Vaccines That Can Destroy Our Genetic Material

The two basic principles on which vaccines are built [e.g. viruses] (1) and approved [antibodies] (2) are disproved. However, pharmaceutical manufacturers are not deterred from rushing through even more harmful and dangerous vaccines. The Frankensteins of the vaccine mixers have no limits in their thoughts, they want to play God by researching various vaccines, which are genetically modified "prophylaxis" vaccines. 

Researchers who take part in this highly dangerous game have completely abandoned their ethics, morals and decency with the money lender and are no longer interested in the important moral values that make an individual human. Especially the last seven months have shown that the "decision makers" have left the path of life and honesty. 

They act with deception and manipulation, driven by power ideas and above all false fame! We should start to think within the human family, move away from the good/evil thinking that put us in this situation in the first place. This pattern of thinking, which has accompanied us for so long, in which there is always a good and an evil, automatically leads to misinterpretations and false assumptions. 

We must stop believing that nature is about war and destruction. Nature shows us in all its facets, which symbiosis it has given us. Dangerous pathogens that want to kill us and make us ill are the fantasies of those who are trapped in these thought patterns and can no longer see outside these frames. These thought patterns also gave rise to the belief that vaccinations must be used to protect us from dangerous "attackers" that do not exist. 

This article will show the dangers of the new vaccines. 

The conventional vaccines

• Passive vaccinations - here the vaccinated person is given ready-made "anti" bodies formed by other people to provide immediate but very temporary protection. One example is the passive tetanus vaccination for injured unvaccinated persons. 
• Active vaccination - here the vaccinated person is given the antigens to stimulate his own immune system to form antibodies (and with them an immunological memory), which means a longer-term, but just delayed protection.

In summary, the production of conventional vaccines for active vaccination is about producing the antigens to be vaccinated on an industrial scale, be it

• "Non-existent" attenuated viruses (3) cultivated on special cell cultures from which they must then be extracted and purified (live vaccines such as measles/mumps/rubella, for which there is still no scientific proof (4)).
• Attenuated toxins, which must be extracted from cultures of the bacteria that produce them (toxoid vaccines such as tetanus or diphtheria). There is no basis for this type of vaccination either. (5)

There is no basis for the effectiveness of either method! See the two articles 

The misinterpretation of antibodies (6) | Abstruse Antibody Test (7)

Excursus: The Protein Biosynthesis

All structures and functions of living creatures are essentially conditioned and controlled by proteins and protein compounds - their targeted and controlled production is therefore indispensable for every form of life.

The exact blueprint for this protein synthesis is encoded in the genetic information of every living being, in humans in the so-called DNA, which is the essential component of the so-called chromosomes in the nucleus of human cells.

In order to transport these protein blueprints into the cell components that produce the proteins (the so-called ribosomes), their information is transferred to much smaller transport molecules, the so-called messenger RNA (mRNA) (transcription). In the ribosomes, these mRNA molecules then serve as direct instructions for the synthesis of highly complex (body) proteins (so-called translation). Depending on their assembly and function, these proteins either remain in the cell, are incorporated into its surface or can be ejected from the cell for further transport.

The sequence of protein production in the body is therefore: genetic information (DNA) > messenger substance (mRNA) > protein.

For a long time, this sequence and direction was considered to be a one-way street, which is of great importance for the discussion of the safety of DNA and mRNA vaccines. This, in turn, is the "central dogma of protein biosynthesis" (7). Thus, it seemed impossible - and this is still being argued today in safety discussions on mRNA vaccines - that genetic information from an RNA (such as the vaccine) could be written back into the DNA (such as the genetic information of the vaccinated person).

At the latest since HIV [misinterpretation, the virus was never scientifically proven (8)] it is known that this is not true: numerous [misinterpreted] viruses (especially so-called retroviruses like HIV) contain enzymes that can synthesize DNA from RNA, so-called reverse transcriptases (RTs). And what is more: the poor tolerability of the first HIV drugs, which were intended to specifically inhibit these enzymes, which at that time were only suspected to be present in viruses, was also based on the fact that human cells also contain RTs (Spektrum, Lexikon der Biologie). Therefore, the incorporation of (e.g. inoculated) RNA into the DNA of the vaccinated person cannot be excluded and can lead to changes in our DNA.

DNA vaccine and its risks

For DNA vaccines, the DNA sequence of the desired antigen is inserted into a bacterial plasmid. After injection of the vaccine, the plasmid is taken up and read in the target cell, where the foreign antigen is to be produced. Some DNA vaccines enter the target cell by electroporation. Short electrical pulses at the moment of intramuscular vaccination make the cell membranes permeable for the foreign DNA. DNA vaccines usually require strong adjuvants to trigger an effective immune response (9). Up to now, DNA vaccines have only been approved in veterinary medicine (10).

Potential problems of DNA vaccines

Since the dangers are highest with the DNA vaccine (active changing of the DNA), I would like to explain this on the basis some considerable information to the CHRISPR tool (gene changes). Nobody knows what happens with such DNA changes. It is to be equated with Russian roulette, only that this revolver would not be loaded with only one cartridge, but is fully loaded.

 New CRISPR gene alterations: the extreme dangers.

In the article Technologynetworks (11) it says:

"CRISPR gene editing is taking biomedical research by storm. It offers the ultimate toolbox for genetic manipulation and many new applications for this technology are now being investigated and established. CRISPR systems are already providing superior genetic models for basic disease research, drug screening and therapy development, rapid diagnosis, in vivo editing and correction of hereditary diseases, and now the first clinical CRISPR trials in humans."

CRISPR, is a much faster, more precise and cheaper technique for processing genes. The researchers are in love with it. You can find hundreds of articles and studies that flatter the innovation.

However, at phys.org (12) we have this warning (29.5.17):

"...a new study published in Nature Methods has found that gene editing technology can introduce hundreds of unintended mutations into the genome."

...

"In the new study, the researchers sequenced the entire genome of mice that had edited the CRISPR gene in the team's previous study and searched for all mutations, including those that altered only a single nucleotide."

...

"The researchers found that CRISPR had successfully corrected a gene that causes blindness, but Kellie Schaefer, PhD student in the laboratory of Vinit Mahajan, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Ophthalmology at Stanford University and co-author of the study, found that the genomes of two independent gene therapy recipients [mice] retained more than 1500 single nucleotide mutations and more than 100 BIGGER [gene] deletions and insertions. None of these DNA mutations were predicted by computer algorithms commonly used by researchers to search for off-target effects."

...

"Researchers who do not use whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may miss potentially important mutations," says Dr. Tsang. "Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact."

Genetic roulette is alive and healthy.

Spin the wheel and see which numbers come up. Good effects, bad effects, who knows? Step forward and take your chances.

Of course, researchers who admit these enormous problems remain optimistic. They look forward to "refining the method". This is a cover for: "We really don't know what we're doing."

Unfortunately, much of science works this way. You introduce a new technology and close your eyes to the consequences. For example, mercury, a devastating neurotoxin that was used in vaccines and is still present in traces in undeclared form. What other damage could it cause - apart from destroying children's brains?

Here's more exuberant PR, also known as "throw stuff on the wall and see what sticks":

The following statement is from the article CRISPR: Emerging applications for genome editing technology

"There are weekly press releases and updates on new advances and discoveries made possible with this technology; the first evidence is now emerging that CRISPR-Cas9 could provide cures for major diseases including cancers and devastating human viruses such as HIV-1." (13)

The train has left the station. 

And just in case you think that only the most cautious and competent leaders of the genetic research community are allowed to approach CRISPR within a mile, here is more from technologynetworks.com: "CRISPR-Cas9 systems, tools and basic methodology are very accessible as "ready to go" toolkits that anyone with laboratory space and an idea can pick up and start working... In response to a growing need, companies like Desktop Genetics have developed open access software to accelerate CRISPR experimentation and analysis."

In other words, anyone can join in at some point and then when I get strong other side effects, there's no need to be surprised.If all this is not enough to make you aware of the dangers of CRISPR, you should consider this statement about the "safer" production of human immune cells (T cells). On statnews.com it says. "The experiment would alter the immune system’s T cells only after they’re removed from a patient. That gives scientists the chance to screen the CRISPR’d cells to make sure only the three intended genes, all involved in making T cells find and destroy tumor cells, are altered. But after those T cells are infused back into a patient to fight melanoma, sarcoma, or myeloma, the CRISPR system can keep editing DNA, and tracking such edits becomes like following a polar bear in a snowstorm." (14)

Not very comforting. Once set in motion, CRISPR can continue to operate even under the most protected and limited conditions and encode genes in unknown ways.

