That was the only approval study, toxicity study, to be able to claim that we have tested everything to ensure safety in humans.
What was done is irresponsible!
If you want to develop a substance, you have to know what is in the solution, how quickly the
substance is absorbed, how quickly it is distributed.
It was of no interest. So it was almost like flying blind.
In my opinion, the pharmaceutical industry is a wheel in this very well-oiled machine of the vaccination mafia.
And all those who invest in vaccines are hoping for huge profits.
And that's why it's not just the pharmaceutical industry that I'm accusing here, but everyone involved, and that of course
includes governments and authorities and probably many others.
There are established principles in medicine to protect against malpractice.
These are laid down in national and international regulations.
During the Covid crisis, almost all of these principles were thrown overboard.
Today I'm talking to a toxicologist who has spent 35 years in senior positions at various
pharmaceutical companies such as Hoffmann-La Roche and Pfizer.
He claims evidence that BioNTech and Pfizer were only able to place the mRNA vaccines on the market through
a mafia-like connection with the health authorities.
By systematically bypassing safety studies, mRNA jabs have caused great harm to people.
Let's hear what an insider has to say. Welcome, Dr. Helmut Sterz!
Thank you very much for inviting me.
Sure. We'll start off with the manufacturers and rewind to 2020.
You actually have to rewind and possibly even further back than 2020.
After all, it had been decided back in the early 2000s, at least in the USA, following the anthrax letters and attacks, that in
the event of a biological, radiological or chemical attack, a law would be enacted under which certain measures would be adopted.
And this would not only include wearing masks, distancing and curfews, but also getting control of the vaccination situation,
substances were meant to be delivered very quickly and all those involved, that is the vaccine companies, the
authorities, the doctors - were to be exempted from liability.
This is the only way to explain why Mr. Sahin was able to reach such a quick result with his relatively small biotech company,
because he could take the liberty of not conducting the usual toxicity studies, meaning safety
tests on animals, to their normally required extent.
And we then saw the result, which we will now talk about.
Professor Sahin is neither a toxicologist nor a drug developer in the usual sense.
He had specialized in the development of cancer vaccines, together with his wife.
So he wanted to develop individual cancer vaccines, and in this kind of industry you don't need such
extensive toxicity tests as you do for other drugs.
For him, it was essential for things to happen very quickly.
In his book, which is on sale and which I have read very carefully, the common theme is the importance of speed.
The aim was to have these substances on the market by the end of the year.
And this explains how it was possible to develop a complex substance in just a few months at this crazy speed, even though
the substance was not as complex as chemical molecules in the usual sense, but this technology made faster progress possible
while bypassing all safety guidelines. And that was a no-go.
You said that he had developed cancer drugs and that there is a difference to a vaccine. Could you explain that a bit more?
Yes, he was interested in the development of individualized cancer therapies.
However, he never brought a product on to the market, just like many of his colleagues who also conducted
research in the field of cancer vaccines for 20 years.
None of these products came on to the market before 2020.
These substances practically all perished either because they were ineffective or because they were toxic.
In other words, previous experience had been negative in this respect.
And in the RKI files you can read as well that the aim was to bring several drugs on to the market very quickly and that
the relevant data would only be collected after post-marketing.
In other words, you were aware you were embarking on a huge human experiment.
And that is forbidden under the Nuremberg Code.
Well, a few tests were actually carried out.
But you say one gets the impression the manufacturer was carrying out the most simple and least risky tests in order to quickly
obtain approval for this gold mine, as you have called it.
You are a toxicologist. Can you give us some examples of this?
Yes. In order to have a fig leaf study, an abbreviated general toxicity test was carried out in rats over two weeks.
The general toxicity is intended to determine so-called target organs.
So animals are treated with the substance and after a certain time they are killed.
And then all the organs are examined histologically.
The blood values are taken and everything that goes with it.
And this general toxicity test has, as I said, been carried out on rats.
A rat is not a particularly suitable species for this type of substances.
