Trust the Science™
Just don’t ask to read it.
One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi:
Remember when we were promised ‘transparency’ around COVID-19 “vaccines”? Yeah, apparently that was code for redacted documents, evasive answers, and multi-year delays.
A group of scientists tried to do something radical: verify what we were told. Peer into the actual data. Ask basic questions like: Was this studied properly? What did the trials actually show?
What followed? Stonewalling, redacted documents, and delays.
Billions of people were injected with these “vaccines” based on evidence that, as it turns out, we were never really allowed to see.
The scientists who asked to review that evidence were treated like intruders.
Below is the full English translation of the article from liner-zeitung.de. Read it, share it. Just don’t forget: this was all supposed to be “transparent.”
Chemists Question COVID-19 Vaccines: What the Hell Is Being Covered Up?
Five chemists seek clarification from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding mRNA vaccines. After three years, they receive heavily redacted documents.
This is an open-source contribution. The Berliner Verlag provides an opportunity for all interested parties to offer texts with relevant content and professional quality standards.
Everyone has the right to access official information from federal authorities under the Freedom of Information Act (IFG). But what is the practical value of the IFG? Why can health authorities delay the release of requested documents for years? And why are the documents, when finally released, often redacted to the point of being unrecognizable, even though complementary information is already available internationally?
Since February 2022, we—a group of chemistry and physics professors—have been trying to obtain information about mRNA vaccines from our national and European authorities. We are particularly interested in analytical measurement methods for quality assurance of the vaccines and tolerances for the integrity and concentration of the ingredients.
In our understanding, this information does not fall under the trade and business secrets of the manufacturers but is instead specified by the authorities to the manufacturers. The highest authority responsible for the approval of medicines in Germany is the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which, according to its own internal rules for handling the Freedom of Information Act, grants every EU citizen the right to request two documents, which must be provided within two years. We requested important documents for the public in April 2022.
Now, after three years (!), these documents are being sent to us in small portions. A few months ago, we were asked whether we still needed these documents after such a long time. A German colleague living in the "EEA abroad" was completely denied information, even though every EU citizen should have the right to information.
Example 1: Table from an EMA document requested under the IFG (right): The relevant information is redacted.
The documents we received from the EMA are so heavily redacted (see Examples 1-3) that they are completely worthless concerning the requested information. We have filed an objection against the extensive redaction of the documents. We are astonished that the tolerances set by the authorities are redacted under the argument of "protecting the manufacturer's trade secrets," even though, for example, the quantitative composition (target values) of the preparations is publicly available. One might get the impression that the permissible tolerances are so high that the authorities do not want to disclose them to avoid having to provide scientifically justifiable explanations.
Example 2: Table from an EMA document requested under the IFG (right): The relevant information is redacted.
There is likely no longer any protective value to the information, as leaked documents (see left tables in Examples 1-3) with the desired information have long been circulating online, such as on this Dutch site (link). Therefore, we reasonably assume that in one of the documents sent to us, the substance sodium sulfate was redacted—a filler in detergents and a laxative in medicine—while the also slightly toxic EDTA, a complexing agent with more possibilities for biological interaction, remained unredacted. The decision-making process behind this is hard to understand.
Furthermore, we know from the leaked documents that the amount of active mRNA can vary by a factor of about 4, i.e., approximately 400%. Why were such large tolerances allowed? Is it not technologically possible to do better? Does production become too expensive with lower tolerances? What impact do such high tolerances have on efficacy and side effects? It's not for nothing that it's said: The dose makes the poison. Before the Federal Administrative Court's Military Complaints Senate in Leipzig in the summer of 2022, the PEI's chief batch tester, Dr. W., also had to provide figures that matched the leaked documents. Additionally, this information is also available from the USA, where it had to be published by court order following a Freedom of Information Act request (court order as PDF in the appendix).
Example 3: Table from an EMA document requested under the IFG (right): The relevant information is redacted.
Even before this farce with the EMA, we had repeatedly contacted the German Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedical Drugs—the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI)—since February 2022, in order to obtain the release of information relevant to the public. The Berliner Zeitung reported on this (see here).
