This vaccine is detectable in active form in breast milk.
And now the important thing is that it also passes through the placenta.
In this respect, the active vaccine reaches the baby in the womb.
Means that this is the first active vaccination of an unborn child.
And our goal is for the Standing Committee on Vaccination to include science-based information.
At the moment, the information that the Standing Committee on Vaccination is still using for arguments is from 2021.
But in 2021, these were all model calculations.
Those were model calculations, yes.
Only a few doctors questioned the political media narrative at the beginning of the corona pandemic.
Many relied on the Robert Koch Institute and the Standing Committee on Vaccination (Stiko), although it has since
become known that both institutions are strongly bound by political directives from the Federal Ministry of Health.
Our guest recognized the contradictions of the official narrative as early as 2020.
He worked as a pediatrician in southern Africa and India and then spent 30 years in private practice in Hamburg.
He is now in well-deserved retirement and is still committed to children and families. Let's welcome Dr.
Albrecht Jahn to the Kla.TV studio. A warm welcome to you!
Thank you.
Today we are talking about the so-called vaccination with modRNA vaccines, which have also
been approved for pregnant women from fall 2021.
Proponents say that pregnant women have a particularly high corona risk and that newborns would benefit from this passive
immunization, which I hope you will explain to us a little more, so that they don't get
corona when they are born. What do you say to that?
We paediatricians have known about the coronavirus for many years and it was not a
dangerous virus either in pregnancy or for children.
So when the pandemic started, I didn't have the feeling that pregnant women or children were really at risk.
On the other hand, the vaccine that was used, the so-called modRNA, the Pfizer vaccine,
is a vaccine that was totally unknown and new.
And I would like to say something very briefly about the function of this vaccine.
The modRNA is a genetically based vaccine that is designed to cross all barriers. It goes into the
cell, we know it goes through the blood-brain barrier.
This vaccine is detectable in active form in breast milk.
And now the important thing is that it also passes through the placenta.
In this respect, the active vaccine reaches the baby in the womb.
Means that this is the first active vaccination of an unborn child.
And this was simply either overlooked or deliberately not communicated. What does this mean?
Passive vaccination means that the mother transfers antibodies to the baby.
The Stiko also argues: "The baby is protected when it is born by the mother's antibodies."
But in this case it is something else, namely that the baby is also directly stimulated to spike .
So that the vaccine itself - and we know this from work done in 2024 and also in 2025 - that the baby itself has this
vaccine in its own circulation after the mother has been vaccinated and starts to produce spikes itself.
This is an absolute novelty in the history of medicine.
That means it's not comparable to other vaccinations that are given before or during pregnancy, like
against measles? That's something completely different?
That is something completely different.
We did not vaccinate pregnant women at all until 2017, 2018.
Then came the recommendation to vaccinate against flu.
The recommendation was made to vaccinate against whooping cough.
And then came the recommendation to vaccinate against corona.
In general, medicine is quite cautious about vaccinating pregnant women or administering medication to pregnant women at all.
X-rays are also used very carefully because you don't want to harm the unborn baby. Why was this overridden in this case?
I'm sure there were also studies beforehand that took special care to ensure that nothing happened to the baby.
Once again, the special thing is that there were no tests at all with the vaccine with which the pregnant women were vaccinated,
because this vaccine was only produced in large-scale trials.
Seven billion people had to be vaccinated.
And this vaccine was also totally different from the vaccine that was tested at Pfizer.
Pfizer tested a synthetically produced vaccine, while the vaccine used on pregnant women is a complicated
process produced by coli bacteria, where we know that there are also DNA contaminants in it.
and the batches were also so different that in the end we didn't even know who had received a poorly
tolerated vaccination and who a well tolerated one.
Pfizer itself has also carried out trials with pregnant women.
And these tests were never published because they turned out relatively disastrous, so they had to be sued out.
They were supposed to remain under lock and key for 70 years, but were sued out. These are the so-called Pfizer Papers.
These are the Pfizer papers that were published in America, and from them we know that fertility and pregnancy in
particular ... it was tested and the results were such that they didn't want to publish the results.
And yet it was recommended for pregnant women. How can you explain this process? How does it come about?
The pregnant women were vaccinated worldwide.
It is not a decision that was made in Germany, but one that was pushed through by the WHO.
And we know that Bill Gates, for example, had already made attempts to hinder women's
fertility through vaccinations in Kenya in 2012.
And the church stopped the attempts in Kenya at the time and expelled Bill Gates from the country, so to speak.