Those who still think these vaccines are good for us should put their grey cells to work.

Jon Rappoport of nomorefakenews.com (15) should be mentioned here, who has been trying to uncover the dangers for over 30 years.

RNA vaccine and its risks

The actual idea behind mRNA vaccines is to use the ribosomes directly from the protein factories of the body itself to produce antigens, which then trigger antibody formation and thus protection [misinterpretation of the antibodies, refutes this idea of protection (16)] directly from the body's protein factories.

For this purpose - to put it simply - the blueprint of these antigen proteins is smuggled as mRNA directly into the cell, where it is read by the ribosomes and converted into the desired target proteins.

Potential problems of RNA vaccines

• The natural instability of mRNA is also one of the problems in the preparation and administration of mRNA vaccines. In order to prevent or at least delay the degradation of mRNA on the one hand, and on the other hand to bring the administered (i.e. e.g. injected) mRNA to the place where the claimed effect occurs (i.e. into the cells, where the ribosomes then carry out the desired protein synthesis), various highly complex additives are used. For only few of these additives, meaningful safety studies are available so far (17), some of the most frequently used additives can be assigned to nanotechnology (e.g. liponanoparticles LNPs), for which only very limited and contradictory experiences with the use in humans are available anyway.
• The few studies available with human volunteers already indicate a considerable potential for severe vaccine side effects: in the largest corresponding study on a rabies vaccine by the German company CureVac to date, 78% of only 101 volunteers showed systemic side effects (fever, chills, ...) and one of the vaccinated persons developed facial nerve paralysis (18).
• Other studies with mRNA vaccines in human volunteers also showed severe local or systemic (inflammatory) reactions, including autoimmunological inflammatory processes (19).
• In addition, mRNA, which inevitably occurs outside the cells during mRNA vaccination, causes various pathological responses, including a change in cell wall permeability (with the possible consequence of water retention/oedema) and promotion of pathological blood clotting with the risk of thrombosis (20).
• The possibility of changing our DNA (see above)
• With the coronavirus a peculiarity occurs which has prevented the development of vaccines until today: 
  The infection-enhancing antibodies. The antibodies that are formed after the vaccination can lead to serious or even fatal progression of the disease.
  
  Animal experiments have shown that the vaccinated animals were not protected from disease and, in addition, that they even experienced a more severe course of disease than the animals without vaccination. Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus (21)
• Increased, instead of as hoped prevented or at least mitigated symptoms of disease in the vaccinated animals in animal experiments. Against this background, Frazer points out that there may not be any Covid-19 vaccines in the future either. (22)
  
  Anthony Fauci, US immunologist and current advisor to the Trump government in the corona crisis, spoke at a press conference about the problem of corona virus vaccines.
  
  He also addresses the undesirable effects observed in previous animal experiments with coronavirus vaccines. Which again makes clear how dangerous it is that the animal experiments with the current Covid-19 vaccines are skipped "because of the urgency."
  „Does the vaccine make you worse? There are diseases, in which you vaccinate someone, then get infected with what you’re trying to protect them with, and you actually enhance the infection.
  
  You can get a good feel for that in animal models, so that is going to be intersperced at the same time that we are testing we are going try and make sure we don‘t have enhancement.
  
  It is the worst possible thing you can do - to vaccinate someone to prevent infection and actually makes them worse.“ (23)
  
  The US-American pediatrician and molecular biologist Peter Hotez (Baylor College of Medicine) has been involved in research on a SARS vaccine since 2003.
  He also repeatedly emphasizes publicly that coronavirus vaccines have a specific problem of vaccine safety:
  „One of the things we are not hearing a lot about is the unique potential safety problem of coronavirus vaccines.“ (24)
  
  He also refers to the so-called "immune enhancement", which can lead to more severe courses in coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. He stresses that this risk in vaccine development is already visible in animal experiments. In order to keep this risk as low as possible, this immune enhancement should be ruled out in the laboratory animals before a new vaccine is used in humans.
  
  The only fatal thing is that now, of all times, at the time of SARS-Cov-2, various animal experiments are hastily skipped in the development and approval of vaccines.
  
