The Paul Ehrlich Institute secretly “publishes” a dataset on the side effects of the coronavirus vaccine. The list contains almost one million reports, including over 1,000 on possible deaths following the injection. Incidentally, the collection provides food for thought for a “conspiracy theory”: apparently there were safer and highly toxic batches, which presumably turned the vaccination into a game of roulette. And although the pattern was also evident in other countries, the federal authorities have so far refused to acknowledge it for Germany. And now? Five professors have asked in a letter and are waiting for an answer. In an interview with NachDenkSeiten, two of the senders, Jörg Matysik and Tobias Unruh, demand comprehensive clarification. Ralf Wurzbacher spoke to them.
Source: Nachdenkseiten, Ralf Wurzbacher, 07 January 2025
About the people
Jörg Matysik, born in 1964, is Professor of Analytical Chemistry and Molecular Spectroscopy, Director of the Institute of Analytical Chemistry at Leipzig University, Head of the postgraduate programme “Analytics & Spectroscopy” and spokesperson for a Collaborative Research Centre of the German Research Foundation. Matysik writes the blog: cidnp.net/blog.
Tobias Unruh, born in 1967, is Professor of Nanomaterial Characterisation at the Institute of Condensed Matter Physics at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.
Together with three other chemistry professors, Matysik and Unruh have been working for almost three years to obtain information on the properties, quality control and potential toxicity of the Covid-19 vaccine Comirnaty (BioNTech/Pfizer) from the manufacturing company BioNTech and the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), which is responsible for authorising and monitoring the safety of vaccines and biomedical drugs in Germany. Her three colleagues are: Prof Gerald Dyker (Ruhr University Bochum), Prof Andreas Schnepf (University of Tübingen) and Prof Martin Winkler (Zurich University of Applied Sciences).
Ralf Wurzbacher: Mr Matysik, at the end of November, the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) secretly published a huge dataset of reported side effects in connection with a so-called coronavirus vaccination on its website. The collection covers practically the entire period of the Covid-19 vaccination campaign and is therefore of great public interest. How does it affect you that there has been no perceptible announcement from the PEI or the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) on the matter?
Jörg Matysik: The dataset was not created very professionally, and it was not the experts at the PEI who made it searchable, but an unknown data specialist who set up a search function on atwebpages.com. This enabled me to recognise that the two batches I was vaccinated with were not harmless either. In any case, the data collection contains a large number of serious side effects with well over 1,000 deaths, some of which occurred a few days after vaccination. In addition, there is a strong accumulation of reported side effects for individual batch numbers, insofar as these can be assigned.
One wonders why the vaccination campaign was not interrupted immediately. It would have been a legal obligation for the PEI to present not only the raw data, but also an interpretation to the public. After all, data from numerous countries, the Danish data being the best known, actually suggested that some batches were particularly dangerous. This would be a problem for quality assurance and control. After all, a drug that cannot be manufactured properly should not be allowed on the market.
The Covid vaccines came onto the market in record time
Remember: When Andreas Schöfbeck, head of the company health insurance fund Provita, pointed out warning signs in February 2022, he was forced to resign by politicians. He had only reminded the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) of its legal obligation to investigate the health insurance data. To my knowledge, this has not happened to date. Consider also the reports by pathology professors Arne Burkhardt and Michael Mörz. In autopsies of vaccinated corpses, they have seen things, especially deformations of blood vessels, that were never observed in all the years before vaccination.
Tobias Unruh: The lack of an accompanying text on the new dataset raises the question of whether the data has not yet been thoroughly analysed or – if it has – whether a deliberate decision has been made not to publish it. Both would be surprising and, in our opinion, detrimental to the public’s trust in the work of the PEI. We have therefore approached the PEI with corresponding enquiries. The Berliner Zeitung reported on this before Christmas.
The rest of the leading German media, on the other hand, let the PEI publication slip through their fingers. What are people in the country missing out on that they should actually be interested in?
Matysik: This is of course embarrassing for these leading media outlets: over 1,000 suspected deaths and the Federal Minister of Health is still in office and not in court. After all, he had claimed for a long time that the vaccination was “free of side effects”. In politics, new constellations could soon present themselves in the USA and also in Germany, which will demand clarification. At some point, our media will also have to join in – at the latest when those who pulled the strings at the time have to appear in court. At least the German courts are now slowly realising that the PEI and the RKI have taken them for a ride: They guaranteed scientific accuracy, but followed a political directive against their better judgement.