That's why I blame these developers also for not carrying out a huge brainstorming session before they started to develop.
After all, you had previous experience with corona viruses.
And you knew the development was difficult because no one had yet been able to develop substances.
So everything that was known about coronaviruses, about this spike protein on the shell, should have been
brought together to define exactly: Firstly, which animal species is suitable? What dosage must be taken?
It would have been absolutely necessary to test with a short trial at which dose the rats
start to show symptoms that are not tolerated.
That was not done. And that is the toxicologist's job, to test what happens.
Otherwise, he protects neither his employer nor the patients, because there is a risk that a
substance that is toxic will be placed on the market.
I had the impression that the toxicologists were persuaded by their boss Ugur Sahin to just do things
quickly and not to use a toxicologically relevant approach.
You said the rat is generally not suitable?
Why not? Rat experiments are quite frequent.
This has to do with this spike protein, which sits on the virus and is used by the virus to penetrate cells.
And in order to penetrate cells, this spike protein has to attach to a receptor.
This is the ACE2 receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor.
This is a receptor that occurs everywhere in the body, but in varying densities.
And in rats it does not occur in the same density as in humans.
The rat is therefore less sensitive to these tests.
And you told me to give you a few examples.
This short rat study was the only general toxicity study conducted.
So a medium-length, that is a 3-month toxicity study was not carried out, as I would have required.
And this study could have been extended.
Some of the animals could have been killed after three months and the rest after six months to see if
there was any accumulation. None of this was done.
And above all, Pfizer had no interest in conducting even longer studies - although they could have done so if they
had run these toxicity studies in parallel from the outset.
Then there would have been time to evaluate the studies.
But nothing of the sort was done and, above all, no second suitable animal species was included. They stuck with the rat.
That was the only approval study, toxicity study, to be able to claim that we have tested everything to ensure safety in humans.
And that is an absolute untenable exaggeration.
Yes. You also write about the supervisory authorities in your book.
What things should they have been checking in order to fulfill their task, even in a more or less crisis situation?
Well, everyone involved knew relatively quickly that there was no crisis.
Firstly, this virus was not a deadly virus, not a killer virus, but more or less the equivalent of a moderately severe flu.
And so this need for speed and to tackle measures head on was not there at all.
The authorities knew that too. But of course they pretended that there was a great need.
But here we are dealing with influenza. And in this case, you should have done the whole range.
For example, normally, before you inject it into humans for the first time, you do a mutagenicity test.
These are studies in which the influence on the genetic material is tested.
These are relatively short studies in cell cultures.
That would have been quick and there would have been some certainty that there would be no
cancer risk afterwards. But that was dropped.
It was said, we looked in the computer, there is actually no indication that the structure of
the messenger RNA here leads to a cancer risk.
What was done is irresponsible! That's the first point. The second point is safety pharmacology.
These are studies in which we try to record any side effects on animals or organs, especially on the heart, for example.
The major organs, central nervous system, heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, are tested with specific pharmacological tests
and with slightly increased doses, not as in pharmacology.
Instead, you go in the direction of toxicology without disturbing the tissue.
But you want to see if a malfunction is happening.
Such an examination of the heart would have revealed what was later painfully found in humans. Namely this myocarditis.
Yes.
And so it was said, we don't need that - safety pharmacology.
If you want to develop a substance, you have to know what is in the solution you are
administering. No pharmacokinetics has been done.
These are studies examining how quickly the substance is absorbed, how quickly it is metabolized, how
quickly it is distributed and how quickly it is excreted.
It wasn't done. It was of no interest. So it was almost like flying blind.
There are many other studies. As mentioned, no general toxicity studies were conducted in a second laboratory animal.
Reproductive toxicology studies. These are studies that examine fertility and pregnancy to
see whether malformations or abortions occur.
And whether the offspring are healthy and develop normally.
This was done on the rat - again, not the most suitable animal species.
But normally the authorities require that this is also done on a second animal species.
That was not done. So everywhere, it was worse than Swiss cheese.