  „There is a risk of immune enhancement,” said Hotez. “The way you reduce that risk is first you show it does not occur in laboratory animals.”  (25)
• Genetic engineering on humans under the false flag - Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (26)
• Corona vaccine: up to 83 % side effects 'acceptable safety profile (27)
• Corona gene vaccine: Up to 100% side effects! (28)
• In summary, for a virus that has never been scientifically proven (29), the risks are enormous, don't you think?

Virus vector vaccine and its risks

Also in virus vector vaccines (VVV for viral vector-based vaccine), the target antigen, which is supposed to mediate the [claimed] immunization and thus the [claimed] protection of the vaccine, is produced by the vaccine's own cell components. Unlike mRNA vaccines, however, the blueprint for protein biosynthesis is not directly inoculated, but genetically modified viruses [which have never been scientifically proven, see (30)|(31)].

The [non-existent] viruses used here [in reality body's own components] are genetically modified so that some of the components of their surface are exchanged for the desired vaccination antigen. If these "viruses" are then inoculated and infect the host cell, the host cell then builds the desired immunogenic protein antigens (which then remain in the cell, can be incorporated into its surface or excreted by the cell).

This assumption has not been proven by anything in science, we can only assume that in the best case we will only experience "minor" side effects. There can be no benefit!

Potential problems of VVV

• Basically, infectious pathogens [in reality, the body's own components] are inoculated, whose ultimate and long-term behavior in the host organism (the vaccinated subject) cannot be predicted with conclusive certainty.
• The "viral" vector can also (again) become a "pathogen" as a result of a spontaneous change in its genetic information.
• If "DNA viruses" are used as vectors, it cannot be conclusively ruled out that their genetic information will integrate with that of the vaccinated person and change it (so-called insertion mutagenesis).
• The attempt to circumvent this vector immunity by using "viruses" that are less important in humans (as in the current VSV-ZEBOV Ebola vaccine, which uses a virus known mainly in veterinary medicine) naturally carries the risk that there is little or no long-term experience with these viruses in humans.
• This problem is further complicated by the fact that the existing immunity against individual viral vectors varies greatly from region to region - for example, less than 20% of people in Europe and the USA have antibodies [misinterpretation of protection (32)] against the HAdV-26 virus used as a vector, while in South Africa the figure is over 90% (Ertl HCJ. 2016. Current Opinion in Virology 2016, 21:1-8) - making the usual global use (and marketing...) of such a vaccine almost impossible.

Vaccine Tracker 

The New York Times has published an excellent tracker on vaccine development, which is updated regularly (33).

The danger of the nanoparticles used in the vaccines

After it has been shown that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is collaborating/financed (34) with Lothar Wieler(RKI) and Christian Drosten (Berliner Charite), the next round is about to begin. Bill Gates recently dropped the mask in a few interviews. Among other things in the prime time of the German state news channel Tagesschau  (35) as on his own Youtube channel (36) there he expressed among other things that 7 billion people must be vaccinated with the new vaccine. These vaccines, however, are a new era and even more dangerous than all the previous ones, and the fact that, as Bill Gates has said several times, many vaccination victims are created is not a problem for Gates, it seems to be completely legitimate even for him. So I ask myself personally why he is not the first volunteer in the trial.

These are RNA vaccines that are additionally equipped with nanoparticles.

Citation from the German magazine "Focus-Arztsuche":

"Nanoparticles as mini transporters. But with the production of the suitable RNA molecule one still has far from a functioning vaccine. "It is difficult to bring the RNA into the human body cells," says Cichutek. Gene shuttles with nanoparticles will solve the problem. They measure only a few millionths of a centimeter, transport the packaged genetic material strands through the cell wall and prevent the vaccine from being broken down too quickly in the body." (37)

The fact that these nanoparticles are extremely controversial and are known to pose a high risk is strangely swept under the carpet. 

• In the German magazine "Spiegel" it says:  "Federal Environment Agency warns against nanotechnology. Quote: "In animal experiments, the particles have migrated into the nucleus of body cells and damaged the genetic information there" or "However, their tiny size also bears the danger that they are much more likely to overcome the natural barriers in the body - such as the blood-brain barrier."" (38)
• Also at phys.org it says: - Nanoparticles can damage DNA, increase cancer risk (39)
• Nanoparticles: Cute little killers" by Vlad Georgescu (40)

Most citizens are probably unaware that today's vaccines are already contaminated with nanoparticles, as random tests have shown:

There it says among other things:

"We were amazed by the amount of foreign bodies detected and in some cases their unusual chemical composition. The identified inorganic particles are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, i.e. they are biopersistent and can cause effects that may become visible either immediately before injection or after a certain time after administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are foreign bodies for the organism and behave as such. In particular, their toxicity differs in some ways from that of the chemical elements of which they are composed, which contributes to this toxicity ... they induce an inflammatory reaction."

