This chapter is a preliminary partof the forthcoming book „Corona unmasked“ and is made available by the authors for free downloadfor private use only. To be ordered from the publisher, a bookshopor online.All rights reserved.The authors and the publisher haveprepared this work with the utmostcare. Nevertheless, any liability ofthe publisher or the authors is excluded.Cover: Carolyn MagerleFoto: iStockphoto/NastcoGerman ISBN: 978-3-99060-231-7 2021 Goldegg Verlag GmbH, Berlin &

THE VACCINATIONCRAZEThis is a pre-publication of a chapter that will be finalized in the forthcoming book «Corona Unmasked« bySucharit Bhakdi and Karina Reiss.Will good things come only to those who wait?Until now, most of the public has accepted and supported the development of vaccines without doubt andhesitation. And rightly so, since vaccinations can savelives. But no vaccination will ever be perfect and freeof side effects. Useful vaccines must meet two important requirements: 1. the vaccine must offer protectionagainst a serious or even life-threatening disease; 2. itsside effects must be within tolerable and acceptable limits.On balance, the benefit must be much greater thanthe risk. Sounds logical, doesn’t it? And it is true. Whowould get vaccinated against a common cold if thismeant taking an incalculable risk of severe side effects?Furthermore, not every vaccination has to be usefulBhakdi/Reiß, Corona unmasked3

for every person. Living in Germany, we do not need avaccination against yellow fever, since it does not occurhere.We already know that COVID-19 puts a clearly defined group of people at risk – namely, those over 70with serious preexisting conditions. For these people,vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 might possibly makesense. Of course, before such vaccinations could begin,the vaccine‘s efficacy and potential dangers would needto be examined very carefully. However, the clinicalstudies conducted thus far have excluded precisely thisgroup of patients, so that efficacy and risks remainedunknown before the roll-out of the vaccine.Does the »killer coronavirus« justify exceptions?In mid-October 2020, the President of the RobertKoch-Institute (RKI), Lothar Wieler, told the Phoenixtelevision station: “We all assume that vaccines will beapproved next year. We don’t know yet exactly howthey will work, how well they will work, what they willdo; but I’m very optimistic that there will be vaccines.”He was right about everything. The vaccines are here,and they are being given en masse – yet we don’t knowif they work, how well they work, or what they do.That is why these vaccines have not been given regularapproval by the EU, but only a “conditional approval”for emergency use (1). In the next 2 years, it will be reviewed whether their benefits outweigh the risks. Every4Bhakdi/Reiß, Corona unmasked

person who gets vaccinated now is part of this huge experiment. But, of course, without any liability! Becausewith vaccinations under emergency rules, the manufacturers make no guarantees whatsoever – in case of serious reactions, or even in case of death, they are freefrom any liability.Especially for completely novel, gene-based vaccines such as the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2,a careful study of the possible risks would be particularly important, because according to the current stateof scientific knowledge, a variety of severe side effectsare conceivable.It is thus all the more astonishing that meaningfulstudies on the efficacy and safety of these novel vaccines do not exist at all – but at the same time, these samevaccines have already been pre-ordered by Europeangovernments for the population in huge quantities. Norwere such studies feasible within the short time available. Three pharmaceutical companies were at the forefront of the mad race for the highly lucrative emergency approval: AstraZeneca with its DNA vector vaccinebased on an adenovirus, and Biontech/Pfizer as well asModerna with their mRNA vaccines. On December 21,2020, the EU Commission approved the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine, followed shortly thereafter on January 6by approval of the Moderna vaccine; and on January29, AstraZeneca received EU approval, too. While careful clinical testing of a new vaccine was previouslyknown to take at least 7–10 years, the whole processhas now been shortened to mere months. Could reliable data be on the table in such a short time, so thatBhakdi/Reiß, Corona unmasked5

the public could weigh risk versus benefit? Of coursenot. Nevertheless, everything was accepted and boughtsight unseen by the authorities in Europe. In contrast,the Indian health authorities said NO to the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine because the safety of the population wasnot guaranteed (2).Do current vaccines protect againstsevere SARS-CoV-2 infection?As a matter of fact, a protective effect against severeand possibly life-threatening COVID-19 disease couldnot be shown in monkey models with any of the vaccines (3–5). All of these trials faced the same crucial problem: infected monkeys never became severely ill, either with or without vaccination (6). The monkeys canmodel infection, but they cannot model the dangerousform of the disease.What do the human trials say?Mainstream media jubilantly spread the press releases of the companies without ever asking any criticalquestions. Thus, from the media we learn that the protection afforded by the vaccines is simply great – withBiontech/Pfizer the level of protection is even 95 percent! That sounds great – bring on the vaccination!But how do these numbers come about, knowingthat healthy people very rarely get life-threateningCOVID-19?In fact, among the 40,000 test subjects of the Bi6Bhakdi/Reiß, Corona unmasked

