Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! | ||
|
|
||
Was the “Corona vaccination” a prohibited human experiment?At the Enquete Commission of the German Bundestag on March 19, 2026, titled “Performance of the Healthcare System, Vaccination Strategy and Research,” the former toxicologist at Pfizer, Dr. Helmut Sterz, also spoke. He is of the opinion that the so-called “Corona vaccination” constituted a prohibited experiment on humans. The video starts at the point where Dr. Helmut Sterz is questioned: An analysis by Prof. Stefan Homburg, who conducted the questioning, and further explanations: Commission Document 21(27)30 dated March 16, 2026 Written statement of the expert Helmut STERZ Dr. med. vet., toxicologist Statement before the Enquete Commission of March 19, 2026 on the topic: Performance of the Healthcare System, Vaccination Strategy and Research My statement focuses on the question: Have the novel mRNA vaccines against Covid-19 been examined and approved according to the applicable international guidelines for drug safety? My analysis assesses in detail the mRNA vaccine “COMIRNATYR” from Pfizer & BioNTech. Facts and observations on which my analysis1 is based: 1. SARS-CoV-2 is an artificially produced virus from bioweapons research with a close relationship to the coronavirus family. The responsible government officials of the Federal Republic of Germany were informed of this thesis already at the beginning of the “Corona pandemic.” This finding was kept secret. Professor Wiesendanger published the “lab hypothesis” in February 2021, which is no longer questioned by science (DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31754.80323). Ambati et al. (2022) calculated the probability that the furin cleavage site found in the nucleotide sequence of SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin as 1:321 billion (DOI: 10.3389/fviro.2022.834808). The modified messenger ribonucleic acid derived from the genetic material of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which served as the vaccine, consequently also represents a product of bioweapons research. 2. Measures against a deadly epidemic are determined by emergency decrees. These emergency decrees may allow an abbreviated program of safety testing (toxicity tests in animals) for the development of a vaccine before an 1 Sterz, H. (2025): The Vaccine Mafia. Rubikon, Basel/CH emergency authorization is granted. Such an abbreviated safety program must be based on a scientific strategy. From my perspective as a toxicologist, such an abbreviated procedure can be justified in the case of a proven deadly epidemic comparable to Ebola. 3. SARS-CoV-2 essentially causes disease symptoms known from influenza viruses. There was by no means a threat of a deadly epidemic. Life-threatening danger existed only if the virus infected a person who had a defective immune system. Comparable risks with several thousand deaths occur in every flu season without a pandemic being declared for that reason. The responsible persons in the federal government already knew after “Bergamo” that Covid-19 was not a deadly epidemic comparable to an outbreak of the Ebola or Nipah virus. 4. In the case of infection with SARS-CoV-2, the preclinical and clinical development of the novel mRNA vaccines should have taken into account the prior knowledge about this virus family and the actual risk posed by the virus. The decision to drastically shorten safety tests as if dealing with a killer virus was in no way justified in the case of the Covid pandemic. If the intention was not only to protect known risk groups through vaccination (people with weakened immune systems, essentially the elderly and sick), but also the entire population, an abbreviated program of toxicity tests in animals was absolutely contraindicated! The scope of the preclinical safety program should have been maximal, because the majority of the population had no serious symptoms to fear from the coronavirus. But the opposite was practiced! In addition, experts knew that the development of vaccines based on the new mRNA technology had been unsuccessful for 20 years. These research projects had been halted during clinical testing either because of insufficient efficacy or because of unacceptable toxicity. It was known that the spike protein located on the viral envelope plays a significant role in the toxicity of the virus. It was therefore completely incomprehensible that BioNTech used this toxic protein as an antigen. The genetic engineering manipulation of this spike protein further increased its toxicity. These prior findings should have been sufficient to classify mRNA vaccines as “questionable,” which according to § 5 of the German Medicines Act would have prohibited them from being placed on the market. 