....

"After the injection, these microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can remain at the injection site and form swellings and granulomas... However, they can also be transported through the bloodstream so that they elude any attempt to guess their final destination... As with all foreign bodies, especially small ones, they trigger an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of these particles cannot be broken down. In addition, the protein-corona effect...due to a nanobio-interaction...can produce...organic/inorganic composite particles that can stimulate the immune system in an undesirable way...It is impossible not to add that particles of the size frequently observed in vaccines can penetrate into cell nuclei and interact with DNA...."

The results of this 2017 study (41) raise several important questions that require answers: 

• Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally introduced into vaccines?
• Does the standard manufacturing process for conventional vaccines IMPLICABLY lead to dangerous and destructive nanocontamination?
• New nanotechnology is already being used to produce multiple vaccines - allegedly to "improve efficacy". In fact, the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine could be a nano-vaccine. Does this manufacturing process have the inevitable effect of triggering a hurricane of nanoparticle contamination?
• How many cases of brain damage and autism in children can be opened to nanoparticle contamination?
• And finally, where are these contaminated vaccines produced? The above study did not attempt to find out. It was outside the scope of the research. It is common knowledge that in the case of the USA, for example, vaccines or their components are in many cases not produced domestically. Where does this lead to safety control? For example in China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals related to product contamination? 
• The vaccine company shows not the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending that the questions do not exist.
• It would be suicidal to trust the establishment.

In connection with RNA and nano-vaccines, the reference to the Gene Drive Files, which the Heinrich Böll Foundation discovered about 2.5 years ago, is probably even more explosive. These prove that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation commissioned a PR firm to secretly infiltrate an important UN process on the topic of Synthetic Biology. (42)

Although all this is known, Christian Drosten (Berliner Charité) comes up with the following words: "Gene-based vaccines have potential." (43)

The HELMHOLTZ Center for Infection Research has been working on another step for years. Vaccination without injections by nanoparticles through creams on the skin or a nasal spray. (44)

Quote: "The nanoparticles penetrate the skin via the hair follicles and trigger an immune reaction in the body," says Hanzey Yasar from HIPS. "Such a vaccine would be very easy to administer and would certainly be well accepted by the population."

Dr. Stefan Lanka (molecular biologist and virologist and winner of the measles trial (45)), wrote the following about the swine flu vaccine more than ten years ago, when it was about to be launched on the market: 

"The strong destructive power of cells by nanoparticles, such as the so-called "adjuvant" MF59 in the influenza vaccine for elderly people, is based on the well-known fact that the transport between cells in organs and tissues takes place with particles of this size and the cell cannot distinguish between "foreign" and "own". When the nanoparticles penetrate into the cell envelopes, these are damaged and the cells are destroyed.

The fact that these nanoparticles are also very stable in the body means that cells in the body are destroyed for a long time and that the body reacts by forming globulins as a sealing substance for the cells. This increase in the globulin concentration is claimed by vaccinators against better knowledge as antibodies and as protection against freely invented pathogens. If globulins are present in higher concentrations, their binding to all possible proteins is detectable."

The Paul-Ehrlich-Institut indirectly admits that this is the case, it says:

"Even if some of these components are located in a size range in the nanometer range, they are not technologically specifically produced nanoparticles, especially not nanoparticles made of metals or plastics." (46)

Remark: I see, so not intentionally but unintentionally?

Combined Subchronic Toxicity of Aluminum (III), Titanium (IV) and Silicon (IV) Oxide Nanoparticles and Its Alleviation with a Complex of Bioprotectors

SUMMARY

The use of nanoparticles - including metallic nanoparticles - has exploded in industry, trade and medicine in recent decades. A Russian research team investigated the "nanotoxicity" of three types of metal nanoparticles (titanium, silicon and aluminum oxide), both alone and in combination. Repeated injections into rats showed that all three were "toxic to several target organs". "For the majority of these effects", however, the alumina nanoparticles proved to be "most harmful", although the aluminum dose was half of the titanium and silicon doses. No other publications have reported the combined toxicity of these metal nanoparticles, despite their "potentially dangerous nano-effects on human health". (47)

Measles vaccine genetically contaminated: PEI refuses to determine

The influence foreign DNA contained in some vaccines can have on the organism of the vaccinated person has so far only been discussed in vaccination-critical circles. Regulatory authorities, including the German Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), completely ignore this problem.

