because there was never a Covid-19 pandemic in Germany, which is shown, among other things, by the fact that

1.) there was no excess mortality in 2020,

2.) the hospital occupancy in the now two-year-long "pandemic" was and is historically low and

3.) the infection mortality from SARS-CoV-2 was never even remotely threatening. In the meantimeeven locate mainstream media like the Financial Timesthe infection mortality from SARS-CoV-2 is below that of seasonal flu. That means vaccine development has never been a high priority for medical reasons. It was therefore even less justified to use fear-mongering and political blackmail to coerce people into being injected with a mixture based on an active principle that had never before been used in humans.

In order to understand why these substances, which are incorrectly called “mRNA vaccines”, cannot function as a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 and at the same time are extremely dangerous for the people injected, one has to understand what actually happens in the body after such an injection. So what are these vaccines made of? Put simply, they are small hollow spheres made of synthetic lipids (fats in the broadest sense) that contain molecules of modified RNA (this point will become important later). These beads, called lipid nanoparticles, are suspended in an aqueous solution and this suspension is injected into the muscle of the upper arm. For a while it was claimed that the lipid nanoparticles remained predominantly at the injection site, but it was clear from the start that this claim was wrong. In most cases (unless a blood vessel is hit), the lipid nanoparticles get into the space between the muscle cells as a result of the injection. There is always fluid in this intercellular space, the tissue fluid. This fluid comes, among other things, from the blood capillaries, the fine blood vessels that supply the tissue with oxygen and nutrients. However, the tissue fluid has to be at least partially removed – what happens when this removal does not work properly can be seen in people with edema, or when we sit for a long time and our legs swell as a result. The lymphatic system, a blind-ending vascular system in the human body, takes over this removal of the tissue fluid. So it was clear from the start that a significant proportion of the lipid nanoparticles would end up in the lymphatic system. The lymphatic vessels gradually unite to form larger vessels, whereby the lymphatic system not only serves to remove tissue fluid, but also plays an important role in the immune system. The lymph nodes, which serve as "filter stations" and normally stop viruses and cancer cells and render them harmless, are particularly important here. Some of the lipid nanoparticles get stuck in the lymph nodes, but some pass through them and get into the bloodstream with the lymphatic fluid, since the lymphatic system opens into the venous angles close to the heart and the lymphatic fluid is absorbed into the blood. The venous blood flows into the right half of the heart and from there into the lungs and the pulmonary capillaries. From there it goes back to the left side of the heart and from there the blood is then pumped throughout the body and reaches the various tissues and organs. Organs with a high blood supply, such as the heart, liver, spleen, kidneys and brain, are of particular interest in this context. Finally, the blood returns to the right side of the heart via the veins. This detailed description is important because at any point in this journey, the lipid nanoparticles can stick to cells and the modified RNA molecules can enter the respective cells.

