[Norm’s note: in my latest post of a piece by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, I had linked to what follows. However, given the substance of what follows, it really merits the attention of an outright post. Again, the translation from German to English was computer generated, so the piece may be a bit rough in places. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the substance of Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg’s arguments does come through.]

 by Wolfgang Wodarg, June 12, 2020

Anyone who still wants to sell us a corona “vaccination” may understand something about molecular biology or about business, but look the other way when it’s actually about health.

And anyone who tries to convince us that we have to suppress our freedoms until there is a vaccination is a specialist in suppression, but not in prevention.

So that as many people as possible can make informed decisions again without the panic pressure, it should be explained what the advised measures are about, how they work and what risks they entail. In view of the importance of this topic for us and future generations, political recommendations should not be left out either.

Precautionary principle – wasn’t there something?

What was scolded and protested when Monsanto & Co. genetically modified the seeds. The protest against genetically modified organisms, i.e. plants, animals and microorganisms, was an integral part of many party programs. Especially, of course, with the Greens and with the greenish wings of other parties. There were huge protests against the release of such GMOs and everything from hunger in the world to the death of bees was tried to provide political resistance. (3)

But what happened when a party leader of the Greens is now threatening the population with compulsory genetic manipulation, should they not voluntarily endure it? How does it come that the long-standing precautionary principle in the EU has suddenly fallen out of view not only among the Greens but also with the majority of those responsible just because of highly questionable medical precautions against an annually recurring flu pathogen?

About genes, viruses and hosts

The genetic material or genome is often represented with a double helix, through which the species-specific information is passed on and varied from generation to generation in many living beings. Of course, it’s not that simple. In a very abstract way, genes are particles with the help of which our cellular identity is continuously reorganized and adapted in its environment.

Most people now know that there are manifestations of life that are identifiable but e.g. B. contain only a single-stranded sequence of nuclear acids (RNA) – such as the coronaviruses. These viruses are cell parasites that sneak into host cells and cause them to multiply . The genetic sequence of the virus in the infected host cell takes over the helm and plunders its contents to create virus duplicates in such a way that it dies.

Other viruses, on the other hand, remain hidden in cells for a long time until they swarm their copies again. The dispute about whether viruses are living beings in their own right is idle and a question of perspective, because all living beings (even humans) cannot reproduce without a suitable environment, analogous to viruses.

Infection – a regulated defense reaction for the formation and maintenance of identity

Actually, every virus infection is a natural genetic change in the respective target cells. The difference to the planned genetic manipulation is enormous, however, because an infection is, as I said, associated with virus replication and a multi-layered defense reaction on a local, humoral and cellular level. Even the infected cells are recognized and destroyed and cleared away by the intact immune system using so-called killer cells.

We call these regulated defense reactions of our body inflammation. We feel them as symptoms and can therefore immediately support our body and our fellow human beings through our behavior in such a crisis. It is a natural and necessary confrontation, an interaction regulated with complex communication processes.

The infection process has perfected itself in our ancestors for thousands of years and is part of the common natural development of host and virus. (For immunological details , I recommend the easily understandable article by Professor Dr. Beda M. Stadler   from Bern.)

The mutation of vaccinations

Vaccine development initially took place in state care and solely from public funds.

Smallpox, for example, was eradicated and polio, tetanus and diphtheria were largely suppressed. However, there was a complete paradigm shift when inoculation was deregulated from a burden in the context of public services to a business idea of ​​commercial companies in the pharmaceutical industry. For about two generations the state has only been able to take care that the industry doesn’t turn anything harmful on us. But this is also made more difficult by a greedy industry, whose primary interest is not health but profit, increasingly through corrupting influences on regulatory and health authorities as well as more and more directly on politics. And since the invention of “Pandemic Preparedness”

Virologists who are directly or indirectly dependent on the bio-tech industry have taken on the role of generating fear of hostile pathogens at ever shorter intervals. In this “fight against viruses” the “war reporters” help the companies in cooperating main team media, who stir up the necessary fear and political pressure. They repeatedly create a public mood, under the influence of which our governments have repeatedly been blackmailed (or even encouraged?) To ignore all critical voices and to buy in large quantities the quickly cobbled together drugs or vaccines from the pandemic profiteers.

Planned “vaccinations” change us genetically

Of the approximately 100 “vaccines against Covid-19” currently being developed in the competition, 12 are already in clinical testing. According to information from the WHO on June 9, four of these candidates contain recombinant RNA and three candidates contain DNA. Only a minority are designed as a traditional vaccine. Seven of these twelve candidates therefore have nothing in common with a vaccination, but are genetic modifications of humans that sail under a false flag. Therefore “vaccination” is put in quotation marks for them.

These are fragments of different genetic information that are supposed to be brought into human cells as RNA (4) or DNA (5) in different ways (6).

