PEI secretly confirms batch-dependent damage and violates supervisory duties

Sensational revelation: PEI secretly puts the data of the suspicious activity reports online on November 28, 2024, thereby confirming batch-dependent damages, contrary to its previous statements

On November 28, 2024, the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) surprisingly published the Excel list of all suspected reports, which had previously been kept secret. This represents direct confirmation of the previously refuted theory that there is a significant batch-dependent risk of harm in the vaccines. The PEI had repeatedly claimed to the public and the press that no such differences were detectable in Germany, while neighboring countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, and the Czech Republic had observed and confirmed exactly the opposite.

Only with the publication of the data on November 28, 2024, did it become apparent that the PEI had been aware of the batch-related damage for some time and had kept this information secret. The published data clearly shows that the 149 potentially damaging batches identified by the law firm Rogert & Ulbricht also fully match the damage reports listed by the PEI. These batches were reported a total of 235 times, but only 145 batches had a significant number of suspicious activity reports (over 40).

The law firm Rogert & Ulbricht had already correctly identified the top 10 most harmful batches of Comirnaty, well before the PEI. The PEI was aware of these findings and did not support the law firm in its efforts to inform the public, even though it was the PEI's responsibility to ensure proper drug oversight and to inform the public in a timely manner.

The law firm Rogert & Ulbrich correctly published the top 10 most damaging batches, with the exception of batch ER9480, which affected the following batches:

• EX8679 (1st vaccination, 1st place)
• FD7958 (1st vaccination, 4th place and 2nd vaccination, 2nd place)
• FC3095 (1st vaccination, 8th place and 2nd vaccination, 4th place)
• EX3510 (1st vaccination, 7th place and 2nd vaccination, 23rd place)
• FE6975 (1st vaccination, 2nd place and 2nd vaccination, 1st place)
• EW8904 (1st vaccination, 4th place and 2nd vaccination, 39th place)
• ER9480 (1st vaccination, 28th place and 2nd vaccination, 33rd place)
• ET3045 (1st vaccination, 9th place and 2nd vaccination, 49th place)
• FD9234 (1st vaccination, 6th place and 2nd vaccination, 3rd place)
• EX3599 (1st vaccination, 3rd place and 2nd vaccination, 42nd place)

Although the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) was aware of the accuracy of this data, it did not support the law firm in its efforts to clarify the matter. However, it was the responsibility of the PEI to conduct drug supervision and to inform the public promptly.

The PEI has now made the raw data from the safety reports from December 2020 to December 2023 publicly available. However, it is striking that the PEI did not comment on the potentially harmful batches identified by the law firm Rogert & Ulbricht, even though it had been in possession of this information for much longer.

The inadequate response of the PEI to the suspected reports and the failure to carry out the necessary recalls and controls at the manufacturers represent a serious failure in pharmaceutical regulatory affairs. It is clear that the competent authorities failed to take the necessary measures, to warn the public in a timely manner and to withdraw dangerous batches from circulation.

The law firm is now demanding a comprehensive investigation by the Darmstadt public prosecutor's office, as every failure in handling these suspected cases has led to injuries and even deaths. The PEI had detailed knowledge of the potentially harmful batches, but failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the hazards. In the case of batch EX8679, for example, over 10,500 suspected reports of serious adverse events and deaths were registered, without the PEI taking appropriate action.

What kind of drug regulatory authority is this?

Batch	Number of reports	Rogert & Ulbrich

EX8679

10579

81

FD7958

9760

105

FC3095

9388

64

EX3510

8866

44

FE6975

7820

117

EW8904

47817

53

ER9480

7801

17

ET3045

7251

31

FD9234

7170

72

EX3599

6765

61

EX8680

5826

30

EM0477

4864

2

FC1440

4754

24

FF0900

4474

44

EX7823

4450

24

FE7011

4270

35

1F1024A

4181

38

FA5833

4164

18

ER7812

4090

15

1F1023A

4036

14

1F1027A

3902

46

EK9788

3733

5

FE8405

3576

22

1F1021A

3567

41

1D020A

3316

44

EY2172

3172

17

ET3674

2886

5

EJ6796

2799

13

1F1010A

2759

15

ACB9148

2759

7

FC8889

2672

11

1E021A

2658

21

1C008A

2588

12

EL8723

2570

8

1D015A

2511

26

1C009A

2458

2

ACB8967

2424

26

FC1436

2334

11

SCWF3

2316

10

1G040A

2307

5

1F1022A

2281

25

FE9174

2169

8

1D014A

2116

23

30025TB

2111

9

SDEJ8

2077

5

SCVT5

2062

7

SCTJ2

2056

4

1D016A

2054

17

SCVK4

2043

14

EP9598

2012

6

SCTN4

1979

16

EJ6789

1975

5

SDEW9

1975

7

1C007A

1965

15

ACB469

41951

5

SCVW7

1937

7

1C006A

1922

15

ER2659

1915

9

1E028A

1899

6

31043TB

1896

5

ACC1336

1896

7

SCKX7

1896

11

FD5996

1856

3

ACB4447

1835

11

1E026A

1833

10

ACB3738

1795

1

EP2163

1794

3

ACB5317

1785

5

1D013A

1781

10

EJ6788

1775

4

SCRW2

1770

10

1D018A

1769

4

EJ6797

1769

2

31101TB

1721

4

SCVY8

1716

6

SCPT7

1699

7

1F036A

1684

7

SCRP9

1677

10

ACC0681

1674

13

1E029A

1668

6

SCUL2

1646

10

ACB4692

1635

4

33233TB

1634

5

GH9715

1624

7

SCUE1

1621

6

1H048A

1603

5

1D012A

1592

10

1H049A

1587

11

30891TB

1584

12

1C011A

1571

5

SCVC6

1561

4

EL1491

1525

1

30011TB

1480

8

ACB5318

1465

1

SDEH4

1465

2

1D017A

1433

9

1F030A

1394

6

SCJU6

1313

8

SCRM8

1287

13

We now have numerous questions for the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI):

