The individual, the insured person, the patient should know that drug monitoring in Germany has come to a
complete standstill as far as these vaccines are concerned.
So it is a higher government authority that is obviously pursuing the plan: Vaccination sales must not be disrupted.
The former head of the drug safety department at the Paul Ehrlich Institute, Dr. Keller-Stanislawski, admitted to the Brandenburg
Investigation Committee in September 2023 that the German authority was completely overloaded with
the recording of the many vaccination side effects.
Kla.TV reported . However, the Paul Ehrlich Institute has not only been suspected of not carrying out its
task of researching and recording vaccine damage to the necessary extent since the Corona period.
Dr. Klaus Hartmann, who worked for ten years at the Paul Ehrlich Institute in the Department of Drug Safety, left the Institute
because he had witnessed how it reacted extremely inadequately and far too late when a six-fold vaccine was
suspected of being responsible for increased cases of so-called 'sudden infant death syndrome'.
At that time, a striking number of babies died at the age of two months - exactly the age at
which the first routine vaccinations are given.
A study to investigate this link was largely paid for by the vaccine manufacturers who were
responsible for the deaths with their six-way vaccines.
Accordingly, no correlation was found in the results of the study.
Vaccination critic and author Wolfram Klingele, who dealt extensively with this study, says that data was
manipulated in the study from the outset and then embellished again in the final 'evaluation'.
In Germany, vaccination side effects are recorded by the Paul Ehrlich Institute after the vaccine has been
approved by means of a so-called 'spontaneous reporting system'.
This means that patients as well as doctors or pharmacists should report adverse drug reactions to the authorities.
In an interview with Michael Leitner in 2013, Klaus Hartmann said that we have actually known for decades that this spontaneous
collection system does not work - but we still stick with it because it justifies
continuing to present vaccination as complication-free.
He said: "If you don't record any complications, you can quite cheekily claim that there are none, although
you actually only have a poor set of instruments at the start to find out whether there are any.
This is a tactic that has worked without any problems so far.
You have a recording system that doesn't actually work - and then praise yourself for
the fact that there are so few side effects."
In another interview, which was broadcast on ARD in 2018, Klaus Hartmann said that there was always the suspicion that
the Paul Ehrlich Institute did not really want to know whether there were serious side effects from vaccination.
"It's a thought that just comes to mind," says Dr. Sonja Reitz, our interview partner today.
Listen to her assessment of the Paul Ehrlich Institute's handling of the completely new
so-called "corona vaccines" in the following interview.
Good evening, Dr. Reitz. You've been with us before and were quite dissatisfied with the work of the Paul
Ehrlich Institute. What can you tell us about that?
Yes, this is a very important issue, because the population relies on this institute, which is actually supposed to be the
guardian of drug safety in Germany, and it is normally also responsible for approving vaccines
and monitoring the safety of drugs and vaccines.
Yes, things are getting particularly exciting here with our newly introduced coronavirus vaccinations.
And now, in 2021, we've run this, let's say, huge vaccination campaign.
I think 130 million doses were vaccinated in 2021.
This means that most were vaccinated twice, some were vaccinated three times. To date, 192 million doses have been administered.
And now this vaccine has been approved by the EMA, the European Medicines Agency, with which the PEI works very closely.
Nevertheless, the PEI has the task of monitoring drug safety in Germany.
And what we are now finding is that the Paul Ehrlich Institute has failed to follow up on many
indications that the substances are dangerous.
There was evidence from professors that there are impurities in these substances, both visible impurities and impurities
visible under the microscope with evidence, with evidence.
And the PEI has said that we are not interested in this, we rely on the manufacturer's
information and do not investigate it ourselves.
There were several teams of professors. I know that Professor Burkhardt wrote to the Paul Ehrlich Institute in March
21 that there was contamination, suspected contamination.
Paul Ehrlich Institute ignored it, simply did nothing.
Then there were other professors who saw that these vaccine solutions had very different colorations.
They wrote it there, it was also pictured in the Berliner Zeitung or an article was published.
Paul Ehrlich Institute receives this letter and does nothing, was reminded, does nothing.
And does not carry out any investigations, no checks.
They wanted to see peer-reviewed published studies instead of saying that this is such a serious suspicion, especially
as all these substances ... are extremely poorly researched.
The very substance that has been produced for mass application is a completely different one to that in the approval study.
All the more reason why the Paul Ehrlich Institute should have made an effort here to check exactly what the side effects are.
Eight people died on the night of the first injection in the approval study, which most people don't know
because they are simply not mentioned in the approval study.
You could also call this manipulation.
They only included the patients who had received the second vaccination, and then they did the research.
So there are over 1,200 people missing who never received the second injection. Eight have died.
So I just want to say that with this data in their knowledge - the Paul Ehrlich Institute knew about these things - they should
have immediately carried out completely different monitoring.
We need to look closely at practices: How is morbidity changing in the practice?