Recombinant RNA that is introduced into human cells also changes the genetic processes there and can very well be classified as genetic modification of the cells or the organism, because genetic modification is not limited to a direct change in the DNA. However, the recombinant RNA that has been smuggled into the cells should not multiply like viruses do. It is also not part of the practiced cellular communication and abuses existing defense routines such as private security services at a police station.

So what can not be can be

Humans are genetically modified by the planned “vaccinations”, even if the legislature excluded the use of this designation for humans when defining GMOs (1). This was done to avoid human rights opposition, although the same interventions in animals would lead to this label. Even humans are genetically modified in special cases. Such changes run as “gene therapy” (2) and are legally subject to high hurdles ( e.g. Zolgensma ).

Furthermore, with artificial genetic modifications there is always the risk that these could also involve the germ cells. A germline change, i.e. hereditary genetic modifications, have so far been taboo in terms of human rights. The participants in the clinical trials of the new genetic “vaccines” must therefore commit themselves to strict contraception measures.

In the case of the “gene vaccinations” forced upon us by scaremongering, a lobby also ensured in good time that the planned mass applications of recombinant genetic information on humans were not described as “gene therapy or gene prophylaxis”, even though they are of course, to improve acceptance.

Our cells are designed to replace the bioreactors used in the vaccine industry

In some of the planned or already ongoing clinical studies, the genetic processes of cell-internal communication are interfered with so that our body cells produce new substances themselves that were previously supplied from outside via vaccinations. Our cells are to be reprogrammed into bioreactors for internal vaccine production.

Vaccines should no longer be produced on chicken embryos or in technical bioreactors, but from our own body cells.

To do this, you have to genetically modify our cells. Genetic program codes have to be smuggled into our cells so that they generate something strange and new in us, against which our immune system should then defend itself. Our immune system should be trained and sensitized to the previously programmed material characteristics of possible pathogens. So the ideology.

Big risks and open questions

But what happens when these changed cells are recognized and destroyed by our immune cells, as in an infection? What happens if cells in important organs, for example in the liver, are changed unplanned and these are then severely damaged by a strong cellular defense reaction? What if this happens in many places in the body and a dangerous cytokine storm is triggered?

This leaves further important questions (6) open:

1. Which cells are ultimately controlled and changed by the shuttle viruses or nano-particles?
2. How accurate and tissue or cell-specific is the shuttle process?
3. Does our cellular defense recognize the modified cells as foreign and destroy them, as it does, for example, with cells infected by viruses?
4. In the event of an infection, how does our immune system differentiate between infected and modified cells?
5. Does this process trigger a self-limiting reaction, or can mass cell death (apoptosis) with cytokine storms and shock reactions be triggered?
6. How long must the effects of such manipulation be observed in order to rule out autoimmune reactions or tumor induction?
7. How thoroughly has such serious risks been investigated through extensive animal testing?
8. Why is there a very limited and strict indication for gene therapeutics, while an “accelerated procedure” is allowed for the genetic modifications examined to ward off infection?

Conventional “pandemic” vaccines also bring increased risks

Independently of the genetically modulating methods, several classic vaccines are also being tested. In these, different inactivated virus components are supplied from the outside, which should lead directly to antibody formation. Some of the candidates also contain potentiators or adjuvants.

With these vaccines, too, risks should be accepted because of the alleged time pressure, such as contamination by proteins from the nutrient cells of bioreactors. In the shadow of the fear-mongering, the companies are allowed too short an observation period. Protein residues from bioreactor cells can very well appear as contaminants in vaccine batches and cause cellular reactions or even cancerous growth. Long-term observation periods are required to rule out this.

The addition of active enhancers (adjuvants) is intended to increase the immunizing effect of the antigens. However, it is unspecific and can trigger severe autoimmune diseases, as has also been observed with swine flu vaccines.

Influenza vaccination – the annual business with hope

For all methods it remains questionable whether an induced immunization leads to a protective effect in the case of the coronaviruses, which are constantly recombining. That can always only be assessed after a flu season / corona season.

So the flu vaccination / corona vaccination remains an annual good business with the hope, because with this “business” something can only be said about the benefit afterwards.

In addition, there is now enough experience that the space that is suppressed by vaccinations is taken up by other (more dangerous?) Pathogens . Because even an influenza vaccination does not prevent respiratory diseases , it only changes the spectrum of pathogens! That would be no different with a corona component or the planned genetic manipulations.

Brake irresponsible hazards and hold them liable!

So if you want to sell us such a corona “vaccination”, you might understand something about molecular biology, or about business, but look the other way when it’s actually about health.

And anyone who tries to convince us that we have to suppress our freedoms until there is a vaccination is probably a specialist in suppression but not in prevention.

In any case, it is already completely irresponsible that the responsible governments promise to release the vaccine industry from liability . This invites you to neglect the precautionary principle that is otherwise so often invoked and makes the vaccine industry a responsible zone in which speculators and virological hazards are already abundant.

It is gross abuse of entrusted power when ethics committees or the heads of state control authorities obediently approve of everything, while Ms. Merkel or Ms. van der Leyen let loose the vaccine industry gamblers with billions in support out of political calculation.

