Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! | ||
|
|
||
Taking of Evidence Against BioNTech at the Cologne Regional Court – COVID-19 Vaccination – Explosive Statements by Prof. Dr. MörikeYesterday, on April 14, 2026, a landmark expert hearing took place at the Cologne Regional Court. Attorney **Tobias Ulbrich** represented individuals affected by severe consequences such as embolisms, shortness of breath, ME/CFS, and cardiological problems. During cross-examination, expert witness Prof. Dr. Mörike took the stand—and his statements are revealing. 1. The “Placenta Moment” and the ContradictionParticularly explosive: Prior to this, Prof. Dr. Mörike had published a brochure in which he explicitly recommended vaccination for pregnant women. When asked in court what he knew about the detection of spike protein in the placenta and in the fetus, he responded: *“I would be very surprised if that were not the case.”* The fact that an expert considers risks to unborn life as “to be expected” while simultaneously publicly promoting the measure is a major focal point of this hearing.2. Statistical Sobering: The NNV DilemmaIn the proceedings, the raw data originally evaluated by BioNTech was reassessed:BioNTech’s claim: An NNV (Numbers Needed to Vaccinate) of **131**—meaning 131 people must be vaccinated for a statistical effect to be observed in one person. The reanalysis: In fact, **217** people must be vaccinated to observe an effect in one individual. Assessment: In medical circles, it is often said that anything above a value of 50 for medications or vaccines borders on quackery. Proportionality here completely collapses. 3. An Expert Report Without a Basis?Attorney Tobias Ulbrich exposed significant gaps in the expert’s preparation during questioning:Dependence on data: When asked about independent studies *not* funded by Pfizer/BioNTech, there was confusion—the expert could not name a single one. Lack of context: He admitted that he had not examined the virus variants prevalent at the time of vaccination (June 2021) nor alternative medications or treatment methods in order to compare them with the vaccination. In order to benefit from the presumption of causation, it must be demonstrated that the benefit-risk ratio is negative and that the substance is fundamentally capable of causing such severe damage. Yesterday’s hearing showed that the scientific basis for the recommendations at the time was more than incomplete. Many thanks go to all viewers and affected individuals who were present on site and formed their own impression of what a court-appointed expert states in such a hearing. More in the video interview above. AI summary of the interview: Summary of the interview with attorney Tobias Ulbrich and Katharina Koenigregarding the expert hearing of Prof. Dr. Mörike on April 14, 2026 before the Cologne Regional Court in the proceedings against BioNTech (Comirnaty)Background of the proceedings These are claims for damages brought by individuals allegedly harmed by vaccination against BioNTech. The plaintiffs report severe health damage such as embolisms, shortness of breath, myocarditis/pericarditis, cardiological problems, and other conditions. The central evidentiary question is the negative benefit-risk ratio of the vaccine. The plaintiffs must demonstrate that Comirnaty is generally capable of causing such damage in order to benefit from the presumption of causation. In many proceedings, the court has obtained an expert opinion from Prof. Dr. Mörike. A motion for bias by the plaintiffs (due to his prior recommendation of Comirnaty for pregnant women) was rejected by both the Cologne Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court. Key points of the hearing1. Effectiveness and Numbers Needed to Vaccinate (NNV)Ulbrich addressed an independent reanalysis of the raw data from the approval study (“The Elephant in the Room”). The original evaluation yielded an NNV of 131, while the reanalysis arrived at 217.Ulbrich argued to the expert that an NNV above 50 is often considered “quackery” in the field of medications. Mörike maintained his positive assessment of effectiveness and referred to the Paul Ehrlich Institute. He did not see the discrepancy with the advertised 95% effectiveness as a problem. 2. Scope of Approval and AlternativesMörike primarily related effectiveness to the prevention of severe disease. Ulbrich countered that the actual scope of approval is active immunization for the prevention of COVID-19—not merely the prevention of severe courses.The expert was unable to name any alternative approved medications for the treatment of COVID-19 up to June 2021. Comirnaty was thus presented as “without alternative.” 3. Independent StudiesWhen asked about studies not sponsored by Pfizer/BioNTech, Mörike could not name any specific independent studies.4. Classification as a Genetic Engineering ProductMörike denied that it is a genetic engineering product, as the vaccine does not alter the DNA of the cell.Ulbrich countered with the substitution of the nucleotide (N1-methyl-pseudouridine instead of uridine) and the use of lipid nanoparticles for transfection of modRNA. Mörike did not consider this to constitute genetic engineering within the meaning of the Genetic Engineering Act. 5. Spike Protein and Pregnant Women/FetusesMörike acknowledged that the spike protein is distributed systemically in the body (including the placenta) and assessed this as “intended” and unproblematic.Ulbrich confronted him with a study according to which spike protein was detectable in the placenta in 37% of the women examined—including in fetuses. Mörike regarded this as an intended effect. 6. Immunological Damage (Sabatier et al.)Mörike described the statements on the immunological cascade as “nonsense.” When asked whether he was an immunologist, he answered in the negative.7. OEB5 Classification and ToxicityRegarding occupational classification as OEB5 (highly toxic from 1 microgram) and the toxicity of lipid nanoparticles, Mörike stated that he had not dealt with the matter and was not responsible for it.Legal assessment by UlbrichUlbrich emphasized the importance of the Federal Court of Justice ruling on the right to information. BioNTech must comprehensively disclose all pharmacovigilance data. Refusal may result in sanctions up to and including a reversal of the burden of proof.The law firm has already asserted claims for information out of court. Even the serious possibility of causation (temporal connection, typical symptoms) is sufficient to establish a right to information. Open issues include, among others, SV40 sequences, folding of the spike protein, misfolding, toxicity, and oncogenicity. Overall impressionThe hearing was described as informative but critical: the expert was unable to answer many questions or did so inadequately, frequently referred to the Paul Ehrlich Institute, and maintained a positive benefit-risk assessment despite high NNV values. The allegations of bias were further reinforced by his responses.The proceedings are ongoing; the outcome will also depend on how the criticism of the expert report and BioNTech’s refusal to provide information are taken into account. Author: AI-Translation - Katharina Koenig | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | With Confidence Together Fully Taking the Risk – Robert Wants to Become Chancellor with AnnalenaMaybe you’ve already seen them too: election ads! Yeah! But what exactly are they trying to tell us with what’s written there?... zum Artikel |
 | €1.5 trillion for Ukraine over the next 10 years – finally no more having to think about vacation planningYou know the drill: the most beautiful days of the year have to be planned – the vacation. But now you don’t have to worry about that anymore.... zum Artikel |
 | Monday Demonstration in Zeitz on 1 December 2025: Numerous Residents Demand Peace, Freedom, and an End to War PoliciesIn freezing temperatures and during the first week of Advent, numerous citizens once again gathered on Monday evening at the Altmarkt in Zeitz to hold their 12th Monday demonstrati... 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 |