On July 27, 2022, we received an official response stating that these documents would not be provided, citing "data protection" related to the manufacturing process. We filed an objection, which was rejected by the PEI with reference to the protection of trade secrets. In March 2023, we then filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Court in Darmstadt under the German Freedom of Information Act (IFG). The PEI has retained a law firm in Frankfurt to defend it, and one of the manufacturing companies has joined the case. We've now been waiting for more than two years for the proceedings to begin. So far, we still have no information on when the case will finally be heard.
That said, the PEI didn’t leave us entirely without a response. They told us that the testing of optical properties was done according to the European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.), section 2.9.22. However, this section covers the measurement of the melting point of suppositories and has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Another reference they gave was to section 2.2.2 (“Degree of coloration of liquids”), which deals with light absorption. This only reinforced our suspicion that the overwhelmed authority fails to acknowledge that the perceived color of these novel mRNA vaccines—which are aqueous dispersions of largely colorless lipid nanoparticles—is primarily influenced by light scattering, not light absorption.
So what do we know after three years of effort? Not much more than when we started asking. We now know that the tolerance range for the pH value of the vaccines spans a full unit—representing a tenfold difference in H₃O⁺ ion concentration, which determines how acidic, neutral, or basic the liquid drug form is. We wonder why such a wide tolerance was chosen, especially given the chemical instability of the lipid complex involved.
We have also learned that the PEI itself only conducts four tests, which were confirmed by Dr. W:
A visual color test with the naked eye, which we consider unsuitable for strongly light-scattering substances.
A pH test with a wide tolerance range.
A test of mRNA length, which only requires that 50% of the mRNA molecules are of the correct length—the rest are considered “inactive.”
A test of mRNA identity, which only confirms a few short sequences and does not require verification of the entire mRNA sequence.
Multiple laboratories have reported DNA contamination in the mass-produced BioNTech vaccine. Yet none of the four tests mentioned are capable of detecting DNA impurities. Furthermore, when asked, the PEI stated that they do not test the quantity of DNA contamination themselves. Instead, they only verify whether the amount declared by the manufacturer is within the approved limits. This cannot be considered an independent assessment.
We also noted the absence of light scattering experiments from their testing list. These are quick to perform and provide insight into whether the sample’s particle size distribution meets specifications. Moreover, modern methods such as Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)—which are available at PEI—are not being used. According to Dr. W, these methods are “too sensitive.” As the authors, we believe that sensitivity should be a desirable trait in any quality control process.
Even after three years of intensive effort, our questions about the quality of the new mRNA vaccines remain unanswered. The impression is growing that the authorities are withholding information for flimsy reasons. This likely contributes to a loss of trust in these institutions. It also strengthens the suspicion that the standards for drug safety set by the authorities may not be as high as one would expect—especially for pharmaceuticals administered on a mass scale to largely healthy populations.
How can the public be expected to trust drug safety when basic questions about quality control lead to systematic stonewalling?
The IFG (Freedom of Information Act) is apparently also being discussed in the current federal coalition negotiations. ZDF reported:
Quote: “Reporters Without Borders warns that repealing the law would be a severe blow to freedom of information—and thus to our right to know.” End quote.
Even now, the IFG seems like a toothless tiger in many cases. Instead of curtailing transparency by restricting or abolishing the IFG, the law should be reformed to ensure broader and faster access to information for all citizens. After all, transparency builds trust.
Postscript from the authors:
The President of the United States is now publishing original documents on COVID policy on the White House website.
Related articles:
“Multiple laboratories have reported DNA contamination in the mass-produced BioNTech vaccine.”
I can’t find any convincing evidence of this when I ask Grok or Perplexity. They cite three very weak preprints. Can we get a credible source to definitively confirm this? Also, I’ve seen responses that say that there are only fragments of SV40. Are fragments still pernicious?
A script, another big lie while Truth was suppressed and millions were affected to their detriment. Hell hath again enlarged itself.