The fish stinks from the head

Highly qualified scientists work at the RKI, the PEI, the BfArM or the EMA.

Yes, it is the corruption of science by politics and business! We are experiencing a time of institutional corruption, an anonymous corruption that gives rise to fear, which is more dangerous than any virus and which has already stolen many people’s livelihoods and cost their lives in recent months.

10 requirements with regard to measures of drug infection prophylaxis:

1. Immediate stop of clinical studies with recombinant RNA or DNA in humans
2. Immediate stop of the lockdown measures regardless of possible vaccines.
3. No blackmail through proof of immunity
4. Maximum patient data protection also with regard to the immune status
5. No purchase guarantees or exemptions from liability for biotechnological companies, the pharmaceutical industry or cooperating service providers
6. No potentiators or risky adjuvants in vaccines
7. No trade secrets in vaccine manufacturing
8. 100% transparency of all records and results related to clinical trials for vaccines
9. 100% transparency of all documents from clinical studies for the prevention and treatment of diseases that are regulated in the IFSG
10. Complete transparency and access to files in the protocols and documents of ethics committees in clinical studies for drug or immunological infection prophylaxis or vaccine testing

Hints:

(1) Genetic Engineering Act: Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) A GMO is an organism, with the exception of humans, whose genetic material has been modified in a way that does not occur under natural conditions through crossing or natural recombination.

(2) EU Directive 2009/120, 2.1 Gene therapeutic : A gene therapeutic is to be understood as a biological medicinal product that has the following characteristics:

a) It contains an active ingredient, which contains or consists of a recombinant nucleic acid, which is used in or administered to humans in order to regulate, repair, replace, add or remove a nucleic acid sequence.

b) Its therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic effect is directly related to the recombinant nucleic acid sequence which it contains or to the product which results from the expression of this sequence.

Infectious disease vaccines are not gene therapeutics.

(3) See my report on GMOs for the Council of Europe

(4) For the RNA a lot of data is still missing on the security profile. In addition to local or systemic immune reactions that are similar to those of conventional vaccinations, it should be observed how the expressed immunogens, i.e. the antigens that trigger the immune response, are distributed in the body and whether they may persist. It is also unclear whether the modified, non-native nucleotides have toxic effects. A small inaccuracy of the RNA vaccine can lead to the “vaccination” triggering the disease or intensifying it. All of this has not been adequately researched. It should also be taken into account that, depending on the route of application, RNA is introduced into the extracellular space. Extracellular RNA is known to be a factor promoting coagulation and tissue permeability. (Source: Stefan Hockertz)

 (5)  For DNA vaccines , the DNA sequence of the desired antigen is inserted into a bacterial plasmid. The plasmid is taken up and read in the target cell after injection of the vaccine; there the foreign antigen should be produced. Some DNA vaccines enter the target cell by electroporation. Short electrical impulses at the moment of the intramuscular vaccination ensure that the cell membranes are permeable to the foreign DNA. DNA vaccines usually require powerful adjuvants in order for them to trigger an effective immune response. So far, DNA vaccines have only been approved in veterinary medicine. Incidental integration of plasmid DNA into the host’s genome is considered a conceivable disadvantage: the integration could induce increased tumor formation as a result of activation of oncogenes or deactivation of tumor suppressor genes, or it could cause autoimmune diseases (e.g. lupus erythematosus). (Source: Stefan Hockertz)

(6)  The questions raised in the text are answered by the immunologist Prof. Stefan Hockertz as follows:

1. Which cells are ultimately controlled and changed by the shuttle viruses or nano-particles? UNKNOWN
2. How accurate and tissue or cell-specific is the shuttle process? NOT AT ALL. LIPOSOMES HAVE BEEN TRIED AND FAILED FOR DECADES
3. Does our cellular defense recognize the modified cells as foreign and destroy them, as it does, for example, with cells infected by viruses? THE DANGER IS GREAT.
4. In the event of an infection, how does our immune system differentiate between infected and modified cells? NOT AT ALL, ON THE CONTRARY, THE INFECTION CAN BE INCREASED.
5. Does this process trigger a self-limiting reaction, or can mass cell death (apoptosis) with cytokine storms and shock reactions be triggered? THESE ARE RESEARCH APPROACHES THAT ARE FAR NOT COMPLETE.
6. How long must the effects of such manipulation be observed in order to rule out autoimmune reactions or tumor induction? MINIMUM 2 YEARS
7. How thoroughly has such serious risks been investigated through extensive animal testing? ALSO 2 YEARS AT LEAST, ESPECIALLY IF IT WERE FARM ANIMALS.
8. Why is there a very limited and strict indication for gene therapeutics, while an “accelerated procedure” is allowed for the genetic modifications examined to ward off infection? THIS IS PURE POLITICS AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REGULATORY POINTS.

Text is under CC-BY-NC license