Global simulation games, old lies…
why we urgently need to read the EMA letter from 2023 again now!
Vaccinated for grandma? EMA says: All made up.
Originally published: Vereinwir.ch, 20 Aug. 2025
While the WHO, governments and think tanks are once again lost in pandemic exercises, a document from 2023 has resurfaced that seems more explosive today than it did back then: the response from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to a question from EU parliamentarians. A letter that should not be ignored. Because it destroys the official vaccination narrative: in black and white.
What the EMA admits
The EMA writes crystal clear: The corona vaccines were never authorised to prevent infection or transmission. It says literally:
“COVID-19 vaccines are not authorised to prevent human-to-human transmission. The indication is exclusively: protection of the vaccinated person themselves.”
It is therefore clear that the mantra spread by politicians and the media that “vaccination protects others” was nothing more than a fictitious marketing slogan. The EMA itself also emphasised: “The EMA’s assessment reports on the authorisation of vaccines emphasise the lack of data on the risk of infection.”
Even more explosive: According to the EMA, exposure to the virus can even increase the likelihood of infection, even in those who have been vaccinated. In other words:
The whole narrative of infection control was not only inadmissible, but simply false.
Marcel de Graaff (MEP): “The government’s mass campaigns to vaccinate themselves in order to protect parents, neighbours and the weaker members of society were not only illegal, but also complete nonsense and not based on facts.”
The vaccination campaign: politically wanted, legally untenable
Nevertheless, the mass campaigns rolled out: sports halls full of vaccination lanes, billboards, coercion through certificates. In fact, this was all off-label use, as the EMA had only permitted individual immunisation. A doctor would have had to assess on a case-by-case basis whether immunisation was appropriate, especially for people under 60, for whom there was hardly any risk. This is exactly what did not happen. Millions of injections were therefore unlawfully recommended.
The 14-day trick
The EMA expected that side effects would have to be registered immediately after vaccination. The wording:
“We expect many reports of side effects occurring during or shortly after vaccination.”
But the governments helped themselves with a trick: complaints in the first 14 days were not recorded as side effects, but were automatically attributed to “corona”. As a result, myocarditis, strokes and sudden deaths disappeared from the official statistics. A clear case of manipulation.
Joachim Kuhs (EU parliamentarian): “As it would take 10 to 14 days for the vaccine to produce spike proteins, officials adopted the directive that adverse events within this period should not be recorded in connection with the vaccination. Statistically, the vaccinated person was considered ‘unvaccinated’ for the first 14 days. What nonsense.”
Batches, excess mortality and concealed data
Scientists such as Vibeke Manniche and Max Schmeling proved that there were three types of vaccine batches with drastically different side effect profiles. Some batches (“blue lines”) were real risk bombs. Pfizer knew about this and reported it to the EMA. But nothing happened. No recall, no warning, no protection of the population.
At the same time, excess mortality rose in all European countries. A signal that continues to this day. But the EMA looked the other way.
Vibeke Manniche (doctor): “We have seen three patterns of side effects, including death. Some batches caused extreme damage. Pfizer already knew in August 2021 and informed the EMA. But no reaction, no recall.”
Max Schmeling (statistician): “Our data shows three almost perfect lines. This means that there were three different risk profiles of batches. Adverse reactions should be randomly distributed, but we found structure. This is an alarming safety signal.”
Authorisation without data
To top it all off, the EMA even authorised the Omikron XBB.1.5 booster without clinical trial data. It justified this as follows: “Clinical data were not mandatory for XBB.1.5, as the decision was based on baseline data from the original and previously adapted vaccines.” In other words: Emergency over, but new syringes still free. A slap in the face of scientific standards.
GMO loophole (genetically modified organism)
The absurdity continues: although the mRNA preparations are in fact genetically engineered products, the EMA declared them to be non-GMOs without further ado. The original statement: “mRNA vaccines are not considered genetically modified organisms.” This eliminated the need for environmental testing and safety requirements. A legal sleight of hand and the final proof that regulation was sacrificed in order to push the products onto the market.
The biggest pharmaceutical scandal of modern times
The EMA letter from 2023 is more than just a document. It is a confession. It shows:
- The vaccines were never authorised for infection control.
- Governments knew it and lied to their citizens.
- Side effects were deliberately concealed.
- Boosters were waved through without data.
- Genetic engineering rules have been overridden.
And now? While new pandemic exercises are being planned, the same machinery is set to start up again. Without reappraisal. Without consequences.
Anyone who reads this letter and still believes in the “solidarity vaccine” also still believes in Father Christmas. It’s time we put this document back on the table and finally hold those responsible to account.
Translation of the letter
(18 October 2023, EMA to EU parliamentarians)
Subject: Reply to the letter dated 4 October 2023 – COVID-19 vaccines
Honourable Members of the European Parliament,
Marcel de Graaff, Gilbert Collard, Francesca Donato, Joachim Kuhs, Mislav Kolakušić, Virginie Joron, Ivan Vilibor Sinčić and Bernhard Zimniok,
Thank you for your letter of 4 October 2023 requesting the suspension of the marketing authorisations for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines Comirnaty and Spikevax.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is committed to protecting public health by carrying out thorough scientific evaluations of medicines for the EU. We are equally committed to ensuring that the public and their representatives in the European Parliament are informed about the reasons for authorisations and the measures taken to monitor vaccines once they are on the market.
We emphasise that the EMA focuses mainly on one area of EU health policy: the authorisation and supervision of medicines and vaccines. Recommendations from our scientific committees may be taken into account by other institutions (e.g. European Commission, ECDC, national health and immunisation authorities) when they develop their vaccination strategies.
Below you will find our direct answers to the questions you have raised:
- The authorised indications
They point out that the vaccines are only intended for individual protection and not for the prevention of infection or transmission (transmission control). They criticise the fact that this is not in line with the statements made by pharmaceutical companies, politicians and health authorities.
This is correct: COVID-19 vaccines are not authorised to prevent human-to-human transmission. The indication is exclusively: protection of the vaccinated person themselves.
The product information clearly states that the vaccines are intended for active immunisation against COVID-19. In addition, the EMA explicitly stated in its assessment reports that data on transmissibility is missing.
- Authorisation of vaccines adapted to Omikron XBB.1.5
They criticise the lack of clinical trial data for the adapted vaccines and question their approval after the end of the “public health emergency”.
The EMA clarifies:
- The authorisation does not depend on the continuation of the health emergency.
- Clinical data were not mandatory for XBB.1.5, as decisions were based on data from the original and previously adapted vaccines.
- Safety, efficacy and immunogenicity data as well as laboratory data on efficacy against XBB.1.5 were evaluated. Data from an ongoing clinical trial were also available for Spikevax XBB.1.5.
It is up to the member states to decide how vaccinations are recommended.
- Environmental risk assessment (GMO regulation)
They express concerns about EU Regulation 2020/1043, which partially suspended environmental testing for products containing GMOs (genetically modified organisms).
The EMA replies:
- mRNA vaccines are not considered genetically modified organisms.
- The regulation is intended more for vaccines with attenuated viruses or vector viruses.
- In the case of Comirnaty and Spikevax, it was found that vaccines and lipids do not pose a relevant environmental risk. Therefore, no environmental assessment was required.
