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.
And at the same time, there are batches where there are almost no reports or at a level of severity that is not per se particularly concerning.
Now the question is, of course, how such a thing can be.
Given what we have now learned, there are significant quality deficiencies in the manufacturing process. Firstly, there are too many RNA fragments in it, i.e., not intact RNA, and secondly, there is contamination with bacterial components including bacterial DNA.
And of course that fluctuates enormously and explains these massive deviations in the frequency of side effects.
QUESTION:To recap: Pfizer has two manufacturing processes.
The second process has been completely redeveloped, is subject to many uncertainties and risks, and the result has been administered to almost the entire world population.
However, the approval procedure is based on a completely different manufacturing process where these risks cannot in principle occur. How did Pfizer verify the effectiveness and safety of these contaminated “Process 2” injections?
Dr. Florian Schilling:Pfizer has assured the regulatory authorities that internal quality control of these bacterially produced batches will be carried out on a timely basis.
This should mean that from each batch that is produced, 250 people who are vaccinated with this batch should be compared with a reference group of 250 vaccinees from the approval study who received the sterile material.
It should be checked whether the effectiveness – such as antibody formation – and the frequency and severity of side effects are at a comparable level. Pfizer has only done this once.
There is only data from exactly 250 people. That’s it.
Instead of extending that to the other batches, instead of making it a continuous process. That’s problem number one.
Problem number two: These bacterially produced batches were not administered to the same cohort, compositionally, as in the study.
In the study, we have a certain age spread. We also have a certain proportion of previously ill people and a sensible gender distribution.
The cohorts are not randomly composed, but an attempt is made to represent a certain cross-section of the population. And that was not the case when the bacterially produced vaccine was administered to these 250 people.
Here, the vaccinated only looked at very young people under the age of 22.
This per se means that everything measured here cannot be transferred to older people, especially not to the main risk group. Neither the immunity that arises nor the risks of side effects. And even these 250 were not compared with a statistically meaningful reference cohort from the studies. On several levels, the sample comparison carried out here is completely inadequate.
QUESTION:Despite this inadequate sample comparison, these injections of the Process 2 vaccines resulted in 40 percent more serious side effects, according to Pfizer’s own data.
Pfizer comments in its internal documents that this catastrophic result was “as expected.” This means that Pfizer was aware of the inferiority and harmfulness of the process. How reliable are these Pfizer numbers anyway?
Dr. Florian Schilling:They should be taken with extreme caution. And by that, I don’t mean that they are unrealistically bad, quite the opposite.
Pfizer itself is registering a massive increase, particularly in serious complications.
But we are now dealing with a very young, very healthy vaccination cohort: No previous illnesses, under 22 years of age.
If you now want to apply this to more vulnerable parts of the population, the numbers will most likely be completely different.
This can be done by comparing certain side effects that occurred in the vaccination campaign with the frequency of exactly these side effects that were measured in the approval studies.
There was a cohort study looking at vaginal bleeding as a side effect of this RNA vaccination. So an unscheduled period.
This was done for women in different age groups. They looked at how often this phenomenon occurs among vaccinated women and found that it affected 13.1 percent.
Then we looked at how often this phenomenon was observed in the approval studies, i.e., with the sterile vaccine produced using PCR. The frequency there was 0.7 percent.
This means that this specific symptom, this specific side effect, vaginal bleeding, occurred 1,800 percent more frequently in practice with the bacterially produced vaccine than in the registration studies with the sterile material.
If you transfer this magnitude, then we are not talking about an increase of 40 percent, as Pfizer states in this internal study, but of 1,800 percent – a completely different order of magnitude.
I’m a professional pessimist here, but you have to think in terms of more serious vaccination complications than vaginal bleeding. I don’t want to downplay vaginal bleeding, but when you think about things like brain bleeds, heart attacks, autoimmune diseases, it takes on a whole different weight.
QUESTIONAfter the mass global administration began, has Pfizer conducted any further studies on the effectiveness and safety of these “Process 2” injections?
Or did Pfizer just continue its approval studies with the different manufacturing processes?
Dr. Florian Schilling:That’s exactly how it went. In principle, Pfizer relied on reporting systems instead of internal quality controls.
QUESTIONNo separate study was carried out.
Florian Schilling:No. Pfizer argued relatively early on that the practical experience was very positive. The reporting systems would not produce any relevant warning signals here. In this respect, it would not be productive to constantly undertake this high level of double effort and to carry out internal cohort studies in parallel in order to compare the quality.
CONCLUSIONEven if specialist information is provided to the vaccinators here, which is reasonably comprehensive, it does not correspond to what the doctor who carries out the vaccination here has to expect.
This also affects reporting activity.
If the doctor doesn’t know what is within the realm of possibility and problems arise after the fact, it is more difficult for the doctor to assign them and make a meaningful report.
This of course also contributes to the enormous number of unreported cases in security systems, whether that is here at the Paul Ehrlich Institute or in the USA at VAERS.
But now we use these effectiveness values in epidemiological studies and, of course, in all of this modeling.
There was a publication some time ago, adopted by the WHO, where it was claimed that so many millions of people around the world had been saved by vaccination.
These are all models that are based on the effectiveness values of the approval studies and not on the real-world data of this bacterial vaccine.
The last thing now is that these approval studies are still relied upon. We now have a situation where the vaccines are updated on a fairly regular basis.
We are no longer talking about a booster vaccination, but rather about a booster vaccination, similar to the flu vaccination.
These updated vaccines are usually only tested on mice. Why do the regulatory authorities allow this?
Because they say that at the very beginning, we had extensive approval studies where everything looked good.
And there are no safety signals coming from the reporting systems. So we content ourselves with a few mouse experiments and then wave the updated vaccines through. The process is therefore potentiated.
The security gaps are getting bigger and bigger. The unknowns are getting bigger and bigger. In principle, no one currently knows exactly what the updated vaccines in circulation actually do.
DISCLOSURE by eTurboNews:
eTurboNews did not independently evaluate the information but the reputation of sources is acceptable.
Radio Muenchen had published critical articles in regard to COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. The station was criticized by German regulators at one time and some social media postings were removed with a critical interview, that was broadcasted by the station, but is still archived.
Interview (in German) on YOUTUBE entitled: