This research letter adds to a recent publication from Schmeling, Manniche, and Hansen (2023) that identified unexpected, batch-dependent suspected adverse

Click on the article title to read more.

It's like rolling the dice for what you get in your vial. Both the FDA and EMA knew this but kept this out of the public view because if it were known, nobody would take the vaccines.

Many of us are familiar with the following conundrum: on one hand, highly credentialed scientists and doctors have written numerous research papers explaining the dangerous mechanisms of action underlying mRNA/DNA “platform” technologies.  The papers are meticulously researched and depict, correctly in my opinion, many terrifying consequences of the technology that breaches the innate protective mechanisms of human cells.  Furthermore, these theoretical papers are validated by the observed outcomes, such as for example, increases in all-cause mortality in high correlation. with increases in rates of vaccination in a given territory, unprecedented increases in the adverse events and deaths recorded by various passive reporting systems, astonishingly high reports of the adverse events and deaths from the pharmas’ own pharmacovigilance systems, and autopsy findings in vaccinated post-mortem showing the mechanisms of mRNA technology damage in histopathologic evaluations.  On the other hand, many who have received the injections report no adverse effects and deem the points above a “crazy conspiracy”.  The question from the uninjured seems to be – why don’t we see MORE deaths if what you say about mRNA products is true?  Setting aside ethical limitations of this question, here is a possible answer why:  The mRNA shots do not conform to their label specifications. In practice both “blank” and "lethal" vials and anything in between is produced.

I told you so! Data obtained through FOIA. Background:

Join The Conversation! | https://trialsitenews.com/ Trial Site News recently were able to review leaked internal emails from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and meeting report between the agency and Pfizer. The EMA oversees the evaluation and supervision of medicinal products for the European Union. Like other regulatory health bodies, its main responsibility is to protect and promote public health. Snapshots of internal EMA email correspondence; a November 26, 2020, PowerPoint presentation from a pivotal meeting between Pfizer and the agency, as well as a confidential 43-page Pfizer report were provided by an anonymous source because of their trust in Trial Site’s commitment to transparency, accessibility, and accountability in furtherance of a highly ethical, quality-focused and public health-centric biomedical research industry. Article Link | https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/what-the-leaked-ema-emails-docs-reveal-major-concerns-with-pfizer-c-19-vaccine-batch-integrity-and-the-race-to-authorise-cdda0ba2

Explains Why Some Have Severe Side Effects and Others Do Not

German chemistry professors reveal gravely suspicious conduct at the Paul Ehrlich Institute (responsible for quality control of Pfizer-BioNTech shots).

As the result of FOIA requests, ICAN is the first to exclusively receive lot, dose, and distribution information on Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine, which may finally make it possible to perform certain crucial scientific analysis on the safety profile of this product.

Leaked documents show that some early commercial batches of Pfizer-BioNTech’s covid-19 vaccine had lower than expected levels of intact mRNA, prompting wider questions about how to assess this novel vaccine platform, writes Serena Tinari As it conducted its analysis of the Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine in December, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was the victim of a cyberattack.1 More than 40 megabytes of classified information from the agency’s review were published on the dark web, and several journalists—including from The BMJ —and academics worldwide were sent copies of the leaks. They came from anonymous email accounts and most efforts to interact with the senders were unsuccessful. None of the senders revealed their identity, and the EMA says it is pursuing a criminal investigation. The BMJ has reviewed the documents, which show that regulators had major concerns over unexpectedly low quantities of intact mRNA in batches of the vaccine developed for commercial production. EMA scientists tasked with ensuring manufacturing quality—the chemistry, manufacturing, and control aspects of Pfizer’s submission to the EMA—worried about “truncated and modified mRNA species present in the finished product.” Among the many files leaked to The BMJ , an email dated 23 November by a high ranking EMA official outlined a raft of issues. In short, commercial manufacturing was not producing vaccines to the specifications expected, and regulators were unsure of the implications. EMA responded by filing two “major objections” with Pfizer, along with a host of other questions it wanted addressed. The email identified “a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species” between the clinical batches and proposed commercial batches—from around 78% to 55%. The root cause was unknown and the impact of this loss of RNA integrity on safety and efficacy of the vaccine was “yet to be defined,” the email said. Ultimately, on 21 December, …

Join The Conversation! | https://trialsitenews.com/ Trial Site News recently were able to review leaked internal emails from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and meeting report between the agency and Pfizer. The EMA oversees the evaluation and supervision of medicinal products for the European Union. Like other regulatory health bodies, its main responsibility is to protect and promote public health. Snapshots of internal EMA email correspondence; a November 26, 2020, PowerPoint presentation from a pivotal meeting between Pfizer and the agency, as well as a confidential 43-page Pfizer report were provided by an anonymous source because of their trust in Trial Site’s commitment to transparency, accessibility, and accountability in furtherance of a highly ethical, quality-focused and public health-centric biomedical research industry. Article Link | https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/what-the-leaked-ema-emails-docs-reveal-major-concerns-with-pfizer-c-19-vaccine-batch-integrity-and-the-race-to-authorise-cdda0ba2

Leaked documents show that some early commercial batches of Pfizer-BioNTech’s covid-19 vaccine had lower than expected levels of intact mRNA, prompting wider questions about how to assess this novel vaccine platform, writes Serena Tinari As it conducted its analysis of the Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine in December, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was the victim of a cyberattack.1 More than 40 megabytes of classified information from the agency’s review were published on the dark web, and several journalists—including from The BMJ —and academics worldwide were sent copies of the leaks. They came from anonymous email accounts and most efforts to interact with the senders were unsuccessful. None of the senders revealed their identity, and the EMA says it is pursuing a criminal investigation. The BMJ has reviewed the documents, which show that regulators had major concerns over unexpectedly low quantities of intact mRNA in batches of the vaccine developed for commercial production. EMA scientists tasked with ensuring manufacturing quality—the chemistry, manufacturing, and control aspects of Pfizer’s submission to the EMA—worried about “truncated and modified mRNA species present in the finished product.” Among the many files leaked to The BMJ , an email dated 23 November by a high ranking EMA official outlined a raft of issues. In short, commercial manufacturing was not producing vaccines to the specifications expected, and regulators were unsure of the implications. EMA responded by filing two “major objections” with Pfizer, along with a host of other questions it wanted addressed. The email identified “a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species” between the clinical batches and proposed commercial batches—from around 78% to 55%. The root cause was unknown and the impact of this loss of RNA integrity on safety and efficacy of the vaccine was “yet to be defined,” the email said. Ultimately, on 21 December, …