“And as we stated from a legal standpoint at the outset, it is, of course, necessary that the safety of such lipid nanoparticles
be established before they are placed on the market.”
And that didn't happen. That was the first phase leading up to 2024.
So that had been, at the very least, gross negligence.
"Starting in 2024, when scientific evidence has established that they are dangerous and toxic, it will ultimately no
longer be considered negligence; rather, one must say that this constitutes, at the very least, conditional intent, …"
Watch a clip from the interview now: Prof. Dr. Bhakdi: "The greatest organized crime against humanity" (full
interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhJrO8nVKks )
Ladies and gentlemen, today I am speaking with Professor Sucharit Bhakdi.
Everyone in Germany knows him, and anyone who doesn't will get to know him today.
Today, we wanted to talk together about his new book and the implications it has.
It's called "mRNA Vaccines: The Greatest Organized Crime Against Humanity and the New Evidence."
And so I thought to myself, from a lawyer’s perspective to a doctor’s, let’s talk about what the new evidence is, what the new
findings are, why this should be considered a crime, and what needs to be done legally—as a criminal lawyer, as a
prosecutor, and as the judicial system—to solve these crimes.
Why is it the greatest crime against humanity?
The reasons are explained in this book in a way that anyone can understand.
And based on this presentation of evidence, I have come to have some very pressing questions that I would like to ask a lawyer.
And you are, of course, the person in Germany who is probably best suited to answer my questions.
First question:
Isn't it generally prohibited to inject a substance known to be life-threateningly toxic into the bodies of
healthy people, whether for self-defense or to protect others?
The answer to this question is, of course, essentially “yes.”
Therefore, a toxic substance must not be injected into the body of a healthy person.
Even if the healthy person insists, this would ultimately lead to intentional, unethical self-harm—and
even suicide, if that is what the affected person wants.
And everyone knows that assisted suicide—and while there may be exceptions—is generally a criminal offense.
And what I'm observing here, Professor Bhakdi, is that it's obviously—or do you see it
differently?—that we're dealing with a toxic substance.
And we're talking here about mRNA vaccines in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A toxic substance that was "administered"—though "administered" probably needs to be put in quotation marks—was injected,
and people were led to believe something completely false.
At least as far as the background of this substance is concerned.
Yes, that's the point. But before I elaborate on that, I'd like to ask the second question.
Don't regulatory agencies have a mandate from the government—and thus from the people—to prevent
this from happening through appropriate oversight?
It goes without saying that government agencies, particularly those in the pharmaceutical sector, are
tasked with regulating the marketing of substances.
We have strict regulatory standards in Germany, in Europe—and one could almost say worldwide—that stipulate that
substances may only be made available to consumers once the government has determined that they are safe.
Two questions, and then I'll get started.
Third: If the authorities fail to do so and serious harm results to the public, isn't that a
gross, criminal breach of their duty of supervision?
The fact is that, as I said, the authorities are required under pharmaceutical law and other legal instruments to
regulate the marketing of substances and to prevent toxic substances from being placed on the market.
If they fail to monitor this, but the authorities nonetheless knowingly and intentionally allow this substance to be placed on
the market—that is, if the authorities permit it—then this is, of course, a reprehensible act and must, of
course, have consequences for the officials involved.
Fourth: Don't manufacturers have a legal obligation to disclose such a hazard in their
products and recall the product once it becomes known?
That actually applies to all products that are brought to market.
You surely remember the many product recalls in supermarkets when expired food or food that wasn't produced under
proper sanitary conditions is put on the market, and people later say that this constitutes a violation.
If it is discovered after the fact that this has happened, all the substances, foods, and products are recalled.
This applies all the more to pharmaceutical law.
It is clear that if a substance is hazardous and this is determined after the fact, the
substance must be removed from the market.
We saw this in the thalidomide case in the early 1960s, and it happens time and again in other cases as well.
Isn't it a violation of the Nuremberg Code to administer substances of unknown efficacy
and safety without providing informed consent?
Certainly. That is precisely what the Nuremberg Code is intended to prevent.
After all, the Nuremberg Code was developed in response to the human experiments conducted by the Nazis in the 1940s.
Doctors must never treat people as guinea pigs or as subjects of medical research. That should be ruled out entirely.
