by Peter Löcke //
The mRNA bomb bursts
The sparrows on social media were chirping it from the X rooftops in advance. On Tuesday evening, 12.12.2023, a bomb will explode during prime time on MDR Umschau and this bomb impact will result in a large crater. Such rumors should always be treated with caution. But this one turned out to be true. As explosive as the topic of the report was, it was soothingly factual and well researched. It was a program without any framing or even defamation of voices critical of vaccination in an effort to allow as many different opinions as possible to have their say. The report can be viewed here from minute 27 and 45 seconds in the MDR media library. What was it about?
Since 2020, the core issue has been whether the mRNA vaccination also has an effect on stem cells and human DNA and alters them. The suspicion was long regarded as a crude conspiracy theory. The vaccine could never trigger such a process in the body. But what if the DNA is already contained in the inoculated mRNA and the vaccine is therefore already contaminated in advance? If this happens in small quantities, up to 10 nanograms per dose, it is harmless according to the WHO. If this guideline value is exceeded, it becomes dangerous.
The article features Dr. Jürgen Kirchner, a biologist by training and author of books critical of mRNA. He commissions Brigitte König, Professor of Medical Microbiology and Infection Immunology at the Magdeburg Faculty of Medicine, to carry out a laboratory analysis. The analysis is to check five different vaccine batches from Biontech Pfizer for contamination with foreign DNA. The result is explosive. The guideline value still classified as harmless by the WHO is exceeded by a factor of 83 to 354. The vaccine must therefore be withdrawn from the market immediately in accordance with the German Medicines Act. Jürgen Kirchner had already made this demand in the Petitions Committee of the Bundestag on September 18.
As a general critic of mRNA, Dr. Kirchner is now suspected of being biased, so the MDR looks beyond the German horizon and finds that Kirchner's accusation is not new. American and Canadian scientists expressed identical concerns about vaccine safety in April and October. MDR clarifies the danger and, above all, the extent of the danger that is currently being discussed medically. The vaccine contains lipid nanoparticles that provide transportation. However, these particles cannot distinguish whether they are transporting mRNA or DNA.
Prof. Dr. Phillip Buckhaults, a microbiologist and geneticist from the University of North Carolina, has his say. In contrast to Dr. Kirchner, he is an outspoken advocate of mRNA vaccination, but nevertheless issues a warning. There is a "justified theoretical risk of genetic damage to long-lived stem cells". Conspiracy or justified concerns?
Back in Germany, MDR asks German experts. The majority of them do not want to comment. Most of the e-mail inquiries therefore remain unanswered. Dr. Emanuel Wyler from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine is one of those who respond. To put this in context, this is an institute funded by the German government. Professor Wyler appeases by saying that DNA in vaccines is an issue that was already known in the case of influenza.
Quote: "So far, nobody has been interested in this, or rather, people rightly trust that the Paul Ehrlich Institute, as the competent authority, will carry out the testing work correctly." So Professor Wyler "trusts" and indeed: in theory, pharmacovigilance, the testing of medicines, is the responsibility of the PEI. The expert then leaves the factual level and discredits the critics. But unlike usual in this program, he stands alone with his opinion.
The chemist in question, Prof. Dr. Gerald Dyker from Ruhr University Bochum, also considers negative consequences to be conceivable.
Quote: "Given the extreme time pressure, it is conceivable that the manufacturer decided, either in ignorance or with the acquiescence of regulatory authorities, to mass vaccinate the product with the remaining THEN contaminants."
Prof. Bernd Mühlbauer from the Drug Commission, on the other hand, does not wish to comment medically and instead criticizes the regulatory authorities for not informing the public "whether and by what methods the manufacturer had to prove that residual amounts of DNA could not penetrate the cell nucleus and cause damage in the specific case of the mRNA vaccination."
Those responsible, the regulatory authorities? They are the Paul Ehrlich Institute and the Federal Ministry of Health. They can ignore inquiries from the alternative media, but not from public broadcasters. The answers from the PEI and the BMG to the MDR inquiries can be described as bizarre.
Parameters such as residual DNA content are only tested experimentally by the manufacturer. According to the PEI. Vaccine testing therefore takes place on what is perhaps the most important safety aspect through self-reporting by the vaccine manufacturer.
This fact leaves the aforementioned Professor Brigitte König stunned. The Lauterbach Ministry does not want to be inferior to the PEI in terms of bizarre answers and scores an argumentative own goal. The BGM questioned the accuracy of the laboratory results with the MDR because some of the vaccination batches examined had already expired. However, according to a proven expert in this field, the DNA would never multiply over time, but would degrade. In other words, the WHO guideline value, which was far exceeded, would otherwise have been even higher.
In order to carry out its own analysis, MDR then asks over twenty universities and private laboratories. No one is willing to do so. It is another oddity within the scandal and perhaps the biggest bombshell follows on its heels.
There were two manufacturing processes. Process 1 used for the approval was cost-intensive with many test subjects. No microorganisms were used here. In mass production process 2, there were few test subjects and the product was enriched with genetically modified bacteria.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA), which is not known to be hostile to pharmaceuticals, then expressed concerns in its test report regarding the comparability, characterization and clinical suitability of the different processes. And Biontech itself? When asked by MDR, the company at the Goldgrube in Mainz stated the following.