With nasty “side effects” …
Matysik: We have all seen how many people who have been vaccinated several times have experienced severe respiratory illnesses, including pneumonia. We all realise that mortality and sickness rates are high. We all know people who – far too young – developed massive heart problems. Almost everyone knows someone who suddenly died in the middle of life. Of course, everyone will want to know what happened. It is difficult to predict what will happen if people get the impression that a gigantic fraud has taken place. Perhaps they will become very critical, especially the young ones, and that would be a good thing.
So how big are the deviations between the batches?
Matysik: The Danish study divided the batches into three groups that are clearly distinguishable in terms of side effects. This pattern has been confirmed in numerous other countries. However, the PEI denies that such a pattern exists because it is not known how many vaccinations were carried out with a particular batch. Now the PEI should say: We have not fulfilled our duty here to monitor batch-dependent problems. Instead, it brazenly claims that there is no batch dependency. But how do you know if there is no data on the number of vaccines used per batch? The PEI could therefore at best say: “In breach of our legal obligation, we have no way of confirming or denying batch dependency.
But the authority fails to do so.
Unruh: First of all, we should make it clear that we are not experts in the medical or legal aspects of vaccination side effects. We are concerned citizens – largely due to what we consider to be the completely excessive and inappropriate coronavirus policy of the federal and state governments and state authorities – but we are also attentive observers of further government action in this matter. This includes, among other things, the PEI’s handling of vaccination side effects.
In its statement on the aforementioned Danish data entitled “No batch-related accumulation of suspected cases of vaccination side effects after Covid-19 vaccinations with Comirnaty”, the PEI only refers to data obtained from the SaveVac 2.0 observational study. In this study, 1,179,877 vaccinations, both primary and secondary, of 734,394 people were initially registered.
There were an incredible 5,074,069 adverse events reported for these vaccinations. The number of adverse events reported via the SafeVac 2.0 app after vaccination was then plotted against the number of vaccine doses administered to SafeVac 2.0 study participants in the respectiveComirnaty batches. This analysis does not in fact show any batch-dependent clustering of reported adverse events. However, based on the extremely high number of side effects reported per vaccination – 4.3 reports per vaccination – it can be assumed that almost exclusively people with side effects took part in the study. If this assumption is correct, then the conclusion suggested by the PEI that there is no batch-related accumulation of suspected case reports of vaccination side effects after Covid-19 vaccinations with Comirnaty is not valid. This is because the available data do not contain any usable information on batch-related clusters of suspected case reports.
In the new data from 28 November 2024, there is no indication of how many vaccinations were given per batch in the period and observation area in question – was it the whole of Germany? – were carried out, which does not allow a statement to be made about a specific accumulation of reported side effects for certain batches.
Düsseldorf-based lawyer Tobias Ulbrich, who represents victims of vaccine damage in court, had already drawn up a top 10 list of the most damaging batches some time ago. This list is almost identical to the data that the PEI has now published. The frequency of side effects ranges from a single case to over 10,000 cases per batch. So is what was considered a “conspiracy theory” yesterday now practically official?
Matysik: That is indeed very remarkable. Mr Ulbrich, whom I had the pleasure of meeting personally, has collected data from numerous clients. It now appears that the list of his batch dependencies matches the PEI list very well. The PEI could now reply: “Perhaps these batches were the most vaccinated, unfortunately we did not fulfil our legal obligation and cannot prove this. That alone is scandalous. In any case, the consistency of the PEI data with the lawyer’s data is very suspicious. It is therefore fair to assume that there is a problem here, precisely because the PEI’s quality control failed.
In plain language: some batches could have been more dangerous or deadlier than others, which is also consistent with findings from other countries – such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and the Czech Republic. Mr Unruh, did the PEI not want to see the dangers?
Unruh: It remains to be seen whether the missing data on the batch-dependent frequency of vaccinations can still be determined. Only then will it be possible to clarify whether the particular accumulation of adverse reaction reports for certain batches can be attributed solely to the high number of vaccinations with these batches. It is therefore not yet known with certainty whether there were dangerous or less dangerous batches. It would also be important to clarify what is considered dangerous or even fatal in this context.