All right, now I'll get to the facts. And there are no grounds for suspicion here—these are the facts.
With these vaccines—they're all packaged, aren't they?
These mRNA vaccines are packaged, and the packaging process takes place …
… in Fetten, right?
In fats. These fats were never approved for use in healthy people. Never.
Under the so-called emergency use authorization in the United States, it is permitted to use untested
substances—that is, on an experimental basis, so to speak.
And it is widely assumed in Europe—and in Germany in particular—that conditional approval is identical
to emergency use authorization in the United States.
But I want to emphasize that this does not reflect reality.
After all, there is no regulation, no law—in fact, no way at all—that would allow a
substance to be used once it is known to be dangerous.
That's why I asked you: if something is known to be toxic, shouldn't it be prohibited from use?
Well, as for these fats—these nano-lipid particles—it was not known at the time of approval, which was
in 2020, that the packaging itself is highly toxic.
Because this discovery was made in 2024.
In 2024, it was discovered that this substance has a property that originates from bacteria in cases of blood poisoning.
And this substance stimulates the immune system to such an extent that inflammation occurs everywhere.
It's basically like a sparkler. That's what sets the sparklers off in the immune system.
Those aren't the antibodies—it doesn't matter what they are.
However, for this reason, these bacterial toxins—endotoxins—must under no circumstances be present in
any injectable medication. It is strictly prohibited.
And then, two years ago, it was discovered that these very man-made fats have the same property.
That has been published. And we have also cited it in our book, giving the source.
Anyone can read about it. This discovery has been confirmed time and again.
It has never been disputed or retracted. And the publication is cited in the literature.
And yet the authorities have not responded.
Nevertheless, the company has not responded. After all, the company really should have announced this immediately.
And we don't need to discuss this any further, because that's a fact.
Before 2024, nothing was known about the toxicity of these nanoparticles—these lipid nanoparticles. Exactly.
That wasn't known yet. But people were aware that they hadn't been fully investigated. They didn't know the consequences.
And as we noted at the outset from a legal perspective, it is, of course, necessary that the safety of such lipid nanoparticles
be established before they are placed on the market.
And that didn't happen. That was the first phase leading up to 2024.
So that had been, at the very least, gross negligence.
Starting in 2024, when scientific evidence has established that they are dangerous, and toxic, it is ultimately no longer a
matter of negligence; rather, one must say that bringing these lipid nanoparticles to market as so-called
“vaccine carriers” constitutes at least conditional intent.
So that means that any side effect that occurs—or any effect, including a toxic effect—is ultimately the fault of
the people who allow these particles to be produced and brought to market, rather than being recalled.
These particles have the property that they know no boundaries.
They travel from the bloodstream to all organs, including the brain.
And the brain is full of these sparklers that get lit.
And that's why sparks—the damage—immediately occur in the brain.
And inflammation of the brain is called encephalitis.
And any form of encephalitis is life-threatening and can lead to all sorts of terrible complications.
Professor Bhakdi, can you explain why this happens to some people but not to many others?
So, these substances are obviously particularly toxic to some people but not to others. How can that be?
Yes, there are so many reasons why that might be the case.
As for the toxicity of these lipid nanoparticles, they are equally toxic to everyone. The only thing is, they have to get there.
And that's a problem for these lipid nanoparticles, just as it is for all vaccines.
Because if the vaccine wasn't stored properly, if it wasn't handled correctly, or if it sat around for too long,
then those lipid nanoparticles will break down as well.
And then they don't reach the brain. It's almost trivial.
Well, speaking as a layperson—I’m neither a toxicologist nor a doctor—this is how I imagine it: If
you give a person arsenic, they’ll probably die.
Whether you're a man or a woman, 90 years old or 2 years old.
As I understand it now, the issue with lipid nanoparticles is that they are fundamentally capable of
causing extremely severe side effects in all people.
But it depends, for example, on how the substance is stored and how it is then injected.
In some cases, this can lead to encephalitis, or inflammation of the brain.
Not meningitis, but encephalitis.
Oh, I see—it can lead to encephalitis. And the other one just gets off easy.
Yes, exactly.
It's a kind of toxic Russian roulette.
Yes, exactly, exactly right. That's exactly what Helmut Sterz wrote, too.