"The Pfizer BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine is not contaminated with DNA (...). The batches (...) were subjected to comprehensive quality control by the manufacturer and checked by the independent Paul Ehrlich Institute (...)."
Let me summarize. It is suspected that DNA contained in the vaccine reaches the stem cells of millions of people. In laboratory tests, permissible WHO guideline values were exceeded by a factor of 350. Professor Emanuel Wyler, a representative of the scientific community, continues to trust the testing procedures of the PEI, which reports to Lauterbach. The PEI in turn trusts the self-declaration of the manufacturer Biontech. Biontech trusts itself and states that the independent PEI does carry out checks, which the PEI denies.
Meanwhile, Karl Lauterbach is advising people to get vaccinated so that they are optimally protected in time for Christmas. It is Lauterbach who was asked about the problem of vaccine contamination by AfD MP Martin Sichert in the Bundestag on November 29. Lauterbach's answer began with the words:
"I can't answer your question. It is unscientific."
English 
German 
Spanish
24 Responses
Hello hello, the article in the MDR about the impurities in the mRNA vaccine is still available online:
https://rumble.com/v4107mp-mdr-12.12.2023-.html
Have fun watching 🙂
Mr. Löcke, thank you for writing about this - unfortunately the article is no longer online.
The MDR wrote the following about this:
On 12.12.2023 at 8.15 p.m., MDR broadcast a report on coronavirus vaccines in the program "Umschau". After careful internal review, it is clear that our journalistic due diligence criteria were not met. The report was depublished on 17.12.2023.
Interesting: "depublizieren", a verb that did not exist up to and including 2006 and was created in 2007:
► https://www.dwds.de/wb/depublizieren
► https://www.dwds.de/r/plot/?view=1&corpus=zeitungenxl&norm=date%2Bclass&smooth=spline&genres=0&grand=1&slice=1&prune=0&window=3&wbase=0&logavg=0&logscale=0&xrange=1946%3A2023&q1=depublizieren
In contrast, the verb "indoctrinate", which became popular in the 1960s, existed long before that:
► https://www.dwds.de/wb/indoktrinieren
► https://www.dwds.de/r/plot/?view=1&corpus=zeitungenxl&norm=date%2Bclass&smooth=spline&genres=0&grand=1&slice=1&prune=0&window=3&wbase=0&logavg=0&logscale=0&xrange=1946%3A2023&q1=indoktrinieren
MDR's use of the neologism is a prime example of a "smoke and mirrors" that has been used in journalism since 1950:
► https://www.dwds.de/wb/Nebelkerze
► https://www.dwds.de/r/plot/?view=1&corpus=zeitungenxl&norm=date%2Bclass&smooth=spline&genres=0&grand=1&slice=1&prune=0&window=3&wbase=0&logavg=0&logscale=0&xrange=1946%3A2023&q1=Nebelkerze
I doubted the whole "vaccination scenario" right from the start and therefore didn't get injected. My reasoning is quite simple. Why should I get injected with an unauthorized and undeclared stuff? What's more, credible professors have warned against it. - If the whole thing is rolled up afterwards, the physical damage will be far greater than the already questionable benefit. Apart from the economic damage, the whole scam has cost billions
I was spared the injection because my last flu vaccination in 2010, combined with a pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination on the doctor's advice, led to a bronchitis lasting 3 months 2 days after the vaccination. (With severe other flu-like infections, my bronchitis was always over after 3 weeks).
In the many previous years up to 2009, I regularly had a flu vaccination without a subsequent infection. - My conclusion was that my body was not compatible with the new vaccines and from then on I stopped vaccinating.
Furthermore, I was supposed to sign a contract in 2021 accepting sole responsibility for the injection and its consequences. I wasn't interested in an experimental trial as I knew a few household remedies, including preventative ones, for flu-like infections.
Well, I was responsible to my body and a chronic illness told me NO. I had experienced worsening of this condition after the injection and therefore took extra care.
I was also advised to exercise restraint because the injection alone was supposed to lead to the goal and there were supposed to be many ways, at least to Rome...
I have two questions about this.
1. what is the reference value for DNA in vaccinations?
a) Conventional vaccinations are not mRNA vaccinations. In the body, the immune system attacks foreign DNA and destroys it. They are not smuggled into the body cells by a Trojan horse (nanoparticles) that bypasses the immune system.
2. should this be a guideline for mRNA vaccinations, does the immune system attack foreign DNA in the body's cells? If so, where are the studies published?
The program is no longer available. But the programs before and after are. Someone must have had the plug pulled.
https://www.mdr.de/video/mdr-videos/c/video-781834.html
can still be found on the net. At the moment the link (still) works.
Today the link is "dead". So the ÖRR has once again staged a kind of fake criticism event, because without further public access to the original source, the topic is buried and the fact-checkers are happy. It's been like this for years.