But first of all, we are not yet concerned with apportioning blame, but with creating publicity for obviously unresolved questions regarding the consequences of the state corona measures and coercion for corona vaccination and to enter into a dialogue with the PEI about a transparent investigation of the facts. Personally, I consider the PEI’s more than cautious information policy with regard to our numerous enquiries in recent years to be extremely unsatisfactory. And this has certainly not only led to a mistrust of the factual objectivity and the will of the PEI to critically examine the safety of measures and vaccinations with regard to the health of the population and to present the results transparently to the public.
As has long been the case in other countries, at least to some extent. Why not in Germany too?
Matysik: As already mentioned, there are indications from numerous countries of differences in the quality of the batches. We also know that the controls at the PEI were extremely lax. The samples were not obtained from the manufacturers themselves, but simply sent to them. Imagine if the food authorities had the samples sent to them by pizza taxi instead of going into the kitchens themselves.
The chief batch tester at the PEI, Dr W., reported to the Federal Administrative Court that they would only carry out four tests. Firstly, the substance is tested with the naked eye against a white and black background. However, this experiment leads to the appearance of colour in samples containing nanoparticles that strongly scatter light. Now the vaccine should have been discarded “in case of discolouration”. This obvious problem was the first inconsistency that puzzled us professors. We did not receive a reasonable answer from either the manufacturer or the PEI. Secondly, the pH value is tested, but the tolerance is huge. Thirdly, you test whether the desired mRNA is present without analysing what else is in the sample. Although modern next-generation methods are available at the PEI, they are “too sensitive”, as Dr W. put it. Finally, the size of the RNA molecules is checked: 50 per cent can have a different length. They act as if they were inactive.
Conclusion: There is still a lot of room for improvement analytically. We therefore wanted to see the PEI’s test protocols. Unfortunately, this request was rejected by decision. Now the Darmstadt Administrative Court has to decide. A date has not yet been set.
Both of you are still very diplomatic in your assessment of whether and how the PEI has fulfilled its legal obligations in authorising and monitoring the safety of coronavirus vaccines. Did the authority not simply bungle, deceive, lie and cover up?
Unruh: In my view, the problem is that the data situation, as far as I am aware, does not allow any clear conclusions to be drawn as to whether the risk posed by the vaccinations is greater or lesser than, for example, that posed by a coronavirus or influenza infection. In my view, it would be the PEI’s task to work towards ensuring that there is a solid data situation with suitable evaluation, that this is made available to the public and that decisions on the authorisation or non-authorisation of medicinal products are made on this basis.
Matysik: In any case, you have to ask yourself why the PEI does not publish the test protocols. A lack of transparency naturally makes people suspicious.
The PEI dataset alone breaks down 1,113 reports of deaths following a vaccination. Nevertheless, the siren remained silent. Wouldn’t that alone be a case for the public prosecutor?
Unruh: As already mentioned, it is not our intention to make legal judgements or even claims. The documents available to us do not even show whether any of the reported deaths were caused by the vaccination. And this is exactly what the PEI should finally change. We need reliable information on the effects and side effects of the vaccination in relation to the actual risk of coronavirus infection. Without this information, it is just as impossible to assess the usefulness of a coronavirus vaccination as it is to assess the authorisation of a vaccine or a vaccination recommendation.
Matysik: We can assume that there have been serious internal discussions at the PEI, as well as at the RKI. Without question, there is also a great deal of expertise there. Presumably, as at the RKI, the scientific view was also damaged by political influence. However, civil servant PEI employees have a duty of remonstration. They cannot simply refer to an instruction. There is a legal obligation that takes precedence over these instructions. If there were over 1,000 deaths, of course action should have been taken. I suspect that there will be legal repercussions here.
You wrote to the PEI in mid-December 2024 with eight questions. After all the experiences you have had in dealing with the federal authority and the Mainz-based vaccine manufacturer BioNTech, do you expect a response at all?