And no one can predict that.
That's funny—there was a Thai study in which my colleagues in Thailand conducted a statistical survey.
Specifically, in which cities the most side effects were reported.
And then there were all kinds of curves.
The ones that were really steep—that is, the more vaccinations were administered, the steeper these trends
became—so that in some cities, the side-effect rate was around 10 percent—yes, of all side effects combined.
And then, with others, almost nothing.
And then it turned out that the cities with the vaccination sites that reported the highest rates of side
effects among all major cities—Bangkok, yes—were, of course, the ones with good refrigerators.
And the fewest side effects were in rural areas, in small hospitals.
So, yeah, in the tropics. That's all I need to say.
In other words, it can sometimes actually be a good thing if medical care isn’t as top-notch as it is in the capital.
Yes, of course. Thankfully, people in rural areas have fared much better.
We can already see that these lipid nanoparticles alone are a reason to take action.
And you have to realize that these lipid nanoparticles know no boundaries. They can even
pass through the placenta—from mother to child.
And that is something the German group has now discovered.
It has also been published. It has been published that these lipid nanoparticles cross the placental barrier.
And that those foreign genes are then inside the child. In the womb. It's terrible.
It really is terrible.
Right now, I'm just thinking about the book Mr. Sterz wrote a while back about the vaccine mafia.
I believe he also discussed the fact that this placental barrier between mother and child can be crossed.
And there were obviously no tests at all conducted prior to the emergency authorization of this so-called
“vaccine” for COVID-19—the mRNA vaccine—there were none.
That means they administered something and had no idea at the time what the consequences would be. Or did they know?
No. Other groups have conducted preliminary studies that have shown this.
But it wasn't mentioned. And it wasn't rigorously tested.
Actually, this book by Helmut Sterz was what inspired me to publish this latest book.
Because in this latest book that Helmut and I edited together—we’re the editors, not the
authors—we put all the pieces of the mosaic together.
And that all comes together to form a complete mosaic that everyone can understand.
With all the evidence showing why now is the time for the lawyers to take over.
And why the public is now in a position to push things in that direction.
Let me follow up on that for a moment. That question was important to me.
When the vaccine received emergency authorization, did people know about the possible consequences for
children—that is, for unborn children? Did they know that?
Or did they say, “Just close your eyes and go for it—we don’t know, but it’ll all work out”? Or did they ultimately not care?
Should people have known that for sure? Or did they know it?
Absolutely. And, Mr. Maaßen, now hold on to your seat.
We have now covered lipid nanoparticles.
But we know that this vaccine itself—the mRNA—was developed in such a way that, when the manufacturing process was submitted for
review and approval, the process submitted was relatively sound.
We don't need to discuss right now why that was okay.
But it was clean. And the product—manufactured using this clean process—was actually used in the first
large-scale clinical trial. There was only one. That was in mid-2020. It involved 20,000 participants.
And this vaccine was tolerated relatively well. Relatively. Not very well, but relatively.
And the procedure has, after all, been approved. Approved. Approved.
But when Ms. von der Leyen purchased these vaccine doses for all of Europe and awarded the contract to BioNTech—the purchase was
made before the product was even available—they were unable to manufacture the product according to
proper procedures because it was too expensive for them.
That would have resulted in a loss rather than a profit. And that's why they changed the procedure.
And they changed the manufacturing process for the first billion doses, which were then administered starting in December.
This revised procedure has never been formally approved.
Since they also didn't provide any details about what was in it, what had changed, and what the
product looked like, they didn't provide anything at all.
Does that mean that the product granted emergency authorization was different from the one that was ultimately administered? Yes.
So that means the emergency authorization doesn't actually cover the product that was subsequently sold,
because it was produced under different conditions.
Yes, that's exactly right. The key step in being able to produce it cheaply is that they used bacterial chromosomes.
They used these bacterial chromosomes as a template.
Not artificial genes, but actual, real genes. Specifically, from bacteria.
And then they ran into a problem that couldn't be solved—and still can't be solved, even today.
Namely, if you take these giant chromosomes—they’re enormous compared to the artificial genes they
needed for the clinical… …approval. For approval, yes.
In that case, it is impossible to completely remove these bacterial chromosome fragments.