There were actually only holes everywhere where you had no answers. And that is impossible.
Yes. The inadequate recording of side effects appears to have been systematic.
I myself know of cases where friends of mine were really chased out of hospital when they
said that it was possibly a vaccine side effect.
Someone having a heart attack at the age of 40 - that was previously unusual.
Yes, firstly, the experts' warnings were thrown to the wind.
These people have been portrayed as blatherers, tinfoil hats and stupid.
They were put under tremendous pressure.
They lost their jobs, were no longer invited to television interviews and were thus finished off.
According to the principle, punish one and educate a hundred.
And of course, at some point, these warners stopped, or rather they wrote books, but nobody listened.
And when the first side effects appeared, and they came very quickly in 2021, they came so quickly that the
registration authorities, meaning the Paul Ehrlich Institute, could no longer keep up with registering.
And this data is still not accessible.
But I know of other registration authorities, for example in the USA or France, which were updated monthly.
And you could see very clearly how the side effects increased like a tsunami.
And yet people said, we have now vaccinated so many millions of people.
And that is statistically completely normal. That is absolute nonsense.
The number of side effects compared to previous vaccinations went through the roof like a rocket.
Suddenly thousands of side effects of a certain type were recorded, where previously perhaps 50 or 100 had occurred with
vaccinations against flu or influenza or something like that.
A blind man with a walking stick should have woken up by this, but nothing happened - nothing.
And yet many developers are now converting all kinds of vaccinations to this ModRNA
technology. Do you have an explanation for this?
It's a question of money. This technology makes it possible to achieve results very quickly.
And above all, it looks as if, as I have just heard, no safety tests are being carried out with these new substances
either, because so much good experience has been gained.
You see, it worked wonderfully. If that were the case, then I would strongly advise
against getting vaccinated against such diseases.
And you're right, there are dozens of substances in development, in the pipeline, to combat all kinds of diseases.
And that's the fast money. If there are no major development costs, then the
pharmaceutical industry can make such a healthy profit.
But I would also like to say right now that this is not just about the pharmaceutical industry.
In my opinion, the pharmaceutical industry is a wheel in this very well-oiled machine of the vaccine mafia.
And all those who invest in vaccines are hoping for huge profits. And you have them regularly.
This really took off in the 70s and 80s, especially in the USA, where children were maltreated with vaccinations
every few weeks and months until the parents fought back.
And then the pharmaceutical industry was absolved.
In other words, the President said you are no longer at risk of liability. And so it goes on now.
The entire adult population worldwide is supposed to be vaccinated against as many diseases as possible.
My book is called "The Vaccine Mafia".
And the vaccine mafia is probably often interpreted to mean the pharmaceutical companies calling for vaccination.
But I understand the vaccine mafia to be a much larger entity.
And I would like to insert something briefly: You see this pyramid on the 1-dollar bill.
For me, this pyramid represents the vaccine mafia.
It is designated with a basis of money and power and at the top there are people who disseminate a very strong ideology.
They would like to "improve" humanity - in quotation marks. For me it is absolutely clear
you have to expect an improvement for the worse.
You can only create problems with vaccinations, especially if you want to use them against all kinds of diseases.
And the vaccine mafia is a big machinery.
In my opinion, Mr. Gates and the World Economic Forum with Mr. Schwab are at its forefront.
These are ideologues who are also oligarchs and have a lot of money and influence.
Mr. Schwab and Mr. Gates fund the WHO and the UN, which have large vaccination programs, and other organizations
like GAVI, which is the Global Alliance for Vaccines.
These organizations ensure that the vaccinations are carried out worldwide.
And below that is the level of the donors and those who want to see money.
Because money is being given by the big banks, by BlackRock, by the World Bank, by the
Rockefeller Foundation, and all these organizations.
And of course they also want to see a lot of money coming out of it. For me, that's the vaccine mafia.
And that's why it's not just the pharmaceutical industry that I'm accusing here, but everyone involved, and that of course
includes governments and authorities and probably many others.
