EMA (European Medical Agency) Faulty Vaccines Approval While People Forced To Get Vaccinated. Lipid Nanoparticles Used To Deliver mRNA Are Toxic

EMA (European Medical Agency) Faulty Vaccines Approval While People Are Forced To Get Vaccinated. Lipid Nanoparticles Used To Deliver mRNA Are Toxic

EMA’s Committee’s report has 2 sections:

  1. Good manufacturing practice.
  2. Preclinical study.

The EMA Committee issued complaints about 20 points in total regarding good manufacturing practice.

The problem is that all the required analysis techniques, protocols, all commitments to EMA’s requirements are all running parallel to the vaccines being administered.

These relate to both the quality of the product and the toxicity of the vehicle used to deliver the mRNA to the cell.  Especially the BioNTech vaccine’s preclinical part is faulty. They did not conduct any clinical scrutiny at all.

Good manufacturing practices.

EMA asked for more proofs of absence of DNA contamination of the vaccine. BioNTech has admitted that there are DNA contaminants. The contaminant could integrate into the host’s cell nucleus and affect the host’s genes.

A transport verification study was not performed. There is no knowledge is the vaccine still viable after transportation. EMA asked for a rapid test so that the doctor or whoever administers the vaccine can conduct this test to check whether the batch that they have just purchased is sterile.

In some batches mRNA integrity has been found to be only 55% and the rest is just truncated pieces. Some of the vaccines for this reason are next to ineffective.

Lipid Nanoparticles

Moderna and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines use lipid nanoparticles that contain polyethylene glycol (PEG) to deliver mRNA to cells.

This is needed to deliver the mRNA because if one injects only the mRNA this will be in a few minutes destroyed by the nucleases (enzymes). So it needs to get to the cell “protected” by the nanoparticle.

Now attention: this is a wonderful technique for cancer. It is assumed to work by inducing self-destruction of cancer cells in a “targeted” way. With this [encapsulation] technology you can insert proteins or other substances in the nanoparticle envelope that are targeted at detecting and finding the cancer cells.

In a healthy person such as with a vaccine, it is disproportionate to apply this technology now while this toxicity exists.

Nanoparticles, are very small particles and always damaging to cells. The smaller the particle, the more interaction they can have with cell components (proteins, with other lipids, or with the DNA.)

Here is an extensive article about the subject: “Toxicity of Nanoparticles in Biomedical Application: Nanotoxicology” with 250 references to literature.

“Nanoparticles are of great importance in development and research because of their application in industries and biomedicine. The development of nanoparticles requires proper knowledge of their fabrication, interaction, release, distribution, target, compatibility, and functions. This review presents a comprehensive update on nanoparticles’ toxic effects, the factors underlying their toxicity, and the mechanisms by which toxicity is induced. Recent studies have found that nanoparticles may cause serious health effects when exposed to the body through ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact without caution. The extent to which toxicity is induced depends on some properties, including the nature and size of the nanoparticle, the surface area, shape, aspect ratio, surface coating, crystallinity, dissolution, and agglomeration. In all, the general mechanisms by which it causes toxicity lie on its capability to initiate the formation of reactive species, cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, and neurotoxicity, among others.” link to the article

For the layman: cytotoxicity means that nanoparticles are damaging to cells in general, genotoxicity means they are damaging to genes, neurotoxicity means they are damaging to nervous system cells.

The lipid nanoparticles get into all cells, not just the muscle cells. The technique is used for cancer patients, but there the risk/benefit ratio is very different: justified in the treatment of cancer or other diseases when treatment is local and there no other alternatives.

In the elimination of cancer cells, the technique is designed to be local. In the case of the vaccine, it is not local. These techniques work by inducing in the cancerous cell a process called apoptosis. It means that they induce in the cell targeted self-destruction.

The nanoparticles spread out through the entire body. Studies with Luciferase, an enzyme the produces bioluminescence (and other similar markers) showed that when you inject the muscle the lipids spread out throughout the body and found that these lipids were many organs after just 15 minutes.

At the light of studies on nanoparticles’ toxicity at best it is medical malpractice when vaccine is administered to healthy people without informed consent and by free will.

It is malpractice when doctor is not informed about the pitfalls in matters of quality of the product and even more about the potential risks for the vaccinee.

At worst it is criminal activity if vaccine is administered against the will of a healthy subject or under duress like the threat of losing the job, the rights of moving freely, traveling, etc.

References:

Correlation of the cytotoxic effects of cationic lipids with their headgroups

https://academic.oup.com/toxres/article/7/3/473/5545061?login=false

Toxicity of Nanoparticles in Biomedical Application: Nanotoxicology

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8376461/

Toxicity and cellular uptake of lipid nanoparticles of different structure and composition

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428785/

The risks of nanotechnology for human health

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60538-8/fulltext

The Team

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

The Globalist “Russian Roulette.” Critics To Russian Vaccine. 3 Countries Suspend Astra Zeneca Vaccine For Allegedly Lethal Consequences.

Several media sources report this.

Christa Wirthumer-Hoche, the head of European Medicines Agency’s management board criticized Russian vaccine. Austria asked should they approve the vaccine.

Wirthumer-Hoche told the country’s ORF broadcaster: “It’s somewhat comparable to Russian roulette.”

Here the prompt Russian response.

We would say she would better focus more on the “Globalist Roulette.” We learned today that Denmark, Norway and Island suspended Astra Zeneca vaccinations.

There is a big reason to worry about why. Several cases of blood clots among vaccinated people. Blood clots (thrombi) can be life threatening, often in a short time.

Everyone knows that the globalist agenda does not like Putin’s Russia. This is because Russians do not agree to have their traditions and national identity destroyed.

Globalism cannot do that to them by the manipulative psychopathic means of deconstruction of their identity.

A study published on Lancet demonstrated that the Sputnik-V has an efficiency of 91.6%

There is otherwise a lot of good to say about Russian vaccine Sputnik V.

The Sputnik V vaccine uses a vector. It uses a quite common virus, an adenovirus. The developers first neutralize the carrier virus capability of replicating.

The adenovirus enters your cells without the ability of causing infection.

It carries the information necessary for your cells begin to build a response. Your cells begin to build the response to the coronavirus. Your cells begin to do that when confronted with the information presented by the deactivated adenovirus.

Instead, The Pfizer/Moderna vaccines insert into your body a genetic code, mRNA. This enters your cells and forces them to produce the immune response. The vaccine uses engineered RNA that writes instructions for certain tasks.

When we compared the two methods, we see a striking difference.

The Sputnik V “presents” to your cell the necessary information to elicit the response.

The Pfizer/Moderna vaccines enter your cells and “programs them” to give a response.

Which one of the two methods in your opinion raises more questions?

What about risks, dangers, ethical issues and possible abuses of the method?

You do not need to be a scientist to see the difference.

In the meanwhile, the law of market and fear of death are already turning globalists game against themselves.

Swiss-Italian company Adienne Pharma&Biotech located in North Italy begins to produce Sputnik-V. Not without facing political resistance.

The Team

Disclaimer: we are independent media. We do not work for anyone.

Sputnik V:

https://sputnikvaccine.com/about-vaccine/

Lancet:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00234-8/fulltext

Astra Zeneca

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/denmark-suspended-astrazenecas-coronavirus-vaccine-094929709.html

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

EnglishFinnishFrenchGermanItalianPortugueseRussianSpanish