Hats off to the people who produced and then published the program. They put their professional livelihoods on the line, that much is certain. To pull this off on a publicly funded government channel is a really big ray of hope.
Contaminated DNA below 10 nanograms per dose is harmless. Says who? The WHO. Only when this guideline value is exceeded does it become dangerous. Says who? The WHO. That reassures me immensely. Who sets the limit again? Oh right, the WHO. Who would adjust the limit value (just in the unlikely event that it becomes bitterly necessary)? Why is contamination allowed at all? Does this only reduce profits, or can the danger of the vaccine be concealed for a longer period of time? Who classified smoking a few cigarettes as beneficial to health for many years? No, the WHO just ignored it.
It was the tobacco industry itself that suddenly branded its conventional cigarettes as extremely dangerous after 40 years of field trials. Fortunately for all the nicotine addicts they had created, the ground-breaking solution was also offered: the successor product, the e-cigarette, which this time was harmless. Just in case the vaccine industry, in its infinite goodness, wants to delight us with EVEN safer and EVEN more revolutionary vaccines - for our own protection, and again under duress. And another thing we have in common: there are said to be real vaccine addicts out there.
Absolutely right.
The WHO is a private organization that is not democratically elected and that rather arbitrarily, in the interests of its financiers, sets the rules for the "health" of the world's population, which are then used politically to steer the masses. We saw this in 2009 with the swine flu experiment and more recently with Cocolores.
It's impossible to argue with vaccination advocates, understandably they can't admit to this one mistake of falling for the propaganda of the media and politics. I've given up asking them now, it's pointless.
My sympathy is limited, my grief is for the children, whose disorders will only become apparent in the course of the next few years, apart from the psychological problems they already have.
A tantalizing prospect for the future looks different.
The 10 nanogram limit refers to normal vaccines where DNA is present in such a way that it can be killed and "digested" by the immune system. Here, however, they are contained in the nanolipids that transpose into the cell and possibly into the cell nucleus. That's a whole different ball game, so if normal free and quite harmless DNA already has this limit value, it's unthinkable what has happened here!
Hello, hence my question above. I also suspect that the threshold values are those of the usual vaccinations.
In 2020, an old lady with pre-existing conditions allegedly died of corona in our town. This year alone, one man aged around 70, one aged 57, one aged 83 and now another aged 40 died.
And another one at the age of 62.
Strange; this injection is probably aimed primarily at men.
Strangely enough, I only found 3 reports in the Teletext on Tuesday evening on the "Umschau" program (monument protection, vending machine burglars and party money). I also found no reference to the 4th report on gene therapies on the net.
It wasn't until later in the evening that there was suddenly a discussion on Telegram. So I looked again in the teletext: Nothing about it, then watched the whole program in the media library and the 3rd contribution was finally there.
And that's funny! The MDR makes a program and simply leaves out a contribution in the teletext. I wonder why ?
Regarding your comment: "It was a program without any framing or even defamation of vaccine-critical voices...". I had a completely different impression: framing, casting doubt, contact guilt - there was a bit of everything. To simply let the stupid answers from the PEI and scientists from the MDC slip through, journalistic nonsense. As someone who used to work in drug development, you could only feel sick. Back then, we would have gone to prison for such actions, today there is a cross of merit.
What else needs to be brought to light for the handcuffs to click in this country?
The brazenness, megalomania, unscrupulousness and criminal energy of all the protagonists involved in the plandemic is commensurate with the position of power they have wormed their way into.
This group of people has repeatedly warned against itself through lies, fraud and forgetfulness.
A predominantly stupid, uneducated, ignorant and authoritarian population elected them anyway.
These people feel invulnerable. As long as jurisdiction in Germany is under the rule of a Mr. Buschmann, I see no chance.
Is it just me that the pink elephant in the room slowly had to be named and that many other topics continued to be deliberately concealed with this article? (Maintaining the vaccination narrative, the fairy tale of safe vaccines, lipid nanoparticles, the virus existence question - to name just a few)
In addition, there was clear framing in the presentation of various people in the report. In my opinion, the reporting was anything but neutral or balanced...
Just my humble impression...
No, it's not just you.
Overall, it was pretty tame, but what can you expect from the MSM. However, there will certainly be no further discussion for the time being. Surely a kind of token event to have something to say. The top broadcasting watchdogs are already paying attention. The fact that this whole new vaccination technology is highly problematic is completely ignored. There is a bit of criticism of the procedure.
By the way, here - https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/geimpfte-kinder - Very balanced article on vaccination in general, no black and white painting but a balanced for and again only on conventional vaccinations. With relevant references to the fact that well-designed/manufactured live vaccines do have positive effects and these are also statistically well demonstrated, but inactivated vaccines with active ingredient boosters such as aluminum salts have very questionable effects. If you are interested - read it yourself and, like any balanced article, it is a little longer.
I can only agree with you, I also understand something different under balanced, the tenor of the whole program (I was able to watch it in its entirety on Tuesday evening) remained pro-vaccination, the sense of which was not questioned at all.
However, the statement that 20! laboratories refused to test the batches for the mdr, which speaks volumes and is the real bombshell in this article.