It's just not possible. There's no way to do that.
Or it would end up being so expensive that it would, in turn, result in a loss.
So. And they didn't do that either. And that's why these remnants of bacterial chromosomes have been found.
Every single time. Anyone who looked for them found them.
And the first finding came three years ago. That's something to think about. Three years ago, Mr. Maaßen.
By one of today's leading molecular biologists: Kevin McKinnon.
He was a project manager on the Human Genome Project.
This is the man who played a key role in decoding the entire human genome.
Well, if anyone knows how to identify DNA and how to sequence it, it's Kevin.
And he found it. He said so, too.
But the authorities—yes, the Paul Ehrlich Institute—turned a blind eye. The EMA turned a blind eye. Oh well, it’ll be fine.
Isn't that like when the government enters into a contract—let's say, with a contractor—and the
contractor is supposed to build a highway with overpasses?
And the contract specifies exactly what must be provided.
And then later on, the contractor says to himself, “Well, that’s all too expensive for me; I won’t make much profit
on that, so I’d rather use the low-quality concrete.” Yeah, because I can really save money that way.
And then the road and the bridge are built with poor-quality concrete, and the bridge collapses.
Well, then it would be up to the client—the government—to conduct inspections to ensure the bridge doesn't
collapse, to check whether this concrete meets the requirements or not. Is that a fair way to look at it?
Yes, of course. Exactly. And that's what the Paul Ehrlich Institute is there for.
And that one wriggles away and wants nothing to do with it.
The EMA was responsible for that. That can't be right.
The Paul Ehrlich Institute is responsible for the German people.
I mean, when I hear that, I think, where are we, anyway? Are we in Germany? Where are we?
Because they said, “A little bacterial chromosomal DNA—what’s the big deal?”
Yes. There were even experts—my fellow experts—who said, “Guys, don’t get so worked up. You eat so much bacterial chromosomal
DNA in your food every day. And it doesn’t do any harm.”
In the stomach. But it does make a difference whether it’s absorbed in the stomach or
injected directly into the bloodstream, doesn’t it?
Yes, sir, of course. And you don't even have to inject it directly into the bloodstream. You inject it into the muscles.
Into the muscles, yes.
It always enters the bloodstream.
And from the bloodstream, it reaches all the organs. I mean, we've already covered that. Okay, now.
And I told Helmut—this was in December—“If only we could put a lid on this by having someone show and prove that
this stuff—these bacterial chromosomes—is toxic and deadly, then we’ll write a book or publish one.”
And that's what happened. And that's why this book is out now, Mr. Maaßen.
Because anyone can read in it what happened.
First, it has been proven that these chromosome fragments—very short sequences—can be
incorporated into human chromosomes and cause cancer.
So this discovery was made in a woman with aggressive bladder cancer.
And they found embedded spike sequences in the bladder cancer chromosome.
Wait a minute, can I ask for clarification? I'm not sure I understand correctly.
Should we talk about these lipid nanoparticles now? No.
So, the packaging—that was the one thing they found that indicated the lipid nanoparticles posed a risk. Yes.
The other issue now is this contamination of the mRNA with bacterial DNA.
Which arose due to the… … mass production that was not certified. Yes.
And the third point is really the question of to what extent the mod-RNA—the mRNA—is itself, that
is, to what extent the vaccine itself is toxic.
Is it true that, essentially, we have to distinguish between three levels?
But I would now like to draw the audience’s attention to the fact that DNA—specifically,
bacterial DNA—is life-threatening and can cause cancer.
The insertion of this sequence into human DNA caused the cancer.
That is stated in this paper; it is substantiated, and it is perfectly clear.
Surely that must lead to an immediate ban on the continued administration of these injections.
So, Professor Bhakdi, I now see two new leads here.
So the first question was, is mod-mRNA toxic in and of itself?
And I think that's generally true, based on the experiences of the last five or six years.
The second point you made today—or rather, the first point you highlighted today—concerned lipid nanoparticles: that these lipid
nanoparticles are toxic because they also cross the blood-brain barrier and the blood-placenta barrier, which can ultimately
be very dangerous for the unborn child and lead to encephalitis.
And you also said that it depends on storage conditions or other factors whether the
virulence—that is, the toxicity—is higher or lower.
