German Chemists hold Paul Ehrlich Institute to account over mRNA Vaccines

ER Editor: The story from Berliner Zeitung is making the rounds, with German chemists once against questioning the mRNA vaccines. Some tweets —

Translation: Huge ! The Berliner Zeitung reports that “German chemistry professors are calling for a halt to mRNA technology, as the problems with mRNA vaccines are becoming more and more obvious”! This group of teachers is led by Prof. Dr. Tobias Unruh at the University of Erlangen! (see: ) Let’s broadcast, let’s stop the disaster!

Translation: Imagine the head of the reader of the Berliner Zeitung, when he reads that renowned chemists (and yes not doctors who know NOTHING about vaccines), demand accountability from the Health Institute of their country which forced them to get vaccinated? They wonder how the WHO and all other national institutes were able to decree a limit value for DNA contamination of vaccines WITHOUT ANY PRIOR STUDY. And this is where it is very interesting when these same institutes were demanding studies on old drugs about which we knew everything, such as HCQ and Ivermectin. But nothing there?? The scientists have now sent a new list of questions to the Paul Ehrlich Institute. The letter is available from the Berliner Zeitung below. The scientists write that “problems with mRNA vaccines are becoming increasingly evident.”


Chemist on vaccine: What are the consequences of unwanted proteins?

Several chemistry professors are demanding that the Paul Ehrlich Institute conduct an investigation into possible undesirable proteins in the mRNA vaccines.


The group is led by Prof. Dr. Tobias Unruh, Condensed Matter Physics, supported at the University of Erlangen. For a long time, their repeated inquiries, which the scientists also addressed to the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), among others, met with little public interest. Now WDR has published a critical article in which Gerald Dyker is also interviewed. Under the title “Search for Traces: Are Corona mRNA Vaccines Contaminated?”, the public broadcaster deals with the “blockade of politicians towards critical questions regarding vaccination and the inactivity of the responsible Paul Ehrlich Institute in clarifying the question of whether “Excessive amounts of (too large) DNA residues are contained in some batches of mRNA vaccines,” as Handelsblatt journalist Norbert Häring writes on his blog. The program features, among others, the pulmonologist Thomas Voshaar, who criticizes the fact that the limit value for a – in principle permitted – contamination was set freely, without studies. Voshaar also questions why such contaminants were even approved by the WHO. 

The professors have now sent another list of questions to the Paul Ehrlich Institute. The letter is available to the Berliner Zeitung. The scientists write that “the problems with modRNA-based vaccines are becoming increasingly apparent.”

In December 2023, another paper on the fundamental problem regarding modRNA technology was published in the journal Nature. In this, “Mulroney et al. stated that a so-called ribosomal shift often occurs due to the modification of the mRNA, ie the replacement of uridine by N1-methylpseudouridine. This shift “shifts the reading frame during protein synthesis, which means that after the shift, some amino acids are incorporated, so that proteins of unknown composition and function are then formed.” The theoretical possibility of a ribosomal shift, at least in prokaryotes, through the introduction of N1-methylpseudouridine has been “known since 2016, but it has never been investigated in eukaryotes to date.”

These unwanted proteins “could also be observed in 21 modRNA-treated patients,” and antibodies were also formed against these unwanted proteins. The Nature authors say in their work that “no correlation to side effects was observed, although this statement is problematic for several reasons, as was also described in a comment on the work of scientists from the USA and Canada.” Accordingly, the cohort size was only 21 people. The study was not randomized. None of the people examined reported any side effects, from which it can be concluded that the sample was “probably subject to bias through pre-selection”.

The authors of the commentary came to the conclusion that the toxicology of the unwanted proteins needed to be investigated, as well as the huge potential to be harmful stated by the authors of the article in relation to misdirected immunity. The unwanted proteins could “contribute to the toxicity of the modRNA injections, which needs to be clarified in further studies.” The authors call for clarification from international health authorities and industry.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung recently reported on the Nature study and wrote that the researchers recommend “trying to avoid this phenomenon in future vaccine development.” Because: “Theoretically, the unwanted proteins could reduce the effectiveness of the vaccines, or there could be undesirable side effects.” The SZ continues: “German experts speak of interesting results, but see no reason to worry.” The newspaper quotes Julian Schulze zur Wiesch, Senior Physician in the Infectious Diseases Section and Head of the Viral Hepatology Outpatient Center at the University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, with the statement: “The effect described, if accurate, is not dangerous or worrying and most likely has nothing to do with general vaccination reactions or with the side effects of mRNA vaccines.”

The professors still want to know more precisely and ask the Paul Ehrlich Institute: “When did you become aware of this work and the problem of the ribosomal shift in modRNA-based injections? Why wasn’t this obvious problem recognized earlier? What investigations are planned by the PEI to investigate the toxicity of the unwanted proteins and what steps are planned by the PEI to eliminate or at least reduce such threats to modRNA technology? From the PEI’s perspective, should these new findings have an impact on the approval of these new modRNA-based drugs and if so, which ones and if no, why not? How does PEI plan to inform the public about these new findings about potentially dangerous side effects of modRNA technology?”

The new publication in Nature is “one of a series of worrying developments surrounding the approval of these modRNA substances,” the scientists summarize. Fundamental problems were “already apparent in the approval studies”. An analysis of the original approval data by Peter Doshi and colleagues showed “that the damage is significantly greater than the benefit”. In our opinion, it is scientifically incomprehensible why “the modRNA platform was nevertheless given conditional approval and then even regular approval, as the data from the clinical studies clearly contradict this and retrospective cohort studies have significantly less informative value,” say the scientists. The fact that “a different manufacturing method of the modRNA substances was used for the approval studies than for widespread use” is also astonishing, “especially since the manufacturing process for marketing involves significant DNA contamination, the effects of which have not yet been assessed“.

The Paul Ehrlich Institute stated that “the PEI does not check the concentration of DNA impurities itself, but only the information provided by the manufacturer and whether it is within the approved range”. The question here is how the PEI wants to “ensure the task of ensuring quality to protect the population” if it “does not carry out any independent measurements”. The PEI had previously stated that it does not carry out its own mRNA concentration tests, but rather uses the tests supplied by the manufacturer as the basis for its assessment – a circumstance that prompted the professors to ask new questions.

The professors are now asking for comments and answers because the lack of transparency is shaking trust in mRNA technology and in the PEI. The scientists finally call on the PEI to “draw consequences from all of these listed facts and finally stop this modRNA technology.”

The Berliner Zeitung will ask the PEI for a statement on the scientists’ questions.

CONTINUE READING HERE (browsers will translate)



The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.