Attn. Minister of the Interior and Health Sophie Løhde.
Cc Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen
Cc Parliament
Date. 01-01-2025
Dear Sophie Løhde
Thank you for your response (19-12-2024 (ISM) Id no.: 271413) to the letter of concern from NORTH-Denmark delivered to Christiansborg on November 25, 2024 on behalf of the NORTH group, which represents scientists, doctors, politicians and professionals from now 18 countries in Europe (1).
Your response is quite brief: “The Ministry has received the inquiry, and we have noted your views.”
We would like to point out, that these are not "viewpoints" but evidence-based science including peer-reviewed documentation provided in the associated lay summary (Lay Summary), which is why the content of this open letter is as follows:
1. Liability.
2. Reply to your response to the letter of concern submitted to Christiansborg on 25-11-2024 on behalf of the NORTH group, including documentation of the latest scientific data confirming that DNA residues from the vaccines circulated in the blood of the vaccinees 2 days after injection (4, 5).
3. Request for access to documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
The seriousness of the matter and the imposition of liability
The letter of concern from North addresses, among other things, two significant issues (quoted from the letter of concern):
COVID-19 vaccines resulted in an unprecedented level of reported adverse reactions.
Analyses by several independent researchers show that Pfizer's and Moderna's products were contaminated with varying and unprecedented levels of residual bacterially derived plasmid DNA from their poorly controlled manufacturing processes(3).
In this response, we would like to once again draw attention to the seriousness of the matter, with reference to the letter of concern submitted by the North group on 25 November 2024(1), co-signed by more than 400 professionals.
In light of the latest scientific findings, which strongly suggest that COVID-19 vaccines may integrate into the human genome with the risk of serious consequences for the health of our nation's citizens(2, 4, 5), we have hereby made you aware of the potential risks. Therefore, the letter of concern should be seen as a call to action for you, as the senior minister responsible in this area. The Prime Minister is of course also seen as having overall responsibility in this matter.
We recommend (quoted from the letter of concern):
An immediate halt to the use of mRNA vaccines and a recall of the product.
An independent and transparent investigation into their approval and use.
Scientific evidence that demonstrates that there is absolutely no risk of harm to
human DNA.
Point 3 is also a request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act, as follows:
Documentation that there is absolutely no risk of damage to human DNA, including the risk of cancer, as a result of this measured DNA contamination.
In this context, it is important to note that the COVID-19 mRNA products that were given to the population were manufactured according to the commercial process 2, which was put into use after the conditional approval was granted.
It is this commercial manufacturing process that entails an increased risk of transfer of residual artificial bacterial plasmid DNA in the vaccines to the human genome. The reason why the mentioned plasmid DNA residues are unlikely to be degraded in the bloodstream is that they are encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles, which make them resistant to the body's immune system. This makes the used DNA content limit values of 10ng/dose obsolete and unusable, as they are set for naked DNA.
This is not the first time you have been made aware of this issue. On February 5, 2024, you received and acknowledged an open letter of concern that explains in detail the risk of transferring DNA residues to the body's genetic material when there are simultaneously strong human biologically active sequences, such as the SV40 enhancer, which works by pulling DNA residues from the cell fluid to the cell nucleus, where the genetic material is found(1, 6).
Misinformation to the Folketing
In light of your response to Lars Boje Mathiesen during question time in the Folketingssalen on 04-12-2024, which read:
"It is highly theoretical and completely unlikely that even very small amounts of DNA residues in vaccines can be transferred to the body's own DNA. In practice, there is no scientific evidence that it is even possible to transfer DNA to the body's own DNA regardless of the presence of small residues in any of the vaccines, and there is therefore no evidence of a risk of genetic damage."
This statement shows that you are misinformed by your health authorities, for whom you have the overall responsibility. Selected peer-reviewed sources and reproduced studies in this answer prove the opposite, namely that there is a high degree of risk, as the excess amounts of DNA from the mRNA products are actually integrated into the cell nucleus and are also found in the bloodstream of vaccinated people (2, 3, 4, 5).
A recent study by Ryan et al from Australia has now detected residual DNA, SV40 enhancers along with antibiotic resistance genes (kanamycin) in the blood of 75 people who had received Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 mRNA products (4, 5). The finding has also been confirmed by an independent genetic researcher. This finding has just been reported to the Australian Prime Minister via a number of members of parliament, including MP Russel Broadbent.
In your response to Lars Boje Mathiesen on 04-12-2024 you refer to a recent study by Andersson et al. from the Statens Seruminstitut covering Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Your claim was that in this study last year (2023) a 58 percent comparative effect of the covid 19 vaccine on the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 and a 75 percent effect in connection with death compared to “unvaccinated” people up to 24 weeks after the injection (7).