Yes, and it has to be said that the WHO is currently 80 percent financed by the
pharmaceutical industry and the vaccination industry.
The Germans have an even larger share.
America has also withdrawn from funding the WHO.
The WHO does not represent global health, so to speak, but represents the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.
And in this respect, Germany took part in the vaccination in 2021 and 2022, which meant that around 600,000 pregnant
women in Germany alone were vaccinated with this vaccine.
And can you explain a little more about what that means?
You call it an intrauterine vaccination, so to speak, in the womb. What happens there?
Were there any investigations there at all?
They say that the baby itself then produces spikes. Does that mean all cells? Some cells?
The special thing about this is that, because it has not been discussed - neither by the Stiko nor by the Paul Ehrlich
Institute nor by the Robert Koch Institute - this situation, that the vaccine is transferred to the baby, in this respect there
are no studies, no follow-up examinations and also no data.
This just happened in secret and we know that actually... So Sabine Stebel and I noticed it first.
Finally, in 2024, I had to give a lecture on vaccinations and I thought: Has nobody noticed
that we are vaccinating babies intrauterine ?
And at the time I was reassured by toxicologists and practical researchers that this was
not my own opinion, but was generally confirmed.
And there are studies that have been able to detect this active vaccine in babies who have just been born,
where the mother was vaccinated in the week before birth.
You also said that these trials had already been carried out in Kenya with other vaccines and
that they were specifically aimed at fertility.
Can this now be read in the statistics?
Is it the case that fewer babies are being born, that there are more stillbirths? What is the situation?
So it is the case that throughout Europe fertility is declining, the number of births is falling.
This is disputed by the Robert Koch Institute and the Paul Ehrlich Institute, for example, and they say that the reason
for this is that people are not having any children at the moment and would like to have fewer children, so to speak.
But we know from countries that have looked into it that the more frequently the vaccine is given - for example in the Czech
Republic there is a study that showed that the more frequently the vaccine was given, so to speak, not just once, twice, three
times, four times - then fertility decreases significantly.
The woman becomes less fertile with each booster.
Politicians and the responsible authorities kept saying: "Yes, we didn't really know what that was back in 2021."
You say the coronavirus was already known, but that's a moot point.
Afterwards - when you say you became aware of it in 2024 - the Robert Koch Institute or the Paul Erich Institute
should have become aware of it through these warning mechanisms and taken appropriate steps. What happened there?
Why do we still have the same vaccination recommendations today?
This year, this year in May, we wrote a letter to the Standing Committee on Vaccination, to the Robert Koch Institute, and
confronted them with the question: Does this vaccine pass through the placenta to the baby - yes or no? And we said we
wanted an answer. So far this answer has not been forthcoming.
We are now asking the question again and it is important for us that this question is scientifically clarified.
And if it passes on to the babies - as we assume - we urgently need studies that simply look at what has
happened to the 600,000 babies vaccinated intrauterine.
This has been... there are no studies, no statistics on this.
And as a group of experts - we call ourselves the Working Group for Medical Ethics - we would like to find a better way with the
Standing Committee on Vaccination and we would like to demand that the vaccination, the vaccination recommendation for
pregnant women be suspended immediately with this vaccine.
That is, when you say "we" and "your group", can you explain that a bit?
2024, when I noticed that the vaccine simply passes through the placenta and transfects the babies - let's call this a
vaccination, transfection is that this vaccination reaches the babies - I called in various professional groups throughout
Germany and toxicology, for example Professor Hockertz, or politics, that was Wolfgang Wodarg, chemists worked together.
And within a short time I had a working group of 40, 50 scientists, but also theologians and, above all, lawyers, because
this is a legal issue when we vaccinate the unborn, so to speak.
This is an area that has not yet been legally clarified.
And we then sent a letter signed by 80 scientists and affected parents to the Standing Committee on
Vaccination with the question: What is the situation? And yes - that is the situation at the moment.
Yes, but once again on this legal situation, we have this paragraph 218 with the deadline solution that babies
up to the third month can be aborted without punishment.
I would personally say that they can be killed, that is an ethical question.
But that's just the way it is: From the fourth month onwards, the state is responsible because it says that only in
certain exceptional situations, such as rape or a serious genetic defect, can these babies be aborted at all.
But that means that the state is also legally responsible, if it now has a semi-governmental organization such as the Robert Koch
Institute, for ensuring that these people, who are still in the womb but are considered human beings, so to
speak, if they get a vaccination where there is no data on it, how is that to be assessed legally?
