Vaccine damage after the Moderna vaccination

The following batch numbers of the Moderna vaccine are associated with recognized vaccine injuries:

Vaccine damage after the BioNTech vaccination

Batch numbers have also been identified in the BioNTech vaccines that are frequently associated with vaccine injuries:

Can you find your batch number in one of the lists above – or are you experiencing unexplained health problems after a Covid-19 vaccination? Then you should have your claims legally reviewed. Contact us now – we'll help you gain clarity and enforce your rights.

Der Beitrag Impfschäden nach Corona-Impfung: Besonders schadensträchtige Chargennummern erschien zuerst auf R&U.

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 published the top 10 most damaging batches at the time, all except batch ER9480, which were affected by 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 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 PEI's responsibility to oversee drug regulations 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.

Batch comparison: PEI reports vs. Rogert & Ulbrich

Questions from the law firm to the Paul Ehrlich Institute

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 batch testing and why were the defects in these batches not detected during the PEI testing?
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?
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 damage reports for EX8679, why wasn't there an alert at the PEI?
10. How did the Paul Ehrlich Institute react to the devastating results from the manufacturer BioNTech?
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. Was the EU Commission informed about the security-related aspects?
14. Why wasn't the production and distribution of the genetically engineered product stopped?
15. Why does the PEI claim that no DNA is contained in the vaccines without conducting its own sequencing?
16. Why did the PEI state that BioNTech tested the toxicity of the spike protein with huACE2 mice, even though BioNTech only used BALB/C mice?
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 published data from the PEI differ significantly from the previously published figures?
21. Why is there no press conference to explain the key data?
22. Why didn't the PEI record the number of vials distributed in Germany per batch?
23. Since the same batches were also distributed in Austria and Turkey: What efforts did the PEI undertake to compare the data?
24. What measures has the PEI taken to determine the cause of the differences in the frequency of injuries?
25. When can the public expect an evaluation of the PEI's statutory health insurance data?

As of today, March 2026, these questions remain largely unanswered.

Der Beitrag PEI bestätigte erst Ende 2024 heimlich chargenabhängige Impfschäden und verstößt gegen Aufsichtspflichten erschien zuerst auf R&U.