5. If there was nevertheless an intention to develop an mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the following studies on the most scientifically suitable animal species would have been mandatory: • Dose-finding study prior to testing for general toxicity: Not carried out! • Studies on pharmacokinetics & toxicokinetics: Not carried out! • General toxicity study (short-term study) in one suitable animal species: Conducted in rats, only of limited informative value! • General toxicity study (subchronic, at least 3 months) in two suitable animal species: Not carried out! • Mutagenicity tests: Not carried out! • Carcinogenicity study: Not carried out! • Immunotoxicity studies: Not carried out! • Reproductive toxicity studies: Contrary to the guidelines, not carried out in two animal species! The study conducted in rats is not fully informative. Therefore, an adequate assessment regarding the following risks was not possible: o Fertility disorders (male animals were not treated at all) o Disorders of pregnancy o Disorders of intra-uterine development of embryos and fetuses o Disorders in postnatal development of the offspring • Safety pharmacology studies: Not carried out! • Interaction studies: Not carried out! 6. The strategy of omitting preclinical safety tests led to a prohibited human experiment. In the protocols of the Robert Koch Institute it is noted on April 27, 2020, that the development of several vaccines would take place at high speed and that relevant data should only be collected post-marketing. Bill Gates had already made a similar statement on German television on Easter Sunday 2020. However, he emphasized that vaccine safety would not be neglected. De facto, vaccine safety was completely disregarded before emergency authorization. Clinical trials had already begun without relevant toxicological safety data. Accordingly, these were human experiments strictly prohibited under the Nuremberg Code! After the emergency authorization, as numerous experts had feared, there was an avalanche of serious side effects. 7. Pharmacovigilance findings after the approval of ComirnatyR On April 30, 2021, the registered side effects of the first two months after the conditional approval of ComirnatyR were presented.2 Two-thirds of the reported cases concerned women. In addition to 42,086 reports with a total of 158,893 cases, 1,223 deaths were recorded! Already at this point ComirnatyR should have been taken off the market. 2 Worldwide Safety Pfizer: 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis Of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports Of PF-07302048 (BNT 162B2) Received Through 28-Feb-2021 8. The vaccination side effects that have been registered in humans since the beginning of 2021 could have been predicted and thus avoided if the toxicity studies mentioned in point 5 had been carefully carried out. The mRNA vaccines should therefore either not have been approved or should have been withdrawn from the market again in early 2021. 9. National and international guidelines that should have been consulted for the careful investigation of ComirnatyR: Below is a presentation of which binding instructions, guidelines, and laws were available to BioNTech and Pfizer in order to develop not only an effective but also a safe vaccine and thereby prevent a pharmaceutical catastrophe. The framework of my assessment is formed by the German Medicines Act (AMG), the various guidelines of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the internationally binding WHO guideline for the preclinical testing of vaccines, the FDA/CBER Covid-19 guidelines of 2020/2021, and the ICH guidelines applicable to the USA, Europe, and Japan for preclinical testing of pharmaceuticals including gene therapies. Not all of these guidelines were mandatory, but they should have been reviewed to determine whether they contained important information regarding the novel mRNA substances. Guidelines that only came into force in 2020 could certainly have been considered, since drafts of the official texts had circulated among authorities and in industry years earlier. • Medicines Act (2005) Second Section – Requirements for Medicinal Products (§§ 5–12) • ICH S1A: The need for carcinogenicity studies of pharmaceuticals (1996) • ICH S2 (R1): Guidance on genotoxicity testing and data interpretation for pharmaceuticals intended for human use (2011) • ICH S3A: Note for guidance on toxicokinetics: The assessment of systemic exposure in toxicity studies (1994) • ICH M3 (R2): Guideline on non-clinical safety studies for the conduct of human clinical trials and marketing authorization for pharmaceuticals, EMA (2009) • ICH S4: Duration of chronic toxicity testing in animals; Rodent and Nonrodent testing (1998) • ICH S5 (R3): Guideline on detection of reproductive and developmental toxicity for human pharmaceuticals, EMA (2020) • ICH S6 (R1): Guideline on preclinical safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals, EMA (2011) • ICH S7A: Safety Pharmacology Studies for Human Pharmaceuticals, EMA (2001) • ICH S8: Note for guidance on immunotoxicity studies for human pharmaceuticals, EMA (2006) • ICH S11: Nonclinical safety testing in support of development of paediatric pharmaceuticals (2020) • ICH Topic Q3A (R2): Note for guidance on impurities testing: Impurities in new drug substances, EMA (2006) • CHMP: Guideline on the non-clinical studies required before first clinical use of gene therapy medicinal products, EMA (2008) • EMA (January 2013): Guideline on the investigation of drug interactions • WHO Guidelines on nonclinical evaluation of vaccines. Annex 1, WHO Technical report series No. 927 (2005) • US DHHS, FDA, CBER: Development and licensure of vaccines to prevent Covid-19 / Guidance for Industry (2020) • Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines to Prevent Covid-19 (October 2020 / February 2021) 10. Effects of the change in the manufacturing process