Yes, thanks for your assessment. I have another question about these fertility studies.
Recently, American epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher wrote on X: Multiple independent government datasets confirm catastrophic
intergenerational damage from mass mRNA vaccination.
Years after the mass vaccination of women of childbearing age, more than 50 percent of babies born now die.
Did the manufacturer have any information on this subject?
I read that too. I don't know if this 50 percent is really the truth.
But I have seen statistics and curves that clearly show that since vaccination, since these massive
vaccination campaigns, the mortality rate of children under the age of four has risen massively.
As I said, I don't know whether it's 50 percent, but it's certainly a large percentage, and it's different from before.
It is therefore a catastrophe when you have to consider that the vaccination may still cause damage in years to come, because this
dangerous spike protein survives in the body for a very long time, even in pregnant women, and can accumulate in the ovaries
or in the higher hormone centers, so that it is conceivable that you could still suffer
these kinds of side effects for many years.
And if this spike protein or possibly also the messenger RNA goes into the ovaries, then it may be passed on to the children.
And that would of course be a particular disaster if it were to continue here epigenetically.
The manufacturers categorically rejected the idea that it is a gene therapy drug. You see this differently?
Yes. For me, this is an argument about the emperor's beard.
The definition of a gene therapy is to introduce genetic material into human cells and while doing so removing or adding genes.
In the case of this vaccination, genetic material, namely messenger RNA, is introduced into the cells.
And this is where the human cells are forced to produce this spike protein on the ribosomes.
Now you can say that this is not gene therapy, this is a gene experiment.
But you also have to realize that we were promised that this vaccination would only be given twice.
And a short time later we were told that we should actually vaccinate three times
because the antibody titres dropped too quickly.
And then you still have to boost and then it becomes a treatment.
And you may ask yourself, is it a gene therapy or just a gene treatment or gene experiment after all?
In any case, a lot of damage is being done with it.
Yes, and what about the responsibility of the medical profession?
Were these doctors who vaccinated just ill-informed or are they basically accomplices?
You have to look at that very decidedly.
I believe that many doctors - although they have an excellent education, a very long training and then even convert their years
of practical work into experience - I believe that most doctors were not curious enough to realize those
things that usual people noticed relatively quickly.
It quickly became clear that this vaccination is not really effective.
There were constant vaccine breakthroughs, and doctors are the first to realize this showing there was no good efficacy.
And the fact that the side effects increased very quickly in 2021 must not have gone unnoticed by them either.
So a doctor should normally have said: Well, what we have been told about effectiveness
and safety, I do have questions about that.
And in this context, it would have been very, very important for a doctor to have told the
person ready to be vaccinated before the injection:
"I don't know how well this substance works and I don't know if it's safe at all, but if you want to get vaccinated,
I will do so." That would have been the correct statement.
Instead, almost all doctors said: "These substances are effective and they are safe and they
protect you from severe cases and even death.
And above all, they also protect older people from serious cases and death."
And this was something unknown really, because not enough older people were included in the large Pfizer study.
There was no statistical evaluation in this direction at all.
Doctors, they are elites, and they have been doing studies for a long time and could have
realized that something was going wrong here.
And many doctors did say I no longer vaccinate and therefore had to accept severe losses, including penalties, as a result.
But the majority of doctors vaccinated until the needle glowed. And that is a reproach.
Yes. There's a kind of review of the Covid crisis going on at the moment. There's this Enquete Commission.
Has a little entertainment value, but not much has come of it so far.
The questions you are asking, this expertise you are bringing to the table, the questions about the trials, what the manufacturers
should have done and what the health authorities failed to ask - shouldn't that be asked there and
then ask Mr. Drosten, Mr. Spahn, why it went that way?
Yes, exactly. But this Enquete Commission, as far as I've followed it so far, and I haven't followed it very
closely, would prefer to only look forward and not backwards.
And only if you look closely backwards do you see what went wrong. And Mr. Spahn's book speaks volumes.
