'How Serious Are the Side-Effects' of modRNA Injections?

Thus the Berliner Zeitung, finally breaking, it seems, the conspiracy of silence among legacy media outlets in regard to the burning issue of our times

We’ll have to follow-up on the EU-themed piece from yesterday as the Berliner Zeitung, whose reporting on the Product Liability Directive was non-existent, nevertheless brought something else that’s clearly related to it.

Background here:

EU Commission Admits That C-19 Vaxx Was Authorised w/o 'comprehensive data dossier'

Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine.

---

Hundreds of Scientists Call for a Halt to mRNA vaccines: How Serious Are the Side Effects?

Criticism of mRNA injections is growing: thousands of side effects, unanswered safety questions—scientists are calling for a moratorium and an urgent reassessment.

By Franz Becchi, Berliner Zeitung, 17 Sept. 2025 [source; archived]

First came the virus, shortly after the vaccine—mRNA injections were presented as a powerful weapon against the pathogen. But the current assessment is sobering. Coronavirus vaccines do not offer complete protection against infection and transmission. The prevention of severe disease is also increasingly being questioned. So what have the coronavirus vaccines actually achieved?

Although it was initially claimed that the coronavirus vaccination was ‘without side effects’ [orig. nebenwirkungsfrei], a different picture is emerging today [the following image is from his still up-and-running Twitter/X feed]

True. And additionally, it’s about why a minority of society doesn’t want a side-effect-free vaccine, even though it’s free and can save their lives and those of many others. That’s why I’m pessimistic about voluntary sacrifices for climate protection.

You might also take note, in the sense of record-keeping, that Mr. Lauterbach spoke about other equally outrageous evidence-free nonsense, e.g., about the benefits (sic) of modRNA-vaxxing kinds or his involuntary admission that the poison/death juices don’t prevent transmission or infection.

As I’ll explain in more detail in the ‘bottom lines’, Mr. Lauterbach has since retracted his above-reproduced comment; so far, there are no consequences to his massive gaslighting.]

Thousands of people suffered health damage after vaccination, in some cases even fatally. The exact extent of the consequences is difficult to estimate so far, as comprehensive pharmacovigilance—the systematic monitoring of side effects by health authorities—has largely failed to materialise [so, are we talking incompetence or malice?]. Some scientists are now calling for a moratorium on mRNA vaccines.

How Safe Are mRNA Vaccines?

[note the sleight-of-hand: instead of the shady production procedures—that in all likelihood (a low bar in this context) violated virtually all manufacturing and quality-control standards—or the entire can-of-works termed ‘efficacy’, we’re now (it’s mid-Sept. 2025) talking about product safety?]

What is the current data situation—and on what basis were the coronavirus vaccines approved in the European Union (EU)? The Alliance for the Support of Human Science and Medicine [orig. Bündnis zur Unterstützung von Menschlicher Wissenschaft und Medizin, MWM; never heard of them, but here’s their website (in German and English)] is calling for an immediate halt to mRNA vaccinations in a statement that now has more than 200 signatures.

‘There is more than initial suspicion that mRNA vaccines* can cause significant damage to health’, the statement reads [it’s of course way more comprehensive, and Mr. Becchi is doing his readers a disservice by not quoting at greater lengths¹]. Several of the moratorium’s signatories, including physicians, chemists, and experts, gathered in a video conference on Tuesday to discuss the development of this medical technology and call for a critical reassessment. They called for a halt to the general approval of genetic vaccinations for future applications before they widely replace traditional vaccines [see, they aren’t really against the stuff; note also that their stance proceeds from the presumption that the traditional vaccines are sooper-dooper and a-o.k.; I also signed that declaration nonetheless].

Among the participants in the video conference were chemist Gerald Dyker, internal medicine and general medicine specialist Andreas Sönnichsen, family physician Erich Freisleben, molecular geneticist Michael Nehls, and the economist Konstantin Beck. The group put forward a total of 14 hypotheses that would have to be affirmed if the vaccines were to be considered safe and effective.