of the mRNA after market approval For the marketing of the mRNA substances it was necessary to use an industrial-scale process in order to provide the required batches. In this process plasmid DNA from E. coli bacteria was used. The result was significant contamination of the vaccines with bacterial DNA. The consequences of this unauthorized change in the process are unforeseeable, because the entire machinery of the human genome can be disrupted by the bacterial foreign genes.3 Serious deviations from regulatory guidelines My analysis has revealed serious deviations from virtually all binding regulatory guidelines concerning preclinical safety. It is truly alarming to have to conclude in retrospect that the majority of the side effects recorded in humans during the use of COMIRNATY could have been predicted in carefully conducted animal experiments and avoided by restricting the indication. The deviations are summarized once again below. General toxicity studies Only a study shortened to 2 weeks in rats without adequate dose justification was carried out, which could not prove the harmlessness of BNT162b2 for the participants of Phase 1 of the clinical trial. Since no longer study in another animal species was submitted, the data on general toxicity of COMIRNATY submitted for approval are insufficient. 3 Bhakdi, S. & Sterz, H. (2026): mRNA Vaccinations: The Greatest Organized Crime Against Humanity. Kopp Verlag A toxicological evaluation of the tolerability of the galenic excipient “lipid nanoparticles” (LNP) is missing. This substance had been described by the manufacturer as unsuitable for general use in humans. LNPs are toxic and distribute the mRNA molecules throughout the entire human organism. When the manufacturing of the vaccine’s mRNA was converted to industrial-scale production for batches after market approval, DNA from E. coli was used. The resulting DNA fragments from the bacterium are likewise transported into the human body by the LNPs. These fragments can alter the human genome through integration of E. coli chromosomes, which can lead to unpredictable damage. Was this manufacturing process of the mRNA registered with the authorities? Reproductive toxicology studies Fertility study in female rats: No maximum tolerated dose was tested. This study therefore does not prove that no undesirable effects on fertility can occur in female rats. Consequently, this study is not suitable for estimating the risk of dysfunction of reproductive organs in women. Fertility study in male rats: The male rats in this study were not treated with BNT162b2. Thus the approval dossier contained no information regarding the risk of fertility disorders in male rats, making a risk assessment for men impossible. This omission was a deliberate offense. Teratogenicity study in rats: The study shows serious methodological errors. No second, more suitable animal species was examined for confirmation. The latter has been mandatory since the Contergan disaster. Consequently, it was not possible to assess either the safety of vaccinating women of childbearing age or pregnant women, nor the risk of intrauterine malformations. The early abortions that occurred in the rat experiment were incorrectly declared irrelevant. Perinatal and postnatal toxicity in rats: The methodological deficiencies of this study and some of its results raised doubts about the safety of BNT162b2 for infants during the breastfeeding period. Study in juvenile animals: In order to include children in Covid-19 vaccination globally, it would have been necessary to conduct a study in juvenile animals. This was not considered. Meanwhile, a significant increase in deaths among toddlers has been recorded in the USA after mRNA vaccination.4 This could have been foreseen if an animal species relevant to humans had been examined. Safety pharmacology studies BioNTech and Pfizer conducted no preclinical studies in which the risk of functional disorders in the major organ systems—especially the central nervous system, cardiovascular system, and respiratory system—could be evaluated. This is a serious omission, particularly given that serious side effects in humans have been accumulating in clinical practice since the beginning of the vaccination campaign. Immunotoxicology studies The manufacturers of BNT162b2 saw no need for immunotoxicological investigations. In contrast, countless side effects recorded by pharmacovigilance systems indicate an immunotoxicological risk of the anti-Covid-19 vaccination. The absence of these data in the approval dossier is inexcusable. Genotoxicity studies and carcinogenicity studies BioNTech and Pfizer conducted neither genotoxicity studies with the new galenic excipients (nano-lipids) nor with the final form of the vaccine. This omission is unacceptable, as more and more publications and pharmacovigilance case registrations appear to indicate a genotoxic risk of the anti-Covid-19 vaccination expressed in increased cancer incidence. Mathilde Debord published on June 19, 2025 in “Le Point Critique” that according to 100 scientific studies, 17 different mechanisms of mRNA vaccines capable of triggering cancer have been identified. Interaction studies with other medications/vaccines Pfizer and BioNTech did not comply with regulatory requirements regarding drug interactions, and the authorities tolerated the scandalous behavior