Still producing spike protein after 90 days

Normal vaccines also take the same route, but these consist of proteins and adjuvants (auxiliary substances that ensure a stronger immune response). The proteins are recognized by the body as antigens and have a direct immunogenic effect, ie they trigger a response from the immune system which, among other things, leads to the formation of antibodies against the respective antigens. The corona “vaccines” work on a completely different principle. First of all, it has to be made clear that they do not contain normal RNA, but a modified RNA (modRNA), since one of the four building blocks, uridine, has been replaced by a chemically significantly different building block, namely pseudouridine, at all more than 800 sites, where a uridine can be found in the original sequence. This chemical modification has a number of reasons or effects. First, normal RNA, once it enters tissues as free RNA, triggers a powerful inflammatory response. This immune system response is strongly inhibited by the use of pseudouridine instead of uridine. If the modRNA gets into a cell, it basically takes on the same task as normal, so-called messenger RNA (mRNA), it is used by the cellular machinery as a template for the production of the protein encoded in the sequence of the four building blocks, in the case of the used one SARS-CoV-2 spike protein modRNA. However, modRNA is read more efficiently than normal mRNA, which means that significantly more spike protein is produced. In addition, modRNA is hardly degraded by the cell because the enzymes responsible for normal mRNA can hardly degrade modRNA. While endogenous mRNA is degraded within minutes or hours, in extreme cases a few days, it was recently shown that the modRNA used in the cells of the lymph node germinal centers still causes the production of the spike protein even after 90 days. Now what are the implications? To answer this question, you first have to consider two things: 1.) The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is a foreign protein for the human organism, which means it triggers a reaction in the immune system. 2.) The spike protein has a toxic (poisonous) effect on the human body, it triggers thrombosis, among other things. The spike protein, which is produced by the cellular machinery in the cells that have taken up modRNA, can either be presented to the immune system on the cell surface or be released to the outside via the cell surface, partly also built into so-called exosomes, ie small ones Lipid particles from endogenous lipids, not the synthetic lipids of the lipid nanoparticles. If a cell presents the spike protein on its surface, it activates an immune response. However, not only does it lead to the formation of antibodies, the human immune system also eliminates the cell presenting the foreign protein. This means that the immune system always attacks its own body to a certain extent, which is why the principle of "mRNA vaccination" is actually out of the question. Tissue damage occurs in tissues into which the lipid nanoparticles reach, which is particularly problematic in tissues that are not or hardly capable of regeneration, such as heart muscle tissue or nerve cells in the brain. If enough lipid nanoparticles get into the heart muscle tissue, this can trigger myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), which is now a well-known side effect. Myocarditis also does not heal completely, since the heart muscle cannot regenerate, but only scars. However, expression of the spike protein also has devastating effects in the endothelial cells, ie the cells that line the bloodstream, since the resulting destruction of the endothelial cells can trigger thrombosis, which is also a known side effect. However, these can also be triggered by the spike protein produced in other cells if it gets into the bloodstream, since the spike protein alone can trigger thrombosis by binding to the endothelial cells. In the first days after the injection of the modRNA, the biotech study also found a decrease in the number of white blood cells, ie the immune system is immediately weakened.

Arrest of the inflamed and overburdened heart

But there are other problems. It's not just that we don't know in which cells the spike protein is expressed. Furthermore, since no two human organisms are alike, it is not known how much spike protein each individual produces, nor how long that production lasts. In addition, the batch quality is very variable, so that there are also batches that do not trigger any effect because they contain hardly any modRNA that can be translated into protein. In addition, unintentional intravenous injections of the nanoparticles can also occur. These effects result in variability in the location, amount, and duration of spike protein in the body, which certainly explains, at least in part, the wide variability in the nature and severity of side effects observed. In an elderly person who moves little and suffers from clinically manifest heart failure, which is externally recognizable as edema (“water in the legs”), a larger proportion of the lipid nanoparticles probably remain at the puncture site than in a young competitive athlete – which certainly explains, at least in part, the large number of competitive athletes with heart problems since the beginning of the vaccination campaign. Competitive athletes, particularly those who receive an inadvertent intravenous injection of the particles, quickly and effectively disperse the lipid nanoparticles from the injection site to the myocardial tissue where they begin their destructive work. When the heart is under great strain on the playing field, the inflamed and overburdened heart then comes to a standstill, as has happened alarmingly often since the beginning of the vaccination campaign. This variability in the amount and duration of spike protein production also represents – in addition to the immune system attacking its own body cells – the second, in principle unsolvable problem of the mRNA approach, which actually prohibits it in general. As well asProfessor Martin Haditschhas repeatedly emphasized, this means that when modRNA is injected, no dose control is possible, ie the amount of antigen the body is exposed to cannot be controlled, although the amount of injected antigen is an absolutely critical factor in vaccinations and must be precisely balanced. However, this is simply not possible when injecting modRNA. The next problem is that the modRNA used encodes only the spike protein. This results in a much tighter immune response than in an infection with SARS-CoV-2, in which antibodies are formed against many different features of the virus envelope. This has two important consequences. First, the virus can more easily evade the immune response when mutations occur in the spike protein, since some of the epitopes (specific structures against which antibodies are produced) against which the antibodies produced during the "vaccination" are directed (where this effect is small, as is the whole vaccine effect, see below). Second, there is the so-called original antigenic sin. This expression describes the phenomenon that the human immune system, once it has come into contact with an epitope, tends to produce antibodies directed against the epitope of first contact even when it comes into contact with similar epitopes. This may also be one of the reasons why the "specific omicron vaccines" have become so quiet - pilot studies did not find any increased efficiency compared to the original "corona vaccines". Since the immune response is much broader in the case of a previous infection than in the case of modRNA injection, this phenomenon plays a much smaller role in immunity due to an infection. The Icelandic Ministry of Health has consistently recognized that infecting as large a proportion of the population as possible is the only route to herd immunity, albeit conditional, and proclaimed: “Widespread societal resistance to COVID-19 is the most important way out of the epidemic. In order to achieve this, as many people as possible must be infected with the virus because vaccines, even if they offer good protection against serious diseases, are not enough of the epidemic. To achieve this, as many people as possible need to be infected with the virus as the vaccines are not enough, even though they provide good protection against serious illness.") The last half-sentence is wrong, which explains the numbers Show Britain clearly, as we shall see.

