German Chemists hold Paul Ehrlich Institute to account over mRNA Vaccines

The group is led by Prof. Dr. Tobias Unruh, Condensed Matter Physics, supported at the University of Erlangen. For a long time, their repeated inquiries, which the scientists also addressed to the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), among others, met with little public interest. Now WDR has published a critical article in which Gerald Dyker is also interviewed. Under the title “Search for Traces: Are Corona mRNA Vaccines Contaminated?”, the public broadcaster deals with the “blockade of politicians towards critical questions regarding vaccination and the inactivity of the responsible Paul Ehrlich Institute in clarifying the question of whether “Excessive amounts of (too large) DNA residues are contained in some batches of mRNA vaccines,” as Handelsblatt journalist Norbert Häring writes on his blog. The program features, among others, the pulmonologist Thomas Voshaar, who criticizes the fact that the limit value for a – in principle permitted – contamination was set freely, without studies. Voshaar also questions why such contaminants were even approved by the WHO. 

The professors have now sent another list of questions to the Paul Ehrlich Institute. The letter is available to the Berliner Zeitung. The scientists write that “the problems with modRNA-based vaccines are becoming increasingly apparent.”

In December 2023, another paper on the fundamental problem regarding modRNA technology was published in the journal Nature. In this, “Mulroney et al. stated that a so-called ribosomal shift often occurs due to the modification of the mRNA, ie the replacement of uridine by N1-methylpseudouridine. This shift “shifts the reading frame during protein synthesis, which means that after the shift, some amino acids are incorporated, so that proteins of unknown composition and function are then formed.” The theoretical possibility of a ribosomal shift, at least in prokaryotes, through the introduction of N1-methylpseudouridine has been “known since 2016, but it has never been investigated in eukaryotes to date.”

These unwanted proteins “could also be observed in 21 modRNA-treated patients,” and antibodies were also formed against these unwanted proteins. The Nature authors say in their work that “no correlation to side effects was observed, although this statement is problematic for several reasons, as was also described in a comment on the work of scientists from the USA and Canada.” Accordingly, the cohort size was only 21 people. The study was not randomized. None of the people examined reported any side effects, from which it can be concluded that the sample was “probably subject to bias through pre-selection”.

The authors of the commentary came to the conclusion that the toxicology of the unwanted proteins needed to be investigated, as well as the huge potential to be harmful stated by the authors of the article in relation to misdirected immunity. The unwanted proteins could “contribute to the toxicity of the modRNA injections, which needs to be clarified in further studies.” The authors call for clarification from international health authorities and industry.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung recently reported on the Nature study and wrote that the researchers recommend “trying to avoid this phenomenon in future vaccine development.” Because: “Theoretically, the unwanted proteins could reduce the effectiveness of the vaccines, or there could be undesirable side effects.” The SZ continues: “German experts speak of interesting results, but see no reason to worry.” The newspaper quotes Julian Schulze zur Wiesch, Senior Physician in the Infectious Diseases Section and Head of the Viral Hepatology Outpatient Center at the University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, with the statement: “The effect described, if accurate, is not dangerous or worrying and most likely has nothing to do with general vaccination reactions or with the side effects of mRNA vaccines.”

The professors still want to know more precisely and ask the Paul Ehrlich Institute: “When did you become aware of this work and the problem of the ribosomal shift in modRNA-based injections? Why wasn’t this obvious problem recognized earlier? What investigations are planned by the PEI to investigate the toxicity of the unwanted proteins and what steps are planned by the PEI to eliminate or at least reduce such threats to modRNA technology? From the PEI’s perspective, should these new findings have an impact on the approval of these new modRNA-based drugs and if so, which ones and if no, why not? How does PEI plan to inform the public about these new findings about potentially dangerous side effects of modRNA technology?”

The new publication in Nature is “one of a series of worrying developments surrounding the approval of these modRNA substances,” the scientists summarize. Fundamental problems were “already apparent in the approval studies”. An analysis of the original approval data by Peter Doshi and colleagues showed “that the damage is significantly greater than the benefit”. In our opinion, it is scientifically incomprehensible why “the modRNA platform was nevertheless given conditional approval and then even regular approval, as the data from the clinical studies clearly contradict this and retrospective cohort studies have significantly less informative value,” say the scientists. The fact that “a different manufacturing method of the modRNA substances was used for the approval studies than for widespread use” is also astonishing, “especially since the manufacturing process for marketing involves significant DNA contamination, the effects of which have not yet been assessed“.

The Paul Ehrlich Institute stated that “the PEI does not check the concentration of DNA impurities itself, but only the information provided by the manufacturer and whether it is within the approved range”. The question here is how the PEI wants to “ensure the task of ensuring quality to protect the population” if it “does not carry out any independent measurements”. The PEI had previously stated that it does not carry out its own mRNA concentration tests, but rather uses the tests supplied by the manufacturer as the basis for its assessment – a circumstance that prompted the professors to ask new questions.

The professors are now asking for comments and answers because the lack of transparency is shaking trust in mRNA technology and in the PEI. The scientists finally call on the PEI to “draw consequences from all of these listed facts and finally stop this modRNA technology.”

The Berliner Zeitung will ask the PEI for a statement on the scientists’ questions.

CONTINUE READING HERE (browsers will translate)

************