of the manufacturers without further objection or requests for additional data. Summary: Disregard for “Good Clinical Practice” The manufacturers Pfizer and BioNTech presented no preclinical studies that could demonstrate acceptable safety of their vaccine. For several important potential side effects, safety studies in animals or alternative tests were not even planned. The manufacturers’ professional information for vaccinating physicians and for the people to be vaccinated was incomplete or incorrect. The information disseminated by authorities and their experts during the “pandemic” regarding the safety and quality of the novel vaccines lacked a scientifically secured basis; it often contained deliberate lies intended to frighten people into vaccination. I assess this procedure in the preclinical development of COMIRNATY as criminal! Under the circumstances of the emerging pandemic it would have been understandable if Pfizer/BioNTech had not immediately engaged in a maximal program of conventional preclinical studies. However, certain toxicity studies—for example regarding genotoxicity and immunotoxicity—would have been absolutely necessary even under emergency conditions. Once serious side effects in unusual numbers were recorded in the clinic—which began even before market authorization—if the intention was nevertheless to place the vaccine on the market, the indication should first have been restricted and a whole series of toxicity studies in suitable animal species should immediately and specifically have been conducted. This would still have been possible after commercialization, provided there were no doubts about the vaccine’s good efficacy. The fact that the manufacturers have not considered this to this day constitutes a serious violation of Good Clinical Practice in drug development. I mentioned that both in the USA and in Europe, after a public health emergency has been declared, special laws may be enacted that exempt all those involved in combating the emergency from liability for damages of any kind that may arise from the countermeasures. However, this immunity ceases if the persons or institutions concerned are guilty of intentional misconduct or deliberate breach of official duty in connection with Good Clinical Practice. My analysis shows that such violations occurred many times during the course of the preclinical safety testing. Naomi Wolf and Amy Kelly have published the analysis of over 450,000 pages of Pfizer documents released through litigation at the FDA.5 These documents were originally intended to remain inaccessible to the public for more than five decades. Since 2022, 3,250 independent experts have analyzed the contents of the documents. The result of the analysis is alarming and confirms my own observations in several chapters. In his foreword to the book, Steve Bannon states: The “Pfizer Documents” are an unbelievable revelation about the greed and dishonesty of a company that completely disregarded not only the law but also the health of Americans. The health authorities responsible for market approval and the political structures above them were significantly involved in misleading the public. The result of mass vaccination is inexcusable health damage in millions of people, a clear excess mortality in many countries of the Western world6 and enormous damage to national economies. A not insignificant “side effect” of the entanglement between the pharmaceutical industry and government is the growing mistrust of the population toward all institutions involved—tragically also toward the medical profession.7 The U.S. state of Kansas filed a lawsuit against Pfizer in June 2024 for allegedly not telling the public the truth about the safety and effectiveness of its vaccine. This could be a promising beginning for addressing this worldwide pharmaceutical scandal. 5 Wolf, N. & Kelly, A. (2024): The Pfizer Papers. Ed Naomi Wolf and Amy Kelly by Skyhorse Publishing 6 Mostert, S. et al. (2024): Excess mortality across countries in the western world since the Covid-19 pandemic: “Our World in Data” estimates of January 2020 to December 2022. BMJ Public Health 2024, 2:e000282. DOI: 10.1136/bmjph-2023--000282 7 Van den Bossche, G. (2025): Growing vaccine hesitancy should be blamed on vaccine developers, regulators, and public health authorities, not on so-called anti-vaxxers. April 28, 2025. https://voiceforscienceandsolidarity.substack.com/p/growing-vaccine-hesitancy-should?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=Zcx5d3&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email Author: AI-Translation - Redaktion | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Politics Destroys the Livelihoods of Ukrainians and Small EntrepreneursAleksander is a Ukrainian who has lived in Germany since 2000, has been self-employed for 15 years, and, like many other small entrepreneurs, has been driven into bankruptcy by leg... zum Artikel |
 | Young Adults in Panic! Monster in Hohenmölsen?A nightly gathering ends in sudden flight – cola, chaos, and a disturbing silence... zum Artikel |
 | You just can’t stop occupying bridges to demonstrate for peaceOh, those peace fanatics – they just can’t get enough. There they were again on 10.10.2024, with their flags, doves, and “peace” symbols, as if it were 1969 and not 2024. L... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |