The figure is from Vibeke Manniche et al's new study based on Swedish data, which shows how big the differences are in side effects (SAE) from batch to batch, source no. 2.
As citizens of a democracy, we have every right to expect the health authorities to closely monitor the content of vaccines. This obligation should be tightened for experimental injections, which are given under the assumption/pretense of a serious pandemic, where officials state that "we are laying the tracks while the train is running."
That the so-called vaccines have actually been under way for the last approx. 15 years, the official history reported nothing (1, 7, 8, 9, 10).
That the Covid19 virus itself was developed in several laboratories in a collaboration between North Carolina, USA and the laboratory for infectious diseases in Wuhan, China, over several decades, the story told by our authorities also said nothing about(1).
We pay over the tax to the authorities, which are tasked with overseeing and approving all medicines for the Danish population. Their most important task is to ensure that the production process is well researched and absolutely uniform from day to day, from batch to batch (vaccine series) and from production site to production site. The content from glass to glass and from pill to pill must not vary more than the absolute minimum. And this minimum must be well defined with an eye to safety. Citizens must be able to trust that the medicine and vaccines we receive are safe for us and that the risk is absolutely minimal.
There are internationally applicable rules for this process, which are called GMP and GRP, respectively. good manufacturing practice and good regulatory practice.
One of the methods to keep an eye on the uniformity and safety of medicines after marketing is to register reported side effects and deaths in close relation to the approved medicine. Before granting conditional approval, databases should be established, based on information about connections between the product and side effects. The selection of the data to be collected should be guided by researchers or authorities independent of the pharmaceutical industry, to ensure that the right measurement parameters are chosen in relation to short- and long-term safety.
However, we can state that the authorities have not done their preparatory work in connection with Pfizer's Covid-19 mRNA so-called vaccines.
Far too large a variation in side effects from batch to batch.
This is now confirmed in data from both Denmark, Sweden, the Czech Republic, the UK and the USA. Several independent researchers with extensive experience in performing post-marketing controls have found completely unacceptable large differences between batches for several of the Covid 19 injections (2, 3, 4, 7).
In particular, studies have been done on Pfizer's Covid-19 injection, BNT162B2 (Comirnaty)
The most recent study on variation in safety from batch to batch applicable to Pfizer's Covid-19 mRNA injection was carried out by Vibeke Manniche et al. From 19 August this year. This study compared data on differences in side effects for each batch in relation to how many doses were given by each batch. The researchers have found significant differences in the number of side effects per 1000 doses given in Sweden (2). These results confirm the previous Danish findings by Max Shmeling et al in 2022(3).
In particular, differences have been observed in early batches compared to later batches in both countries. The result thus showed that there is great variation between how many side effects occur for each batch number (vaccine series). The number of side effects in relation to given doses could be divided into three groups with highly significant differences.
In other words, this means that the product is far from uniform, which suggests that the regulatory process in relation to quality and monitoring of production has been insufficient.
In other words: One could get the impression from these studies that the rollout of the mRNA injections is the phase 3 study itself. So a big experiment on humanity. More on this later.
This finding should trigger a fire ticket for our health authorities. Such differences must not occur.
Max Schmeling, independent economist and statistical consultant, who works for analysis companies on a daily basis, wrote a letter of concern to the Norwegian Parliament on 14.12.2021 under the title "Systematic differences in the number of side effects between Covid-19 vaccine batches of up to 5021 times" explaining his findings regarding these unregulated differences in the side effects of the injections depending on the batches(5). This information should have immediately caused the authorities and the Danish Parliament to stop the injections in order to look into the matter more closely. Many could have avoided the booster if the Danish Parliament had taken this request seriously.
The Danish Parliament replied to Max Schmeling as follows: "The Danish Medicines Agency does not suspect that the vaccines are marketed in strengths/doses that have not been approved by the authorities, or that there is a difference in the safety of the vaccines from different batches." The concerns were thus dismissed and they chose to continue with these dangerous injections (6).
It must of course be part of the legally required informed consent that there is a difference in safety depending on which batch is injected from.
A recent Czech study has confirmed the batch differences from the Danish and Swedish data based on the Czech population(4).
Sasha Latypova, who has worked for many years with pharmacovigilance (monitoring the safety of medicines), already looked in 2021 at the American database of reported side effects (VAERS) after the Covid-19 injections compared to flu vaccines. She, too, found extreme differences that should have resulted in a total stoppage of these so-called vaccines at a very early stage if the US health authorities had done their job (8, 11). She concludes that the mRNA injections were ordered by the US Ministry of Defence, and can thus be described as "countermeasures" and that they do not live up to the product description, just as they are not subject to regulatory control as for a medical product(8).
Other researchers and professionals have also found major safety gaps in the procedures that should have been followed both in relation to production, sterility and control.
Hedley Rees, a biopharmaceutical regulatory consultant with many years of experience, writes as an expert witness in a lawsuit:
“It is my professional opinion that the quality control and other safety-critical activities required during the production of sterile injections such as SARS-CoV-2 injections were critically absent. Based on this evidence, it is my conclusion that patients receiving the said vaccinations would have received doses with wide variation in the content of the active pharmaceutical substance and the associated strength of each dose, which could lead to serious side effects, including death. " Hedley Ree's full testimony and associated evidence can be read in the attached document at the bottom of this blog.
The Danish Medicines Agency
In the Danish Medicines Agency's letter to Max Scmeling, the Danish Medicines Agency writes: " The known side effects and frequencies appear from the vaccines' approved product summary and the package insert. The knowledge of side effects gathered in the product summaries and package leaflets is based on large clinical studies, which are the basis for the approval of the vaccines ” (6).
However, it turns out that the large studies LMST refers to are based on a different manufacturing method, process 1, than the manufacturing process underlying the mass-produced product that was distributed to people all over the world.
The Danish Medicines Agency (LMST) has later admitted in a response to the World Council for Health Denmark that Pfizer's vaccines based on process 2 have not been studied in phase 3 studies.
The answer from Jakob Lundsteen from LMST on July 25 reads verbatim (selected quote):
"Dear Jeanne Rungby,
In your latest inquiry, you ask us to inform you which placebo-controlled randomized human clinical trials (phase 3) exist where process 2 has been used in the manufacture of the vaccine on which the conditional or final approval is based. This applies to both Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines.
The Danish Medicines Agency maintains that there are thorough clinical studies, incl. phase III trials, the reason for the approvals of both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Specifically for Comirnaty (Pfizer's mRNA "vaccine"), no placebo-controlled randomized clinical studies have been done on humans with material from process 2."
A clear admission!
LMST has also admitted that they did not object when switching from process 1 to process 2 after the approval had been given on the basis of process 1 (13).
The two processes are significantly different and must therefore each undergo placebo-controlled clinical trials, which thus has not happened(15).
One has to wonder why LMST has maintained that these approvals are based on thorough investigations, when this is not true. The product summaries mention the large clinical studies, the real quality of which is a story in itself. The Swedish Health Agency and LMST completely fail to emphasize that these clinical trials are carried out on a different process, which results in a cleaner product.
This means that the vaccinators have been misled, as the product summary is what the instructions for the vaccinators are based on.
The informed consent must be given on the basis of correct information, which has obviously not happened(14). This makes these so-called vaccines illegal according to the Health Act.
It thus seems to be a case of completely unregulated "vaccines", in other words, experimental substances that have been applied to the population.
The World Council for Health has prepared a pharmacovigilance report (surveillance report) on these Covid-19 injections. They conclude that:
· Data collected from official databases showed that side effects from Covid-19 vaccines are reported between 10 and 169 times more frequently than other selected medical products.
· There are many thousands of reports of children receiving the unapproved Covid-19 vaccine.
· There is sufficient data from these databases to conclude that all serious safety signals for these vaccines are present
· The normal procedures for approval of medical products have not been followed.
· All Covid-19 Vaccines are in phase 3 trials with humans as test subjects
Biological weapon?
A German journalist, Manuela Guter , wrote about the origin of the mRNA injections that they were ordered by the Pentagon. She thus writes in the German press freedom journal in October 2022 (translated from German to Danish, (8, 9, 10)
"Ten years ago, with its DARPA and BARDA programs, the US Department of Defense already financed the research and development of synthetic biology as a means of "bio-defense" to the tune of millions. This allowed the mRNA technology contained today in the vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 to overcome the initial hurdles (being approved for humans) and reach its current stage of development. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is the agency for advanced defense research projects, and BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) is concerned with "matters related to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies and disasters."