Unruh: Of course we are expecting a response, because if the PEI does not respond, it will not be doing its perceived public credibility any favours. But it is also true that the publicity we have reached is still very limited. We are therefore pleased to be able to publish articles in the Berliner Zeitung and other media, as well as this interview on the NachDenkSeiten. After all, we are not the only ones calling on governments and authorities to fully address the consequences of all coronavirus measures. From our point of view, it is important not to let up until we not only get the answers to our questions, but also bring about a more appropriate and transparent approach by the government and authorities.
Mr Matysik, you last answered questions for NachDenkSeiten in March. For almost three years, you have been trying to obtain information from the PEI and BioNTech on the properties, quality control and potential toxicity of the Covid-19 vaccine Comirnaty. Have you made any progress in the meantime?
Matysik: There are a number of people – those affected, journalists, lawyers and scientists – who are trying to bring the truth to light bit by bit. Just think of the publication of the RKI protocols. These have shown very clearly that the RKI had sufficient technical expertise, but that it was subordinated to the wishes of politicians. The authority is bound by instructions, but the legal mandate, in this case drug safety, certainly takes precedence over a ministerial directive. And, of course, a minister is not allowed to issue unlawful instructions.
You have to be patient for such clarification. The people responsible and the hangers-on are not few and not without influence. However, I am optimistic that we will get clarification here and I suspect that a young and very critical generation will grow up once the fraud has been uncovered. In order to initiate a public discussion, we five professors sent a letter on 5 December to numerous German institutions that played a role in the coronavirus crisis. In it, we ask for a statement on the misuse of science, in whose name a policy was enforced that bypassed the experts at the RKI.
Unruh: As scientists, we should also fulfil our own responsibility. We have extensive opportunities to characterise the properties of vaccines. For example, my research group analysed the structure of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) in the Comirnaty preparation in detail and published the results in the journal ACS Nano. My university, the local press and the Berlin newspaper reported on this. We found considerable differences to BioNTech’s ideas. For example, the LNPs are liquid and not solid, as BioNTech had assumed.
It would be important for many different disciplines to investigate the toxicity, carcinogenicity, mRNA content and integrity, bioavailability, activity of mRNA in the body and much more of the vaccines on the market. The expertise is available at German universities and other research centres and we have shown that with such studies we can not only fulfil our public mandate to contribute to the well-being of society, but also conduct exciting research and gain fundamentally new insights.
Final question for both of you. In a post on X, lawyer Ulbrich spoke of a “complete failure of pharmaceutical supervision” in Germany. “Failure” sounds somehow exonerating for those responsible. It was very obviously a case of forcing an immature product on the entire population, for better or worse. Isn’t the word “conspiracy” more appropriate?
Unruh: The approach taken by governments and authorities in assessing the efficacy and safety of coronavirus vaccines and the risks posed by coronavirus infection often seems to us to have been premature and not very evidence-based. This contrasts with the enormous pressure that has been exerted on the entire population to increase the willingness to be vaccinated, as well as the de facto obligation for certain occupational groups. The question is therefore not only whether the regulatory authorities have failed, but also to what extent the politicians have failed.
Matysik: In any case, the failure does not only concern the German authorities. It was an international failure, even if the German authorities bear a special responsibility in relation to Corminaty. The investigation is therefore also international. It has been shown that the national governments’ purchase agreements with Pfizer were always very similar. The Pfizer contract with Canada, for example, stated:
“The purchaser acknowledges that neither the long-term consequences nor the long-term effectiveness of the vaccines are currently known and that side effects may occur that are currently unknown. In addition, the purchaser confirms that the product is not subject to quality control from manufacture to use (“serialisation”) to an appropriate extent.”
This last sentence perhaps makes it clear why the PEI’s analyses were so minimalist. A great deal is gained when documents are published, regardless of the country in which this happens. And we are currently experiencing exactly that. We can hope that parliaments, for example in the USA or in Saxony and Thuringia, will bring light into the darkness in the year that has now begun.
The three interviews published so far on the NachDenkSeiten with the participation of Jörg Matysik are:
- 11 October 2022: “The judges will determine that the laws of nature also apply at the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut.”
- 28 November 2023: Profit before safety: “The supervisory authorities are not doing their job!”
- 14 March 2024: Paul Unehrlich Institute? “We are experiencing a deliberate closing of our eyes to the realities.”