These theses include the following questions: are mRNA vaccines independently and sufficiently tested and safe? Is the benefit-harm balance clearly positive? Are the amount, location, and duration of the body’s own production of foreign proteins (e.g., spike proteins) under control (pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics)? When does the production of spike protein in [by] the body end? Has criticism of the vaccines’ safety been refuted by histopathological findings? Are there only a few and rare adverse effects of mRNA vaccines? Are multiple vaccinations (‘boosters’) actually advisable? [my personal take—not a physician, no medical advice—is: nope to all of the above].

The number of side effects reported to the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) is alarming. According to Dyker, approximately 975,000 side effects have been reported—a number never reached for flu vaccinations. ‘This enormous number of reports is another reason to critically review mRNA injections’, emphasises the chemist. The long list of side effects raises serious concerns about safety.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Side-Effects is Lacking.

The effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing severe and fatal cases has only been demonstrated in observational studies with significant methodological deficiencies, Sönnichsen explains. For example, only retrospective studies or model calculations were conducted. Vaccinated individuals were classified as ‘unvaccinated’ until 14 days after the second vaccination, overall mortality was not recorded, and the benefit-harm balance remained unclear [that alone should be grounds to initiate criminal investigations].

Furthermore, the vaccination campaign was based on questionable assumptions, such as the supposed 95 per cent effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in preventing death. Sönnichsen describes these data as ‘data garbage’ and speaks of ‘scientific fraud’ [as I’ve detailed the other day, lack of such data does expressly not preclude liability in the EU under the Product Liability Directive: what a sham (pun intended) that the EU Commission, in cahoots with member-states, violated its own directive and both would now be investigated—by themselves? Talk about judge, jury, and executioner in one (legal) person…]

A valid and comprehensive evaluation of the actual harms caused by the vaccines is lacking. The extent of acute, medium-term, and long-term side effects and subsequent damage remains unclear, the scientists’ statement holds:

The latest epidemiological data and anomalies in the increase in infections, sick leave and nursing care cases, as well as persistent excess mortality, need to be clarified. [the quote by Mr. Becchi ends here, I’ve added the next sentence] Impairment of fertility and foetal damage during pregnancy cannot be ruled out at this stage either.

The scientists therefore call for ‘a moratorium on all mRNA products until the clinical risk-benefit ratio has been transparently clarified’.

---

Bottom Lines

Well, better than nothing, esp. as the Berliner Zeitung does have some circulation and the people involved—most notably Andreas Sönnichsen, a former prof. at the Medical University of Vienna who lost his job over his opposition to the pandemic™ management who was also sued repeatedly, and he has always ‘won’, is beyond reproach on these issues.

In a way, this call and the reporting shows that some things have shifted, yet I remain wary as to the magnitude of said shift.

Take, e.g., former Health Minister Karl Lauterbach who felt compelled to recant his diehard pro-vaxx comment somewhat™ (see the Tweet above), as reported™ by German state broadcaster ZDF about a year ago:

Today, Lauterbach defends himself, saying that he has spoken very often about the side effects of vaccinations. At the same time, he is self-critical: ‘I should have been more careful in retrospect about making somewhat flippant remarks two or three times—in the sense of fewer side effects, almost no side effects.’

He also sees social media as having a responsibility. They looked for opportunities ‘to put pressure on someone, to show them up’. Vaccinations have made an incredible difference:

‘Without vaccination, many more people would have died.’

For the record, Mr. Lauterbach is still peddling this kind of nonsense, and it appears to me that he—and many others who are similarly complicit—are doing this both out of ignorance (hear no evil, see no evil) as well as with malice: admission of anything beyond these vague generalities may well come back, eventually, to haunt him as it would include possible criminal charges.