Starting in 2012, the Pentagon began ordering various civilian pharmaceutical companies to further develop the already developed concept for a massively applicable and flexible protection mechanism against biological hazards.
DARPA demanded that Pfizer radically rethink vaccines
In 2013, the biotech company Pfizer entered into a 7.7 million dollar contract with DARPA. The American journal, Fierce Pharma, wrote about this on December 9, 2013:
"Pentagon orders Pfizer to 'radically rethink vaccine development.'
What DARPA has revealed suggests it wants to shorten response times to threats from pandemics or bioterrorism by eliminating several of the steps currently required to achieve immunity."
In a then-issued newsletter on current contracts, the US Department of Defense stated:
"Pfizer will conduct a research and development program aimed at developing a technology platform to directly identify emerging pathogens in an infected or exposed person and then produce protective antibodies in their organism."
In October 2013, the portal Marine Corps Times explained:
"The pursuit of this technology was a mirror of military concerns about bioterrorism. It is a significant national weakness."
In the same year (2013), the Pentagon entered into a partnership with the biolaboratory Moderna, which was first founded in 2010. In the agreement DARPA-Moderna W911NF-13-1-0417 from October 2, 2013, it is stated:
"For the development of a therapeutic mRNA platform for protection against known and unknown infections and threats from genetically modified biological organisms."
Moderna immediately became one of the largest recipients of the highest grants from the military research programs (original name: modeRNA = modified RNA). On a website headlined "DARPA – Advancing mRNA Therapies and Vaccines for Biodefense," Moderna emphasizes the military nature of this research. Here the company reports on millions from DARPA and BARDA.
A current study by the British Institute for Innovation and Public Projects (IIPP) shows that, as of 2013, Moderna received $995 million from BARDA and $81 million from DARPA. In 2017, an additional $56 million was added when DARPA established the Pandemic Prevention Platform (P3). According to the authors, several US governments have invested billions in research into the mRNA system. In addition to DARPA, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other private investors have also been sponsors of Moderna – in exchange for shares in the patent.
The Moderna laboratory initially worked with gene strands from the Zika virus, for which BARDA paid $125 million. They provided material for the early medical RNA messenger technique with nanoparticles for vaccines, which were later also tested with the coronavirus. The experiments can be traced through Moderna's patents on genetically modified viruses in the years before the pandemic. In general, the US government has secured a license-free use of the inventions due to the DARPA and BARDA funding.
At the beginning of the pandemic, on February 28, 2020, Moderna patented the same technique for the production of a vaccine against COVID-19 (Patent No. 58558175 / 16/805,587 or the mRNA-1273 program).
In 2015, Merck signed a three-year contract with Moderna for the joint development of mRNA vaccines and drugs against four as yet unknown viruses. At the same time, Merck took on tasks for biodefense funded by DARPA.
"Genetic Surgery" and "Genetic Programming"
But without the simultaneously developed technique of "gene surgery" or "gene editing," for which the Nobel Prize was awarded to two female researchers in 2012, the mRNA platform for vaccines would not have been possible (or economically viable). The system called CRISPR/Cas9 makes it possible to make changes in the genetic sequences (codes) of living organisms with greater precision, speed and cost-effectiveness. In 2013, the company CRISPR Therapeutics was founded, which in 2015 merged with Bayer, with Bayer getting shares in the patent.
Automatic gene splitting and reprogramming using sequencing machines and a computer program is today part of everyday life in biolaboratories.
There is also a third factor that made the mRNA technology possible: the use of nanoparticles. The microscopic fat globules enclose the genetic material and enable the process of cell fusion to elicit an immune response. The consequences of temporary deposits in body organs and in the brain after booster vaccines are still unclear (see: EMA-Assessment Report p. 45/46).
Biological warfare requires rapidly changing gene vaccines
In retrospect, it can be stated that the Pentagon already had the basic concept for the techniques that are now realized in the mRNA vaccines in 2012 and 2013, and had entrusted pharmaceutical companies with the task of further development. In biological warfare, short-term immune responses to different, rapidly appearing pathogens are more important than long-term immunization through traditional dead vaccines. And precisely these properties are found in the current mRNA vaccines against COVID variants.