And the third point—and this, I believe, is really the most crucial message of all: a product was sold to the states by the
big pharmaceutical companies that does not correspond to what was purchased—that is, what is specified in the
contract and what was licensed by the authorities—but is, in essence, cheaply contaminated with bacterial DNA.
And this bacterial DNA has had incredible consequences—namely, that it was also incorporated into human DNA and led to serious
and even life-threatening diseases, as you just mentioned: bladder cancer in one case and many, many other cases as well.
And that reminds me, Professor Bhakdi, that the pharmaceutical companies have always said,
“We’ve signed contracts, so we’re off the hook.”
Yeah, it always says that—we don't take any responsibility for anything. We've been absolved of liability, so to speak.
But I have to say, if they delivered something completely different from what was ordered, and if that doesn't
even fall under the emergency approval, then they are liable—under civil and criminal law, at any rate.
It must be the case that everyone's immunity has been eliminated, right?
Yes, well, after that, anyway. But what you said actually made it clear to me why there are
groups of people who get sick and others who don't.
Then it's simply because they had some bad luck.
For example, with regard to the storage of the packaging—that is, the lipid nanoparticles—or with regard to
the contamination of the substance by bacterial DNA.
And the others had just gotten lucky.
Roulette. Russian roulette.
Russian roulette, yes. That’s how it is.
And I think that we must now demand that all those who knowingly participated be prosecuted. That’s how it has to be.
From manufacturers all the way to the organizing bodies in politics, scientific
associations, advocacy groups, and the media.
And I mean, if someone had even a little bit of sense, I'd turn around and say, "My God, I really didn't know that back then."
And that would actually work even today. Because the things I just told you about—no one knew about them.
They've all become well-known over the past two years.
And it's not widely known because no one has really explained it. But now it's all in the book.
And now no one can say that this wasn't known or that I wasn't aware of it.
But when you say it wasn’t known, that can only apply to the general public—and perhaps to the judiciary as well—but
not to the manufacturers, nor to those who put it on the market, nor to those who granted emergency authorization.
We can't let those slide—we weren't aware of that.
No. Correct. They were either knowingly aware of it, or they should have known about
it, and yet they put it on the market anyway.
And when they later saw what the consequences were, they didn't withdraw it; instead, they continued to market it.
Yes. That is why it remains a crime to this day.
And a moratorium must now also be imposed on all mRNA vaccinations for healthy people. That’s essential, too.
What I've been saying for the past two years is well known: the toxicity of the nanoparticles and
the DNA contamination that was present in them.
If it's not possible today, can't the government or the buyer cancel the purchase
agreements from the last two years or three years?
That is, of course, an entirely different question, separate from the issue of criminal liability and from the
question of to what extent these mRNA substances—in quotation marks—will even be “administered” in the future.
I believe that if what was delivered is not what was ordered, then it is not covered by the sales contract at all.
So that means that when you placed an order, the sample you had seen, the one you had tested—and as you said, the
sample you had tested that was then granted emergency certification—was a substance without bacterial DNA.
This substance has, so to speak, been certified. This substance has been purchased.
And now something completely new has been delivered.
And as a lawyer, I have to ask: Is this even still covered by this contract, or is this a breach of contract?
I'd say that's not covered by the contract—after all, they haven't fulfilled the contract at all.
And that’s why you have to not only cancel it—that is, the service… Give me my money
back. Please give the money back—exactly. Yes.
How did we end up here?
Just imagine: BioNTech has 15 billion tucked away. That's common knowledge.
It wouldn't be difficult for you to pay back a few billion—three, four, or five billion—right now.
And then we could set up a relief fund for vaccine-injured people. Oh yes. And pay out compensation very easily.
And you don't need to go through any courts to do that—you can do it quickly and easily.
I have to tell you that Thailand was the first country to provide this compensation. That was in 2022.
In the millions, tens of millions. And it's still paying off today.
And I know how the Thais did it. It was great.
In Germany, I'm afraid, far too many people have profited from this, and far too many have gone along with it.
I have to say, we have a network of accomplices, of people who simply stood by and
watched and, contrary to their duty, did nothing.
It's going to be very, very difficult.