However, this was not a comparison with unvaccinated people. Here too, you are misinformed by your health advisory authorities, as the comparison group is called “non-recipients”, which is not the same as unvaccinated people. On the contrary, it is a comparison between the group that received the 5th or 6th COVID-19 booster and those who had already received at least 4 COVID-19 injections a year or more ago. The authors (from SSI) have therefore deliberately chosen to compare with a group that has been documented (8, 11, 12) to have reached the stage that entails a negative effect and poorer chances of survival if they are vaccinated(11); i.e. a group with a weakened immune system, and an increased risk of COVID-19 and an increased risk of death regardless of the cause(8, 11, 12).
Another thing the authors failed to include in the Andersson et al study is data from the time period from the injection to one week later, when most deaths and serious early side effects traditionally occur. These early cases of COVID-19 and deaths were thus filtered out of the study data.
The study also does not inform whether the quality and number of PCR tests for positive COVID-19 diagnosis in each group are comparable, including the number of “cycles” (CT score) run for a positive test result. It is well known with PCR tests that the higher the “cycles”, the higher the risk of false positive test results, therefore the same upper limit for the number of “cycles” should be defined and used in both groups, so that the risk of false positive is the same. If this uniformity is not ensured, “elasticity in meters” is used, which is unscientific.
The study period started on 1 Oct. 2023 and ended on 21 April 2024. It was therefore either a prospective or consecutive study, during which PCR tests were carried out at SSI and other participating similar institutes in Sweden and Finland, where some of the authors are employed.
It cannot be ruled out that SSI may have a financial interest in continued vaccination and is therefore biased in relation to both measurement parameters (PCR test quality) and the results of the study.
By omitting the aforementioned information from the study, a critical insight into the results is prevented. This is perceived as data manipulation in order to reach conclusions that can justify a political decision that the authorities continue to give these COVID-19 gene therapy-based vaccines to people over 65, the immunocompromised and pregnant women.
A relevant question is why the authors have not chosen to compare the vaccinated with the unvaccinated, which seems most natural.
You, as the responsible Minister of Health, should publicly apologize and correct your misinformation stated in the Danish Parliament on December 4, as described above.
The regulatory process:
This is apparent from the response to the request for access to documents from the Danish Medicines Agency (case number 2024024182) on August 12, 2024:
· That there are no placebo-controlled randomized clinical studies in humans with material from process 2 for Cormirnaty.
· That no objection was raised by the Danish Medicines Agency when Pfizer switched from process 1 to process 2.
This is a clear admission of a failure in the regulatory process, as the two manufacturing processes are significantly different(10).
According to Jakob Lundsteen, LMST, there is a comparability study that defends this omission.
This comparability study was never completed by the manufacturer (Pfizer), as only 252 subjects who had received the COVID-19 vaccine from process 2 had 2.5 times more side effects than subjects from process 1(6,10).
The study was stopped in violation of the planned trial protocol and no one was ever compared to unvaccinated subjects(10).
For the benefit of the doubt, we hereby request access to the following documents in accordance with the Danish Freedom of Information Act:
The comparability study between process 1 and process 2, also between process 2 and placebo/unvaccinated, if it has been conducted. The requested documentation should show that the production of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in process 2 is not significantly different from process 1. All information to citizens about these vaccines is based on process 1. There can and should therefore be side effect studies, blood tests, genotoxic and carcinotoxic studies conducted by both the manufacturer and controlled in OMCL laboratories as far as process 2 is concerned, which ensure that these vaccines are absolutely free of risk of damage to human DNA, including from cancer tissue from these mRNA products.
We also request access to the incoming and outgoing communication (emails, recorded telephone conversations, text messages and physical letters as well as meeting minutes) that has taken place to and from the Danish Medicines Agency, the Danish Health Authority, the Ministry of Health, the Prime Minister's Office, the Ministry of Defence, the EMA and Pfizer regarding:
1. The shift from process 1 to process 2 for Pfizer's COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (Comirnaty).
2. Discovery and review of SV40 sequences in these mRNA vaccines from both Pfizer and Moderna.
Regarding the above requests for access to documents, reference is made to Section 36, subsections 2 and 3 of the Danish Access to Information Act, which requires a response no later than 7 working days after receipt.
We also want answers to the following questions (repeated and quoted from the letter of concern):
What will it take to launch an independent and transparent public and forensic investigation into the regulatory processes leading to the approval of these products?
What prevents the Minister from initiating and prioritizing research into potential links between mRNA vaccines and cancer, infertility, or other acute, chronic, and genetic diseases?
With respect and kind regards,
Malue Montclaire
NORTH-Denmark
And
Jeanne A. Rungby,
Specialist in Otorhinolaryngology
NORTH-Denmark and
World Council for Health Denmark.
Sources:
8. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v3.full.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1OROghCFpb9mmkJjvG1esNezO mdUoEZHTvsFXXotnV0Jr6XRImpzWaMT4
Comments