Attorney Ulbrich: Paul Ehrlich Institute under serious suspicion of fraud
In preclinical tests on the toxicity of the spike protein contained in the corona vaccines, the type of mice used is of crucial importance. The Paul Ehrlich Institute has presumably made false statements in this regard.
Source: Alexander Wallasch, 22 Sept. 2024
Attorney Tobias Ulbrich
Today’s topic: “Has the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) committed scientific fraud?
The PEI made the claim in the following scientific publication, with the lead involvement of Prof Dr Cichutek, the former President of the PEI, that genetically modified human mice, so-called huACE2 mice, had been used in the preclinical phase of the corona vaccines and therefore the risk assessment of the animal studies with regard to the dangerousness of the spike protein (S) (Wuhan1) as the declared medical active ingredient of all so-called corona vaccines was comparable to the effects on humans in the tests.
This is the following scientific publication:
“Accelerated Development of COVID-19 Vaccines: Technology Platforms, Benefits, and Associated Risks”; Wagner R, Hildt E, Grabski E, Sun Y, Meyer H, Lommel A, Keller-Stanislawski B, Müller-Berghaus J, Cichutek K.; Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Jul 6;9(7):747. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9070747. PMID: 34358163; PMCID: PMC8310218.
In this publication, the PEI scientists make the following claim, among others:
“EN: Since wild-type (wt) mice are not permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection, huACE2-transgenic mice are used for COVID-19 vaccine-related studies in the mouse model, which express the human ACE2 receptor on cells and are therefore readily infected with SARS-CoV-2 and develop a clear disease phenotype.”
“DE: Since wild-type (wt) mice do not allow SARS-CoV-2 infection, huACE2 transgenic mice, which express the human ACE2 receptor on cells and are therefore readily infected with SARS-CoV-2 and develop a clear disease phenotype, are used for COVID-19 vaccine-related studies in the mouse model.”
We checked. The PEI was responsible for the conditional authorisation of BioNTech: Both the final report of the animal study and the papers submitted to the PEI do not list a single mouse at BioNTech/Pfizer that was a huACE2 transgenic mouse.
At BioNTech, all mice are listed as BULB/c. This is a normal laboratory mouse. With this mouse it is impossible to test the toxicity of the spike protein (S) Wuhan 1 because this mouse does not have human ACE2 interfaces. The mouse is therefore unsuitable for the intended purpose of clarifying toxicity. Every employee at the PEI must have read this clearly! It is precisely against this background that the PEI writes what is required in theory – namely the use of huACE2-transgenic mice.
However, according to the papers submitted, this was not used for the animal test studies carried out in order to avoid revealing the toxicity of the spike protein in the animal test studies.
In the above-mentioned scientific publication, the PEI turned the standard laboratory mice into huACE2 transgenic mice. Since these could not show any danger signals for the toxicity of the spike protein because they did not correspond to human conditions, the results of the standard laboratory mice were sold as results from huACE transgenic mice.
No “huACE2” transgenic mice were used on pages 175 and 176 of the report :
None of the COVID vaccine manufacturers have tested their optimised vaccine spikes in huACE2 transgenic mice according to the available documentation.
Since the PEI claims the opposite in the scientific paper above, it is now up to the PEI to explain which manufacturer claims to have carried out which specific test with huACE2 transgenic mice, and why these mice are not mentioned in the reports but all other mouse species and animal species are.
If the PEI cannot provide this evidence based on the data currently available, then they would have committed scientific fraud in the most sensitive area for all people in the population, namely in the area of evaluating the risks posed by the spike protein (S) Wuhan 1, which then did not take place in the required huACE2 transgenic mice. The experts at the PEI all knew that the neuralgic point for the determination of the toxicity of the spike protein (S) Wuhan 1 as an indicated medicinal substance was the docking to the ACE2 receptor in standard laboratory mice. So what must have happened?
We surmise as follows:
1. The manufacturers, primarily BioNTech, submitted the animal studies to the PEI.
2. The PEI realised: “Crap, they used the wrong mice because nothing can be detected with them. If they all have to repeat the tests now, then we will be a year ahead and the vaccine hype that has already started will not exist. Presumably there was also a lot of pressure from the BMG.
3. The PEI was presumably corrupted into “overlooking” the type of mice used, which had been clearly stated in the reports.
4. In the scientific world, it was necessary to lie, as above with the paper, in order to fool everyone who knew anything about the matter into believing that the correct mice were used for the correct findings. If the PEI publishes this in a paper in the scientific world, nobody will bother to ask whether the huACE2 transgenic mice are correct. Certainly no one will look into the papers, as they are secret and should not be published 75 years after the agreement with the FDA.
5. Now the good results of the standard laboratory mice were finally attributed to the huACE2 mice by the PEI, which is why no risk indicators could be seen.
6. The public then received an extremely “embellished” report based on the final report from the animal experiments, which bypassed the core of the toxicity, namely the docking to the ACE2 receptor and the triggering of the RAS cascade, the deregulation of the immune system and all subsequent cascades.
At the same time, however, the PEI was already aware of the core of the problems, as they had already been published scientifically and the PEI itself had also published on the subject, again with the involvement of Prof Dr Klaus Cichutek, among others:
“Quantitative assays reveal cell fusion at minimal levels of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and fusion from without”; Theuerkauf SA, Michels A, Riechert V, Maier TJ, Flory E, Cichutek K, Buchholz CJ. iScience. 2021 Mar 19;24(3):102170. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102170. Epub 2021 Feb 9. PMID: 33585805; PMCID: PMC7871100.
The IFG enquiry to the PEI is still ongoing. However, we assume that there will be no answer at all, because no one will certainly provide information on the criminal offences in question. In my experience, it has not been worth bringing criminal charges so far, as in our experience every public prosecutor’s office currently has its hands tied because it is bound by the instructions of the Minister of Justice and is certainly not allowed to investigate. Should this be otherwise, any public prosecutor is welcome to contact me. We will then submit all materials on the subject.
The scientific publication should certainly be corrected or the publication should be withdrawn by the editors of the journal if the PEI is unable to provide evidence for the allegation.
It is now in the interest of the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut to quickly provide evidence of the huACE2-transgenic mice with which the animal experiments were carried out or there will definitely be further legal proceedings. The PEI should then also provide comprehensive evidence that is comprehensible to everyone. It is also possible that all the manufacturer’s reports were incorrect or incomplete and the suspicion is unfounded. However, as long as no huACE2-transgenic mouse could be found in any report, the suspicion can be raised as a question in the public domain, because it concerns safety issues that affect everyone.
According to the findings of the RKI, which was politically involved in this matter, it is to be feared that the authorisation review at the higher federal authority PEI was no different.