That's why we haven't yet had any kind of review of all these COVID-19 measures and the vaccination period.
That’s why I’m saying this. If you realize now that you should turn back, turn around, and stop participating—because
anyone who continues to participate is part of it.
Yes. And there’s no mercy for that. There’s no forgiveness. Isn’t that right? That’s right.
But what if they seize this opportunity now and say, “We really didn’t know; if we had known, we wouldn’t have done it either.”
But those days are over.
We would support not only the cancellation of the sales contracts, but also the payment—the
refund—of the money. It’s so simple for them, after all.
Even the members of Parliament. Why? I don't think most of them knew anything about it.
They were just the henchmen who went along with it.
But what if, right now, the lawmakers themselves in the Bundestag and the state legislatures all stood up and said, “Folks,
it’s really true. The money has to go back to the people.”
Yes. And it's so easy to do. Why shouldn't you do it?
I think it would be difficult to push that through in political Berlin.
Is there a way for the public to bring this issue or this motion before the Bundestag?
Well, I don’t see any significant willingness to come to terms with the past among the parliamentary groups
in the Bundestag that have formed the government to date—the CDU, CSU, SPD, or Greens.
That's not coming to terms with the past. We want our money back.
No, no. All right. Coming to terms with the past, insofar as that would mean acknowledging that mistakes were made in the past.
No one is willing. I can truly say,… No one is willing to admit that mistakes were made.
Let me remind you that two months ago I appeared before the Bundestag’s fact-finding commission on COVID-19 measures.
And sitting next to me were my former boss, Thomas de Maizière, who was then the Federal Minister of
the Interior, and Nancy Faeser, one of his successors.
And both of them said in unison, “Actually, we’ve come through this period—the COVID-19
period—very well, and we haven’t really made any mistakes.”
Thanks, praise, and gratitude to the federal government.
And now, let's stop looking back and start looking ahead.
And it had already become clear to me that they didn't want to admit that mistakes had been made. They should know better.
Even a blind person with a cane can see how badly things went wrong.
You don't even have to have read her new book to understand what a disaster has taken place—and that it's still happening.
My impression is that these parties don't want to do it. We have to get them to do it. We have to put pressure on them.
I'm glad that the AfD is exerting pressure in the Bundestag. I can only hope that this pressure continues to grow.
We need to address this issue. We need a complete halt—not just a moratorium—a general halt and ban on the administration
of these lipid nanoparticles and contaminated mRNA.
I think what we should do first is set up a legal task force to work out the legal aspects of
all this and, if necessary, file criminal charges.
Because what we've discussed here today, Professor Bhakdi, are by no means minor offenses.
These are serious and very serious crimes. That is why you were right to use the term “crimes.”
And crime is always accompanied by intent.
And in the case of specific crimes—such as murder, which, as we must keep in mind here, involves the killing
of people—the question arises as to intent and motive.
Was it just a desire for profit, greed? Or were there other motives at play that led to these substances
being “administered”—in quotes—against better judgment?
Prof. Bhakdi, I don't just have hope—I am confident that we will come to terms with what happened and
also put a stop to this insane vaccination campaign.
But we'll probably need a little more time.
We simply cannot let up on the pressure. We must not let up. And we need to educate the public.
People need to be shaken out of their complacency because there are simply still too many
people who fall for these mainstream slogans.
People need to keep getting booster shots. I saw an ad like that again recently.
So, raising awareness, raising awareness, raising awareness is essential.
Yes, but it’s not enough just to raise awareness—it must be banned. Yes, certainly.
This "vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate"—it must be banned. It must be made a criminal offense.
People are dying like flies. Really. They're getting so sick.
I had brought up so many issues. I'm completely at my wits' end. So are the victims.
Too many people are dying right now. This can't be happening. And who's going to help them? Who's going to help them?
We are fighting. We are fighting to ensure that these contaminated vaccines—these mRNA lipid
nanoparticles—are banned, and that no more vaccinations are administered using them. We are campaigning for a ban.
And what we need is for the victims to be compensated. They must be protected.
We need to help them. I agree with you on that, too.
The profits these companies have made in recent years—from taxpayer money—must be made available for victim protection.
Mr. Maaßen, thank you for your time. You’re very welcome. We’ll keep fighting…