(ht) On December 9, 2019, the British Independent published on its website (48) a sensational article about a man who had received a bone marrow donation and after four years found that the donor's DNA could be detected not only in his blood but also in his spit.

Beyond that, the unthinkable had also happened: In his sperm cells, his DNA was completely replaced by the donor's DNA. So in the future, will the children he begets wear not his features but those of the bone marrow donor?

This would therefore be an aspect that Health Minister Jens Spahn would have to consider in his efforts to radically simplify organ transplantation.

So what are the consequences of foreign or even artificially modified DNA entering an organism?

In connection with the so-called DNA vaccines, which are currently being developed by various manufacturers and which are supposed to reprogram healthy body cells into vaccine factories, cancer and new autoimmune diseases have already been observed as side effects. Again, there is no answer to the question whether the gene sequences from the vaccine will ultimately enter the germ line - and if so, with what consequences.

The competent regulatory authorities, the German Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) and the European Medical Agency (EMA) have not even asked the question.

It is to be feared that the long-term consequences of genetically engineered vaccines, e.g. against Hepatitis B, are also unknown. A question that was already raised at a congress in September 1999 by biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka.

Now the Italian parents' organization CORVELVA has had several vaccines tested for genetic impurities, among others, including the MMRV quadruple vaccine PRIORIX TETRA (GSK). This vaccine will be made compulsory from March 1, 2020, together with the three other measles vaccines currently available.

The results of the trials: PRIORIX TETRA contains the complete genome of a male fetus!

On October 26, 2019 I sent a request to the PEI:

"The Italian group of scientists Corvelva, on closer examination of PRIORIX TETRA, found the almost complete DNA of a male fetus.

The amount of DNA exceeds the maximum recommended by the WHO by more than 10 times. The scientists demand an examination of PRIORIX TETRA with today's modern methods.

They also fear that the modified human DNA in the vaccine could lead to mutations and autoimmune diseases. With reference to the Freedom of Information Act, I ask for access to internal documents of the authorities, which show

1. that the PEI has tested the vaccine with modern testing methods for contained DNA and what the concrete result is regarding contained DNA and its amount

2. on the basis of which specific data your authority can safely exclude mutations or autoimmune diseases due to the human DNA contained in the DNA."

The response of the PEI on Dec. 30, 2019:

"Regarding question 1: It is not part of the batch testing to check the DNA content of MMR-V vaccines.

Regarding question 2: The decision as to which parameters could be a potential hazard and which parameters are specifically tested during the batch testing of a vaccine is primarily made by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines (EDQM). This is where the Pharmacopoeia Commission and the network of Official Medical Test Laboratories (OMCL) are located. The PEI does not have the specific data you requested."

Actually, one would think that the PEI would immediately follow up such a suspicion with determination in order to clarify whether it is just an unfounded rumor or a serious risk. Instead, the authorities do not even question the correctness of the laboratory tests in their reply - CORVELVA has not yet disclosed the identity of the investigating laboratory or the original results.

In my opinion, this clearly shows that the authority, firstly, does not care at all whether these test results are correct or not and, secondly, that responsibility is reflexively shifted to the European level.

So anyone who believes that vaccine safety is in good hands with the PEI is turning the buck into a gardener.