He has published a book in which he says - the title is something like: 'We will have to forgive each other a lot."
I have to say: "Mr. Spahn, no, we have absolutely nothing to forgive you for. You have done so much harm.
You would have to answer for what happened."
And in my opinion, that is exactly what is not happening as a result of this Enquete Commission.
Funnily enough, this commission is called the "Enquete Commission", because in French it means "Commission of Inquiry".
And what this German Enquete Commission is doing is looking forward and it wants to understand, but
it doesn't want to condemn. And that won't work.
It will trickle along for a few years.
And when everyone is fed up, no one will have to take any responsibility.
And that would be the only right thing to do, that the people who have gone out on a limb and said time and again: "Get
vaccinated! Get vaccinated, it's safe and it's important" ...
And they actually knew - they knew very well that it wasn't safe or effective.
Because how else could this have been written in the RKI papers?
It said there: We will not collect any more safety data, but we will inject it into people and collect this data there.
That is... also the people who didn't report it back then, they are also to blame.
There were no whistleblowers who said we have to tell what's going on here.
No, it was simply added to the minutes, and it was actually intended that these would not be published at all.
And the people at the Paul Ehrlich Institute, who registered masses of side effects, should have been screaming:
Something is going very wrong here, we are seeing numerous side effects that we didn't expect.
In my opinion, the Enquete Commission, as it is currently running, has no real value.
And do you have a view on what can be done to ensure that a fair reappraisal is achieved after all?
There must be people who are interested.
If the population is not interested in really coming to terms with the situation and responsibility is taken,
then nothing will happen and, above all, justice will not be done to the vaccination victims.
Because if there is no one responsible, if Mr. Lauterbach, Mr. Spahn, Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Wieler and whatever their names are,
if they are not responsible, then no court will issue a certificate to the vaccination victims that they have a
vaccination injury and pay them appropriate compensation.
That will not happen. These people will be left out in the cold.
And these are often very young people who are scarred for life, who have become crippled.
And it is such a disgrace what is happening here.
And in this context, I have to say that the Enquete Commission really... - something has to change.
There must be a real commission of inquiry.
And the people who were in government years ago, in the hot Covid years, and those who sat in parliament, they
shouldn't actually be taking part in this commission of inquiry.
After all, they have heaped a great deal of blame on themselves and can't just say now that they did everything wrong.
And that's what Mr. Spahn is not saying. He says: "We did everything right."
Yes, thank you very much for this statement.
So in the end, it's up to the population to do something?
Yes, there should be a referendum in which the population votes for a real investigation to take
place and for those responsible to be held accountable.
I am under no illusion that Mr. Gates or someone like that will be brought before a judge,
even though they are the actual ones responsible.
And the people who made sure that this virus was created in the army laboratories should of course also be held accountable.
Because not only was a virus produced for us, but also an inferior vaccine.
Both together have caused incredible damage.
Maybe a positive note anyway.
There are now ways for vaccination victims to determine whether they have been harmed by
the vaccination or by the virus - Long-Covid.
And there are treatment options, even if the treatment options do not offer immediate help.
But in the long run, they can ensure that this sinister and toxic spike protein is removed from the body.
So, research is being carried out and there will certainly be progress.
You shouldn't despair. But I can understand that these victims are desperate because they are left all by themselves.
Yes. Yes, Dr. Sterz, thank you very much for that assessment.
I hope that this interview will be widely shared, that these questions will be clarified and that there will be a
willingness to really reappraise things fundamentally and thoroughly. Thank you very much for this interview.
Yes, I'd be very happy about that too. Because selling the book alone will not sufficiently disseminate the information I give.
I am therefore very grateful that you have given me the opportunity to talk to you about this and present my assessment.
Because only by disseminating information - via channels such as yours - can the general public receive information.
Exactly. Thank you very much! And all the best to France!
Thank you! Have a nice evening!
Yes, bye.
As a principle, Kla.TV works free of charge and on a voluntary basis.
The airing of our broadcasts is our only reward. Thank you very much.