 took place in a completely telescoped fashion, and now you are telling us after having … you have just pointed out that the EMA has made various demands that haven’t yet been fulfilled in some cases because they only have to be met by July – but they’re already going ahead and vaccinating. What’s going on here? The study is basically taking place now, right before our eyes, live on stage – on patients who have no idea what we are discussing here just now! We’ll have to tell our Israeli colleagues this, they won’t be happy at all ….
Dr. H: And just to mention Reiner: without the vaccinated being tracked like the trial participants that they are (50.47) If I were a trial participant in a vaccine test series then I would have to be medically tracked, i.e., assessed. People are simply being vaccinated, and if they die it’s counted as a Covid death. That’s the reality. Or more frequently it’s said they died of their underlying conditions. Anything to prevent it being seen as a result of the vaccine.
RF: We just heard that at the start Renate: The fact that three times the quantity that is really necessary is being administered, and at the same time the risk is increased by three times: we definitely have medical malpractice, we definitely have the reversal of the burden of proof, and we can’t say any longer that was Covid, instead we can say we want to hear from you: is the causality … you have to prove that as you have made huge blunders. Is the causality different to the severe medical malpractice that we have to accuse you of. That is what I said from the beginning: this is definitely bodily harm. At the very least because there isn’t any proper up-front clarification/information provided, [as there would be if you were taking part in a study]. But what I’m hearing now in addition to that – my goodness …
Dr. H: Have you conducted the same evaluation for the Moderna vaccine that is already being used, or only for BioNTech?
VSK: I haven’t managed this for Moderna or AstraZeneca yet. I will do it soon, but had too many commitments and so many requests, broadcasts on Youtube etc. (52.24)
Dr. H: Moderna would be more important than AstraZeneca because Moderna is already on the market.
VSK: Exactly, that will be the next that I do, looking into the studies.\ \ Any more questions on that part? Because now we are getting to the side effects. That’s a real head turner. I suspect it will knock you for six. (52.57)
A preclinical study was done, but at the time Professor Hockertz discussed this it didn’t exist, he didn’t know anything about it. It came out with the report at some point in mid-December. And I spoke to him at the end of November.
So there is a preclinical study. Let’s look at the basics to start with. The technology of the nanoparticles. I don’t want to completely malign it. It’s a superb technology really. But the problem is that it is still much too early for use in human beings. The toxicity is still too high, that first needs to be eliminated, then it would really be a brilliant technology. There are many scientists working on getting rid of this toxicity, research has been conducted on that for years. [Trans: for 20 years she says at the end]
It is actually used for cancer patients, but there the risk/benefit ratio is very different, I’ll come back to that. In a healthy person such as with a vaccine, I consider it disproportionate to apply this technology at the moment while this toxicity exists. Nanoparticles, these are very small particles and always damaging to cells, because the smaller the particle, the more interaction they can have with cell components, i.e., with the proteins, with other lipids, or with the DNA etc. But one needs a nanoparticle lipid envelope because one can’t just inject the RNA into people, it is broken down within 10 minutes by the nucleases that are swimming around. The cells won’t take up the RNA/DNA if it is not nicely presented via a lipid nanoparticle for example.
There are various studies in vivo on mice or rats – I don’t know which animal, I have to ask – it has been found that if one gives long-lasting LNPs to animals, via inhalation over the lungs, that you get DNA strand breaks in the lungs. And that can trigger serious lung disease or lung cancer: it has been found that lung cancer develops. And the uptake of LNPs in the spleen has been detected: DNA strands breaks were also identified there. And it has also been found that when the LNPs are transported in the blood then thromboses can occur, or haemolysis – haemolysis means the sudden dissolution of erythrocytes, i.e. red blood cells, this causes hypoxia.
(Whisper)\ VSK I’ll get round to speaking about that. That can directly be applied to the BioNTech vaccine.
And now I want to explain to you how this technology functions. (55.54)
Could you let me use the screen – then we’ll have a better idea of where the toxicity comes from.
RF: We’ll get that sorted.
VSK: Now you can see a white piece of paper, right? Can you see it? Ok, it’s like this.\ \ Here is an LNP. Inside it is the RNA. This LNP, it isn’t just one RNA, there are lots of RNAs inside, always the same, but lots of them. The LNP in this lipid envelope consists of many different lipids. There is a helper lipid: that is completely uninteresting, it’s not toxic or anything. It’s simply there for the structure of the envelope. Then there is a cationic lipid1. And then there is the PEG component. It is cationic. And then we have cholesterol.
So these are the different components and these 4 components are also needed for this. And then we have a cell. Let’s call it a muscle cell because we inject into a muscle. And this cell has a negative charge here because of the lipids that are stored in it. And this LNP up here is neutral i.e. the cell has absolutely no reason to absorb it. How it gets into the cell is as follows: there are many publications on this subject that have established that it comes in through an ApoE transporter – there’s a lot of chemistry now but you need to understand this.
There are proteins in the blood called ApoE. Those are the components of HDL-LDL that are tested in human blood tests to find out cholesterol levels, ApoE is always there. The ApoE can bind to cholesterol, that is why it binds the cholesterol from the particle here. And now this whole particle is recognised by the cell; the cell has ApoE receptors, there are different ones. There’s the LDL-receptor or LAP – there are many, certainly well over 10 different receptors and they then bind the ApoE where the whole lipoprotein complex binds to it and then it goes into the cell. Then the whole cascade begins. The LNP is located in a vesicle out here. And there’s a sensor in the membrane here, the TLR – toll-like receptor – they are there to recognise/locate foreign DNA/RNA. So if it were a virus rather than the vaccine, it would recognise RNA and break it down.
That is part of the immune system. But since the RNA is surrounded by an LNP shell, the immune system cannot recognize the RNA and it is not broken down, this is done on purpose. We don't want or the vaccine manufacturers don't want the RNA to be broken down. And what happens now is a completely normal process, it’s what always happens in the cells: it doesn't matter at all, regardless of these LNPs, that protons now migrate in. So everything in here is positively charged. Due to this positive charge, part of the PEG lipid is split off - it is pH-sensitive, the lipid is broken apart and this PEG can no longer suppress the cationic charge of the lipid in the shell here. This means that the lipid is positively charged. And so everything in here becomes positive - and then, in principle, water flows in, and the whole thing bursts open and the RNA it is released into the cell (1.00.34)
You now have the released RNA and the individual components: helper peptide, the cationic peptide that is now positively charged because it is no longer suppressed by the PEG, then there’s the PEG and the cholesterol.
What has happened now is that the TLR can access the RNA, which sends a signal to the outside. The cell then produces chemokines and cytokines that are released from the cell. That is the first part of the innate immune response. 1.01.14
At the same time the RNA goes into an area of the cell, it is transported to a specific area where the production of proteins takes place. The protein – this is where the RNA is then – the protein is then only synthesised/produced here so that the spike protein can be resynthesised. And the spike protein can be found everywhere in the membrane; it migrates to the surface of the cell so that there are spike proteins everywhere on the surface of the cell. The spike protein was not there at first – it came into being in response to the vaccination and that’s why it’s called a genetically modified cell. We have therefore become a genetically modified organism. As long as the spike proteins are there and the RNAs, we are GMOs. They’ll go away at some point, then we’ll no longer be a GMO but we are a GMO for as long as they are there.
This is genetic modification. It is not integrated in the DNA but happens in a different way, namely indirectly.