The massive investment in "synthetic biology" has a dual character that expresses itself both in medically and militarily applicable research. Only in this way can the enormous amounts of taxpayers' money, especially in the United States, be explained. It would constitute the most expensive vaccine program in human history – if it were not part of a long-term strategic defense project that is progressing in stages.
The global industrial infrastructure
With the help of millions, from 2013 the pharmaceutical industry went further down the "bio-synthetic" path, experimenting with viruses and bacteria for their future availability in the new vaccines. Necessary infrastructure was designed and built in several countries for mass production of the vaccines, large laboratories with high-tech equipment, and the relevant personnel were trained. In 2019, DARPA started a program called "Global Need for Nucleic Acids" to prepare the international pharmaceutical industry for their role. Moderna received $56 million. The aim was to
"To establish manufacturing capabilities that can rapidly produce nucleic acids as vaccines or therapeutics."
At the start of the pandemic, production chains were largely in place; something like that cannot be improvised in the short term.
But years would pass and a real pandemic emergency would have to be present before the technology could reach mass production.
Too many patents were put on standby and were not approved.
A shocking truth: The pandemic had to happen.
Most shockingly, in its final phase, the project needed a real epidemic to achieve its goal. Because it still lacked the most crucial thing: the real test data on humans.
How could the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines against a particular virus even be proven if not under an epidemic situation? How should some ten thousand vaccinated and unvaccinated test persons be compared, without being exposed to a real danger of infection with serious symptoms in everyday life? How should the side effects in humans become known - even though they are largely hidden today?
The "existential" military goal as justification
This must have been known to the initiated military people, politicians and researchers in the decision-making centers of the Western world. The logic cannot be disproved. The scientific and practical evaluation of the project is, after the billion investments and due to the long-term military planning, inevitable for the operators.
Only through an "existential" military goal at the highest level can the power elites justify this scenario – something known from German history.
Based on these insights, Russia's claims that the United States is conducting biological warfare experiments in Ukraine should also be thoroughly investigated.
Does SARS-CoV-2 originate from a Moderna bio laboratory?
In this overall context, a study from the journal Frontiers of Virology on February 22 should be reconsidered.
With a special search program in a database of millions of sequenced viruses, the virologists have found a genetic match between the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 from 2019 and the Moderna-patented RaTG13 Coronavirus from 2017. It is alleged to have been used in cancer research (Patent No. 9,587,003 B2, March 7, 2017, United States Patent, Bancel et al.). The authors believe that the agreement according to their calculations cannot be a coincidence. But the study has been overlooked by the media.
If Moderna had nothing to do with the military-civilian vaccine program, had not been funded with millions by DARPA and BARDA, and had no interest in the necessary test data to validate their own vaccine, the assumption of chance would have more conviction.
A – dual – science with a humanitarian disguise becomes a deadly trap for humanity.”
Manuela Guter's (alias) research has been reviewed and commented on by Sasha Latypova, who has emphasized through her investigation that these are not products that are regulated as medicines at all and that these "countermeasures" were ordered by the US defense, which hired Pfizer and Moderna and other companies to manufacture these products disguised as vaccines.(8)
If it is true, then the authorities and politicians have taken the Danes for fools.
Even if the "vaccine" was called a "superweapon" by our authorities and politicians.
Summary:
1. The Danish Medicines Agency has admitted that these so-called vaccines from Pfizer have not been checked.
2. An unacceptably large variation between batch numbers measured in terms of side effects has been found.
3. Many researchers and professionals have pointed out and documented that the rules for GMP and GRP have not been followed
4. The rollout of the mRNA injections on the population seems to be the phase 3 study itself. A great experiment on humanity.
5. mRNA technology has been developed over the last approx. 15th year. The products were never approved for production until there was a "Pandemic".
6. Moderna apparently took out a patent on the Spike protein already in 2017.
7. Ample documentation suggests that these mRNA so-called vaccines are a biological weapon ordered by the US Department of Defense.
8. The pandemic was probably an excuse to test the mRNA technology on humans, as all previous attempts by the traditional route had been rejected
If you connect the threads, a pattern forms which is quite unpleasant to realize. With the facts in mind presented in this blog, it is recommended to stay away from any vaccine until we can trust our authorities.
Sources:
Comments