No protection against primary respiratory infections

Because there's another reason why the current "vaccination approach" just can't work - unless you manipulate the numbers, but even then, of course, it only works on paper, not in reality. That reason is that despite many claims to the contrary, SARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory virus. This means that it infects the mucous membrane cells of the respiratory tract, initially in the oral and nasal cavity, but also in the pharynx and possibly - if a person cannot produce an adequate immune response - also in the lungs, which can then lead to an atypical (viral) pneumonia . As with other respiratory viruses, a systemic infection, i.e. affecting the whole body, can only occur in people with a severely weakened immune system, which in SARS-CoV-2 may then lead to inflammation of the blood vessel wall, known as endothelial disease. And this is exactly where the devil is in the immunological detail, as Prof. Bhakdi has been explaining again and again for months without being heard by the German "decision-makers". A different type of antibody, namely secreted IgA antibodies, is responsible for the immune defense on the mucous membranes than for the systemic immune defense, in which IgG antibodies are used. The problem is that an injection of modRNA into the muscle essentially leads to the formation of IgG, but not of secreted IgA, which is why this type of "vaccination" simply cannot lead to mucosal immunity - which, by the way, is immunological textbook knowledge. Of course, this also means that this "vaccination" cannot possibly achieve any foreign protection for reasons of immunophysiology, since it offers no protection against the primary respiratory infection, which is the decisive phase for the transmission of the virus to other people. What you can also impressively see from the fact that rows of people who have been “vaccinated” twice, three times or otherwise are not only tested positive, but also show symptoms. What initially seems possible for theoretical reasons is self-protection against severe (i.e. systemic) courses, since the IgG antibodies should actually have an effect here. However, severe courses practically only occur in people with a severely weakened immune system – i.e. in people who show hardly any immune response to a vaccination of any kind because a functioning immune system is necessary for it.