At this point, I see two possible ways of assessing these comments:

• Either one continues to plead ignorance (something like, ‘we didn’t know better at the time’), which is a defence that the gov’t typically doesn’t permit if it’s the likes of you and me doing it (e.g., ‘I didn’t know I had to file this income on my tax returns’ never works)

• And, of course, there’s always the ‘I was just following orders’ defence, which always begs the question—who gave said orders?

I submit that this isn’t an either-or issue but rather a series, with the cited Lauterbach commentary (‘I should have been more careful in retrospect about making somewhat flippant remarks…’) marking the soft transition from the former bullet point to the latter.

We do have a (vague) notion of who may have done part of the ordering here as the Bundeswehr’s General Holtherm may have been the point man:

Who Ordered the 2020 Lockdown?

Yet, if yesterday’s exploration of the EU Commission’s ‘collective decision-making’ indicates, I doubt that—even (sic) in the possible case of Gen. Holtherm or any other Bundeswehr officer have played a role here—that ze Germans did this without pre-clearance by others.

And those others would, in any event, certainly refer to the mainly US occupation forces deployed on German soil since 1945.

So, if we’d entertain the notion of a conspiracy to perpetrate the pandemic fraud on the German people, collective decision-making compromises the entire ruling caste of imperial servants lickspittle politicos™.

Talk about a crisis of legitimacy, its discontents, and the most likely consequences for domestic and int’l politics.

Oh, and lest I forget—substitute your EU country of choice with ‘Germany’ and replace the German actors here with the ones from said ‘other’ country.

1. And here goes, with emphases added and references omitted:

The attached scientifically substantiated overview (appendix) shows that the necessary safety evidence is insufficient or non-existent. A critical reassessment is necessary before genetic vaccines are approved for further applications and replace traditional vaccines on a large scale, which carries a high risk.

The mRNA vaccines approved for use against coronavirus infections (SARS-CoV-2 viruses; disease: Covid-19) should have been subject to particularly strict safety precautions as a risky innovation. Instead, a greatly abbreviated procedure for conditional approval was used. Because of this serious gap in drug safety, scientists warned in the Arzneimittelbrief (German trade journal) in November 2020: ‘In our opinion, a (...) discussion on the problems of accelerated testing with regard to vaccine safety and a harmonisation of indispensable study endpoints with public hearings of critical experts is necessary.’ (See explanations 1-14 in the appendix).

Those responsible did not heed this obvious demand and warning. Good scientific and evidence-based standards for collecting meaningful data were suspended. As a result, even today, five years after the start of the vaccination campaign, there is still no clarity on essential safety aspects. There is no evidence-based proof of a positive benefit-risk balance for the new mRNA vaccination technology. To date, there is also a lack of data on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, even though these are the foundation of any drug safety.3 Where, how long and how much of the vaccine-induced spike protein is produced in the body remains unclear. Laboratory tests and histopathological findings confirm the possible harmful effects of mRNA vaccines.

With regard to the benefits, there is a lack of evidence from high-quality studies that

1. the novel mRNA technology offers more than dubious protection

2. that it prevents transmission of the virus to others,

3. this significantly reduces the risk of a severe course of infection,

4. repeated genetic vaccinations are sensible and safe,

5. the novel vaccinations are ‘better’ than traditional vaccinations.

With regard to harm, there is a lack of valid evaluation of data on the extent of acute, medium-term and long-term side effects and consequential damage caused by mRNA products. The latest epidemiological data and anomalies in the increase in infections, sick leave and nursing care cases, as well as persistent excess mortality, need to be clarified. Impairment of fertility and foetal damage during pregnancy cannot be ruled out at this stage either. The supplementary sheet explains the established pathophysiological and immunological causes of the phenomena, which have not been refuted by either the manufacturers or the regulatory authorities.

We demand a moratorium on all mRNA products until the clinical risk-benefit ratio has been transparently clarified.

This goes on and on and on