How many side effects occur? Through active questioning.
So not by randomly looking to see who is reporting something? But by actively asking.
But the other point is that they actually carried out a kind of data manipulation when they
removed these eight people from the approval study.
That was not the Paul Ehrlich Institute, that was Pfizer directly, so those were the manufacturers.
And the manufacturer Pfizer is known for this; it has already been sued three times in America for billions in
compensation due to manipulation of the approval studies.
So when we sign contracts with Pfizer, we are not doing so with an unknown company with the best reputation,
but with a company that has already been convicted several times for criminal activities.
All the more reason to take a closer look when it comes to a new technology like this, which has two billion in
earnings attached to it - paid for by the politicians - but which entails incredible risks.
Ms. Keller-Stanislawski from the Paul Ehrlich Institute reported ten suspected deaths on 10 January 2021,
14 days after the start of the vaccination campaign.
And from June 2021, we will see a steep rise in deaths in the big statistics, which will
continue to rise and jump straight up when boosted.
From fall 2021, this will jump up again significantly.
And we now have - since then until the end of 2022 - over 120,000 additional deaths that cannot be explained.
120,000, of which at least - and then we as a medical association decide - over 100,000 must go to the vaccination
account, because we have no other explanation for this.
And in such a situation - these figures are the Destatis figures , public figures - the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the RKI, everyone
would have to say that we must immediately see what is going on and follow up on any evidence that could
possibly substantiate or somehow substantiate the suspicion.
And exactly the opposite happens.
There is appeasement, there is denial, it is said that it is climate change that is suddenly responsible
for these deaths, although there was no heatwave at all.
So we find a situation that is very dubious.
It is also dubious that our Minister of Health is actually well informed about what is going on there.
And that he has not increased this authority.
That he continued to employ eleven people there and did not employ more people to deal with the
many adverse reaction reports and death reports.
The data in the EMA has also exploded, and they can't keep up.
There is no investigation into what exactly it is.
And you often don't even get confirmation that you have reported a vaccination side effect there.
That means there is a suspicion that you don't really want to know what actually happens with this vaccination.
Yes, the thought can occur to you. I can't refute it either.
Well, I can't prove it, I can't prove it, but it's something that just suggests itself.
If you then get an answer to a question, for example, along the lines of, you've seen from Denmark, America and also in Germany
at a law firm that represents a lot of vaccine victims, that 15 percent of the batches are
responsible for 95 percent of the serious side effects.
Which means that the batches are different.
If a batch is different, it must be withdrawn from the market immediately.
And if a request is then sent to the Paul Ehrlich Institute, what about it?
There are the batch differences. Can you see that?
Then they say we can't assign the batch numbers to the side effects, even though they have to be entered on
every form , otherwise the data sheet won't go off at all unless you have printed it out beforehand.
But most of it is reported online, so it doesn't go any further.
You cannot continue reporting if you have not entered the batch number.
In this respect, such an assertion should simply be seen as a protective claim.
And then they say: What about checking the contamination?
There were indications: DNA contamination carcinogenic, contamination with other substances, with
plasmids, all carcinogenic, potentially carcinogenic.
And then the Paul Ehrlich Institute says: "No, we don't do batch testing here.
We rely on the manufacturer's information that everything is in order with the production.
Then I don't need drug monitoring either. That's absurd.
Yes.
What's the point of monitoring if it just says, the manufacturer said so, we believe what the manufacturer says?
It is unbelievable. A visual inspection is carried out at the Paul Ehrlich Institute.
In other words, you look at it once - I don't see any lumps floating - yes, and then
that's the quality check that takes place.
It is a sham. This institute is there to ensure the safety of medicines in Germany as part of the higher health authority.
And the Medicines Act states that if a substance does not have the effect it promised, it must be withdrawn from the market.
If a substance has more side effects than promised in the approval study, it must be withdrawn from the market.
All of this is here.
Another point that is perhaps important on the subject.
The Paul-Ehrlich-Institut is involved with approval. They know what you have to provide for approval.
In order for a vaccine to be approved, everyone must provide a safety certificate stating that it does not cause cancer.
That fertility is not damaged.
And in the case of genetically active substances - which is what we are talking about here, even if they
are called vaccines - that there is no external damage.
Because genetic substances can then possibly be exhaled and harm other people.
None of these three safety studies were available to the EMA or the Paul Ehrlich Institute.
And have you ever received a press release from the Paul Ehrlich Institute that says:
"The Paul Ehrlich Institute has reminded the manufacturers for the third time to provide the studies. They have not come.
That's why the license is now simply being withdrawn."
Did you receive this press release? No.
Would you expect them? Yes, of course. So where is this press release?
Nobody is taking care of drug safety in Germany. It's a Potemkin village.
It's called the Paul Ehrlich Institute.
Yes, thank you very much for that assessment. That's very enlightening, thank you very much.