Rather than external protection, it is more of a threat to others

The ineffectiveness of the modRNA injections, which was to be expected from the outset, in every respect, is now also clearly evident in the statistical data - at least in countries where, in contrast to Germany, they are at least reasonably reliably received, such as Great Britain. Here showsthe current government report, extensively evaluated byProfessor Thomas Rießinger at reitschuster.dethat currently in all age cohorts from the age of 18, i.e. the age groups for which, according to Karl Lauterbach’s wishes, general vaccination will soon apply in Germany, the “triple vaccinated” have a higher rate of “Covid-19 cases” than the “unvaccinated “. Instead of protecting others, the “vaccination” is more likely to endanger others, if at all. But even the self-protection that has been increasingly sought in the discussion lately cannot really be convincingly demonstrated. When it comes to hospitalizations in the 60 to 79 age group, the “three times vaccinated” have a lower rate than the “unvaccinated”. In all other age groups, including those aged 80 and over, it is again the unvaccinated who are better off. It looks a little better, at least on the surface, when it comes to deaths. Only in the two age groups 18 to 29 years and over 80 are the “unvaccinated” better off than the “triple vaccinated”. So when it comes to the hard endpoint of death, is the vaccination campaign a complete success? Not quite, because the age group over 80 is responsible for more than half of all deaths. And you can include this unequal distribution of cases per age group, which is also found in hospitalizations, in the calculation and calculate a weighted overall balance. This overall balance takes into account both the fact that all people over the age of 18 should be subject to compulsory vaccination in the future and that the different age groups show a very different burden of disease in terms of hospitalizations and deaths. In the period under consideration, there were only 6 deaths for both groups in the age group 18-29 years, while the group over 80 alone had 182 deaths among the “unvaccinated” and 2,765 for the “thrice vaccinated”. Mind you, this is only about the balance of the "vaccination" in relation to "Covid-19 hospitalizations" and "Covid-19 deaths", the effects of the side effects are not yet taken into account here. However, this calculation can be omitted for the “Covid-19 cases” because the “thrice vaccinated” perform worse in all age groups than the “unvaccinated” anyway. For hospitalizations, this calculation shows that the "vaccination" increases the probability of hospitalization by 17.8 percent across all age groups. And even if the deaths for the "vaccination" look a little better, "thrice vaccinated" still have an 8.7 percent higher chance of dying from Covid-19 compared to "unvaccinated". The vaccination therefore not only poses a risk to others, but – as can be expected – also a risk to oneself, both in terms of hospitalization and death from Covid-19. To put it very clearly once again, in the current UK data set, the modRNA means that, to use the official German terminology, MORE people are “proven to be infected with SARS-CoV-2”, MORE people are “hospitalized with Covid-19 will” and MORE “Covid-19 patients die”. And then there is the whole bouquet of side effects, from myocarditis to facial paralysis to the activation of viruses dormant in the body, which can lead to shingles, for example.

Complete victory over open scientific discourse

So you can see what was clear from the beginning for immunological reasons - the protective effect of the modRNA injections against a SARS-CoV-2 infection does not exist, and the claim that the "vaccinations" would protect against a severe course is wrong turn into its opposite when looking at halfway reliable numbers. Based on these facts alone, the injections would have to be stopped immediately, even the thought of compulsory vaccination, as well as any discussion about it, should actually have been done in view of these disastrous results. At the same time, and this was also clear from the beginning, the modRNA injections are highly problematic for health, both for principle (lack of dose control, attack by the immune system on the cells expressing the foreign protein) and for specific reasons (the spike protein is toxic), to an extent that should have ruled out their application from the start. And here the circle closes to other, politically exploited scientific topics. For anyone capable of meaningful reading could have simply read the facts about these fundamental problems. However, not only is the proportion of people in Germany, also and especially in the media and politics, who are able to read meaningfully decreasing steadily. Unfortunately, the willingness of those who remain, who are still able to read meaningfully, to take note of facts that conflict with their convictions is also decreasing. And so, significant parts of politics and media in Germany continue to drum up not only for a general vaccination requirement, but also for a - ideally accelerated - "energy turnaround", followed by further "turnarounds" such as "agricultural" or "transport turnaround", all of them doomed to failure for equally obvious reasons. Why in Germany, the former land of poets and thinkers, the "right attitude" has won such a complete victory over open, scientific discourse is a question that future historians may be able to clarify. But it is already clear that reality will win in the end. The extent of the damage caused by the victory of the “right attitude” over critical discourse will only become apparent in the future. But there is no question that it will be huge.

Source:

https://www.achgut.com/artikel/mrna_impfungen_der_perfekte_sturm