1. Why did the PEI deceive the public about the significant differences in the harmfulness of the batches?
2. What was the cause of the extreme damage caused by the ten most problematic batches? Why wasn't this investigated?
3. Who was responsible for the batch testing, and why were the deficiencies in these batches not detected during the PEI's testing? Can the test reports for all problematic batches be submitted?
4. Who performed the plasmid testing of the batches?
5. Who was responsible for testing the batches for endotoxins?
6. Who checked the batches for SV40 enhancer/promoter and SV40 ori, as Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer did with batches FD6975, FD7958, EX8679 and HD9869 (see my post from yesterday)?
7. Why was no real-time monitoring of the batches carried out with regard to the suspected reports, as required by Section 13 Paragraph 5 Nos. 9 and 10 of the IfSG by the PEI?
8. Why was the public not warned about potentially harmful batches, and why were these batches not recalled by the PEI?
9. If there are over 10,000 claims for EX8679, meaning that one in ten people who received this injection filed a claim, why was there no alert at the PEI?
10. How did the Paul Ehrlich Institute respond to the devastating results from the manufacturer BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH? Was there a briefing? Was the production facility inspected immediately? Were the laboratory results examined? Were samples of the vials taken from production and tested?
11. Why did the technical supervision of the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) not intervene?
12. Was the Federal Ministry of Health informed of the abuses? Did no one raise the alarm?
13. Has the EU Commission been informed about the safety-related aspects and the outlier batches within the framework of the ongoing conditional marketing authorisation?
14. Why was the genetically engineered product, which was marketed as a “vaccine,” not stopped from production and distribution until the defects were found and corrected?
15. Why does the PEI declare, without conducting its own sequencing, that no DNA (plasmids, DNA from E. coli bacteria) and no SV40 are contained in the vaccines when it has never tested them itself and now external laboratories are detecting significant transgressions?
16. Why did the PEI state that BioNTech had tested the toxicity of the spike protein with huACE2 mice, even though BioNTech only used BALB/C mice? Did the PEI not want toxicity data on the spike protein before the conditional approval?
17. Why did the PEI not publicly declare that Comirnaty was classified in the OEB5 class, i.e. as highly toxic from 1 microgram?
18. Why is the list submitted in such an unsorted manner?
19. Why is there a discrepancy between the processing number and the case number?
20. Why do the PEI's published data differ significantly from the previously published figures, especially with regard to deaths?
21. Why is there no press conference to explain the key data?
22. Why did the PEI not record the number of vials (5 doses per vial) distributed in Germany per batch in order to compare the suspected cases with the doses distributed?
23. Since the same batches were also distributed in Austria and Turkey, what efforts did the PEI make to complete the data by comparing it with the data from these countries?
24. The submitted data reveals a striking discrepancy in the frequency and intensity of damage per claim number. What has the PEI done to determine the cause of these differences?
25. When can the public expect an evaluation of the PEI's statutory health insurance data? Almost four years have passed. According to Section 13, Paragraph 5, Sentence 2 of the German Infection Protection Act (IfSG), the Federal Ministry of Health is responsible for drug safety. Why didn't the lobbyists in the Bundestag object to the BMG's violation of the law and denounce the blatant deficiencies in drug safety?
26. The minister is cracking down on vaccine-damaged victims, paying the vaccine manufacturers' legal fees, and has set up a coordination office. Such an attitude has never been seen before in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. It is unprecedented for a ministry to violate its duty of neutrality and for no one in the Bundestag to object loudly. The Federal Minister of Health alone decides on compensation for vaccine damage, while he would rather spend €550 million on a BioNTech plant in Rwanda or destroy €10 billion worth of vaccines that he himself over-ordered than pay a single cent to a single vaccine-damaged victim. Instead, he, along with the vaccine industry, encourages everyone to turn against the victims. What kind of minister?

Of course, the families and relatives of those injured by vaccines will only vote for the party that supports compensation for those injured by vaccines. The minister has broken all of his promises from March 12, 2023, in the heutejournal. No one believes him anymore.

We see the late publication as a Trojan horse that will later, as with VW's ad hoc announcement in September 2015, lead to the conclusion that by November 2024 at the latest, everyone should have known that their health damage could be linked to the harmful batches.

With this knowledge, a lawsuit could have been filed in time by the end of the year.

However, the Excel spreadsheets were secretly posted without any media hype or explanation. The data still needs to be analyzed, and they are difficult for laypeople to understand. This applies to all other vaccine manufacturers for whom data has also been published. I will attach the lists to this post.

As for Mr. Cichutek, I would like to hear the sound of handcuffs. He approved the vaccine and failed in drug regulation. The image shows him lying to the public because he had no evidence that the vaccine didn't work. However, he failed to explain that he also had no evidence that the current vaccines worked. What this was intended to suggest is obvious: an efficacy of the vaccines that never existed. There was no protection against transmission, no immunity against infection, and no long-term protection. Cichutek knew all of this.