That is the big question and that is also the big gap and in my opinion this question must be dealt with until... yes, it is a
question that should actually be clarified by the highest courts.
And as long as you don't look there, this area has not been clarified.
But that's exactly the point, that in the area from the second and third trimester, i.e. from the fourth
month, the state... protects the baby and the mother actually has no right to abort this child.
But the very state that is supposed to protect the child prescribes a vaccine - again, it was on
political instructions that pregnant women in Germany were vaccinated - that harms the baby.
And for me, that is simply what needs to be investigated.
And as long as we don't look at it now, we won't follow up the babies who have been vaccinated - and that is possible because we
can now prove through laboratory tests, for example, if we don't know how long these babies will continue to form
spikes, we don't know what that will do to their immunity.
What we do know, however, is that strokes, heart disease and, above all, autoimmune diseases are more
common, and we also know this from studies in America.
But until this is investigated, we have no figures.
And this is simply not investigated in Germany.
And we would like to encourage you to take a look.
And through Prof. König's laboratory in Magdeburg, MMD or the Inmodia laboratory , we have the possibility of
proving that when children fall ill or develop cancer, for example, this is related to the mother's vaccination.
And that is also what we are currently encouraging.
Let's look at the children who were vaccinated intrauterine in the womb to see how they tolerated it.
And until we have data on this, the recommendation to vaccinate pregnant women must be withdrawn - that is
our demand to the Standing Committee on Vaccination.
And again about the test, that is, can you then prove causally that it comes from the
spikes or is that a statistical evaluation?
It is possible in the individual child - that is, assuming a child with cancer; we know
that DNA impurities can certainly cause cancer.
We can detect these DNA impurities in the cancer, in the cancer cells, as a result of the vaccination.
The other way round, for example, if the child is still forming spikes, i.e. if we have increased spike formation in the children
- we don't know that, we don't know: do they still have spikes, how long does a baby
that was transfused intrauterine form spikes?
There are no studies on this. If the spike count is elevated, you can check whether it is due
to Moderna, the Pfizer vaccine or an infection.
So we can very well differentiate, the child could have had corona.
One can distinguish by the blood test of a child what was the cause of the spike formation.
And that is something that is urgently needed.
And you then offer that the Robert Koch Institute and the Paul Ehrlich Institute and the Stiko can, so to speak, draw on
this data in order to perhaps take a more differentiated view?
We are in the process of making a lab note that a doctor who suspects this child might have a
disease, for example a stroke in children is very rare.
It can then be shown that this stroke is caused by the mother's vaccination.
Or if a child, for example, is known to have cardiac insufficiencies with worn-out children's hearts, which we have
never seen before, we could then show that this child was vaccinated intrauterine and ultimately
has the same symptoms that we also see in adults.
Yes. I said at the beginning that these commissions, i.e. Stiko, the Robert Koch Institute, that
they are strongly bound by political directives.
In other words, even if the scientists at these institutes were to accept your proposal, wouldn't they be capped from "above"?
This is a very thick plank, so to speak, where we are in contact with the Stiko.
Sooner or later, we will have no choice but to return to evidence-based work .
And the scientists I work with come from the field of evidence-based medicine.
And we are also trying or are willing to discuss our findings from good studies that are already available
worldwide on this topic, which we do not necessarily have in Germany, with the Standing Committee on Vaccination.
And our aim is for the Standing Committee on Vaccination to include science-based information.
At the moment, the information that the Standing Committee on Vaccination is still using for its arguments dates back
to 2021. So at the beginning of the pandemic, so to speak.
And the argument for vaccinating pregnant women does not yet include the new work we have.
But in 2021, these were all model calculations.
Those were model calculations, yes.
And they're still being used?
They are still being used, yes.
So there is an urgent need to catch up.
That's ... exactly.
Yes, by when do you expect an answer from the Stiko?
It is now autumn... There is a working group within the Stiko that deals with the topic of corona,
Covid vaccination. It is now meeting in the fall.
And we would like these issues, especially the issue of transfection and intrauterine vaccination, to be discussed
in this working group. And we expect a reaction to this.
And are happy to help you come to the right conclusions, so to speak.
And in our opinion, these are clearly an immediate stop to the vaccination of pregnant women.
Yes, thank you very much, Dr. Jahn, for this assessment and for this great project, for reaching out to the scientists
and giving them an opportunity to straighten out things that didn't go well. Thank you very much for this interview.
Yes, thank you very much for the invitation.
Gladly!
Kla.TV. Free, independent, uncensored.