(Article by Hans Tolzin from Impfreport (Vaccination Report) (49))

Translated & reblogged Version - Original here

Telegraph main page with overview of all articles: Link

Visit our Telegram Channel for additional news & information: Link

Chat with like-minded in our Telegram Chat Group: Link

Please support to keep this blog alive: paypal

References:

(1) Leading Corona researchers admit that they have no scientific proof for the existence of a virus

(2) The misinterpretation of antibodies

(3) see 1

(4) The Federal Court of Justice destroys the belief in Viruses

(5) Die Tetanusimpfung – Eine Risiko-Nutzen-Analyse (The tetanus vaccination - a risk-benefit analysis)

(6) The misinterpretation of antibodies

(7) Crick F. 1970. Nature 227, 561-563 (1970) Central Dogma of Molecular Biology

(8) Challenging BOTH Mainstream and Alternative AIDS Views

(9) Hobernik D, Bros M. DNA Vaccines-How Far From Clinical Use?. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(11):3605. Published 2018 Nov 15. doi:10.3390/ijms19113605

(10) Jazayeri SD, Poh CL. Recent advances in delivery of veterinary DNA vaccines against avian pathogens. Vet Res. 2019 Oct 10;50(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s13567-019-0698-z. PMID: 31601266; PMCID: PMC6785882.

(11) CRISPR: Emerging applications for genome editing technology

(12) CRISPR gene editing can cause hundreds of unintended mutations

(13) see 11

(14) They’re going to CRISPR people. What could possibly go wrong?

(15) nomorefakenews.com

(16) see 2

(17) Roier p. 2019. Trillium Immunologie 3/2019. Viewed 03.05.2020

(18) Alberer M, Gnad-Vogt U, Hong HS, Mehr KT, Backert L, Finak G, Gottardo R, Bica MA, Garofano A, Koch SD, Fotin-Mleczek M, Hoerr I, Clemens R, von Sonnenburg F. Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial. Lancet. 2017 Sep 23;390(10101):1511-1520. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31665-3. Epub 2017 Jul 25. PMID: 28754494.

(19) Pardi N. 2018. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 17(4):261–79

(20) see 19

(21) Tseng, Chien-Te et al. “Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus.” PloS one vol. 7,4 (2012): e35421. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035421

(22) We've never made a successful vaccine for a coronavirus before. This is why it's so difficult

(23) Fauci Speaks About Vaccine Induced Disease Enhancement

(24) House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Hearing on Coronavirus

(25) As pressure for coronavirus vaccine mounts, scientists debate risks of accelerated testing

(26) Gentechnik am Menschen unter falscher Flagge -Impfstoffindustrie und Politik wollen uns wegen Covid-19 genetisch verändern von Wolfgang Wodarg, 12. Juni 2020 (Genetic engineering on humans under the false flag - vaccine industry and politics want to genetically modify us because of Covid-19 by Wolfgang Wodarg, June 12, 2020)

(27) Corona-Impfstoff: Bis zu 83 % Nebenwirkungen 'akzeptables Sicherheits-Profil' (Corona vaccine: up to 83 % side effects 'acceptable safety profile)

(28) Corona-Gen-Impfstoff: Bis zu 100 % Nebenwirkungen! (Corona gene vaccine: Up to 100% side effects!)

(29) see 1

(30) see 4

(31) see 1

(32) see 2

(33) Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker

(34) What is the government keeping from us?

(35) Bill Gates über Corona-Impfstoff (Bill Gates on Corona vaccine)

(36) The race for a COVID-19 vaccine, explained

(37) COVID-19-Impfung: Wettrennen zum Vakzin (COVID 19 vaccination: Race to the vaccine)

(38) Umweltbundesamt warnt vor Nanotechnologie (Federal Environment Agency warns against nanotechnology)

(39) Nanoparticles can damage DNA, increase cancer risk

(40) Nanoparticles: Cute little killers

(41) New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination

(42) Die Gene Drive Files (The Gene Drive Files)

(43) Coronavirus update: Gene-based vaccines have potential

(44) Impfen mit Nanopartikeln (Inoculation with nanoparticles)

(45) see 4

(46) Ent­hal­ten die pan­de­mi­schen In­flu­enzaimpf­stof­fe ge­sund­heits­schäd­li­che Na­no­par­ti­kel? (Do the pandemic influenza vaccines contain harmful nanoparticles?)

(47) Minigalieva IA, Katsnelson BA, Privalova LI, et al. Combined Subchronic Toxicity of Aluminum (III), Titanium (IV) and Silicon (IV) Oxide Nanoparticles and Its Alleviation with a Complex of Bioprotectors. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(3):837. Published 2018 Mar 13. doi:10.3390/ijms19030837

(48) Man who had transplant finds out months later his DNA has changed to that of donor 5,000 miles away

(49) Masernimpfstoff genetisch verunreinigt: PEI weigert sich zu ermitteln (Measles vaccine genetically contaminated: PEI refuses to determine)