ontech/Pfizer study (7), just 170 COVID-19 “cases”occurred (about 0.4%). Of these, 8 occurred amongthe vaccinated (1x severe), whereas 162 in the unvaccinated control group. The 8 cases in the first groupequal 5% of the 162 in the second – therefore, 95%protection!?Considering this small number of cases overall, theevidence must be described as plainly ridiculous froma scientific point of view. Moreover: how did this studydefine a “COVID-19 case” in the first place? Aha: symptoms like cough, cold, hoarseness and a positive RTPCR test, which is extremely unreliable, as everyoneknows by now. So, what we have here is a vaccinationthat might possibly prevent cough, cold, hoarseness in0.7% of the vaccinated. For this breathtaking achievement, hundreds of vaccinated people had to accept severe side effects, some of which led to hospitalization.The situation is no better for the other vaccine manufacturers. Accordingly, Professor Peter Doshi, writing in the prestigious British Journal of Medicine (8),complains: “None of the studies currently underwayare designed to detect a reduction in severe outcomesin terms of hospitalization, admission to intensive careunits, or death.«How great is the benefit of vaccination, especiallyfor the group most at risk from the infection? No oneknows. Thereby, the justification for the conditionalapproval is the demonstrated prevention of serious oreven deadly events. The conditional approvals for allgene-based vaccines were thus made without any basiswhatsoever.Bhakdi/Reiß, Corona unmasked7

The human trial continues, and everyone who isnow enthusiastic about being vaccinated is taking part.Does the vaccine prevent infection andthus the spread of the viruses?A widely proclaimed goal of vaccination is not only toprevent COVID-19 disease in the vaccinated persons,but also to prevent the spread of the virus in the population. Already in kindergartens and elementaryschools, children are taught that they could unknowingly kill their grandparents because they carry the viruses without being sick themselves. To prevent this,everyone should be vaccinated, including the children.Does this make sense – can a vaccination prevent aninfection at all?Let us start with the first question: does it makesense to try to prevent the spread of viruses that are oflittle danger to most people in order to supposedly protect a risk group?First, some basics. Did you know that 90% of Germans carry herpes viruses around without realizing it(9)? The viruses only become noticeable when the immune system is weakened, for example during other infectious diseases, fever, or stress. Strictly speaking, weall carry an astonishing number of possible pathogensonand inside our bodies – yet we are healthy. Coronaviruses have also been known to be carried aroundby people for decades without causing symptoms. In8Bhakdi/Reiß, Corona unmasked

the past, these people were called “healthy,” and nobody paid any attention to them. Today, they are deemed“asymptomatically infected” and therefore highly dangerous. However, we now know that the same is truefor SARS-CoV-2: people without acute symptoms willnot spread the severe disease COVID-19 in public (10–12).When we do develop symptoms, this is a sign thatthe viruses have found a chance to become active, andalso that our immune system has entered the battle. Ifthere is no cough, cold, hoarseness, etc., it means thatour body is keeping the viruses at bay from the start.The viral load that a person can release into the outside world without symptoms is too small to endangerother people in public. Therefore, the plan to vaccinatethe entire population is a delusional and insane undertaking.Let us turn to question 2: could the vaccines prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 viruses at all? The RKIstates that this question is completely unresolved so far(13). To find out, one would have to examine whether1) vaccinated people can still get an infection and whether 2) in this case, the amount of virus present is sufficient to infect others.AstraZeneca alone made headlines with the newsthat vaccinated people were significantly less contagious. However, on closer inspection, it is blindinglyobvious that once more no data exist to draw this conclusion. The study in question only looked at part 1of the question: how many more people get an infection after being vaccinated. How was this checked?Bhakdi/Reiß, Corona unmasked9

The only criterion was positive RT-PCR tests (14).Now even the WHO says that the PCR test alone is notenough to diagnose an infection (15). So what is the theunsubstantiated claim worth that the spread of infection was massively reduced by the AstraZeneca vaccine? NOTHING.Anyone who has the slightest idea about infectionsand immune defense also knows that the mechanisticconcept for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination which is presented to the public is amateurish and naive from thestart. The antibodies induced by the vaccination willcirculate for the most part in the bloodstream. For ananalogy, readers may imagine that they themselves aresuch antibodies, sitting together in the living room –which represents a blood vessel of the lungs. Now thevirus comes to the house – not bothering to ring thebell, it just grabs the door handle and steps into thehallway: the lung cell. How could you possibly stop itfrom doing so, while sitting in the living room? Youcan’t.Antibodies can basically only help prevent thefurther spread of an intruder through the bloodstream.But that is not the primary protection against an attackfrom the air against the lungs. And that is precisely whythere is no truly effective vaccine protection against respiratory infections, including influenza.10Bhakdi/Reiß, Corona unmasked

If the benefits of vaccinations are morethan questionable, what about the risks?We read in the mainstream media: mRNA vaccines arenot new after all. That is true, but they have NEVERbeen used on humans to fight a viral infection. Andhumans have never been inoculated with recombinantviral genes, in the form of either DNA or mRNA.Accordingly, the vaccinations were under a darkcloud from the outset. With all three gene-based vaccines, disturbing immediate side effects were noted –but carefully hidden from general awareness: severeswelling and pain at the injection site, high fever andchills, severe headache, limb and muscle pain throughout the body, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting. Many vaccinated people were so sick that they were unable towork. In the AstraZeneca study, the side effects were sobad that the study protocol had to be changed halfwaythrough: in the later stages, study participants receivedhigh doses of the pain- and fever-relieving drug acetaminophen in order to make the vaccination reasonablytolerable (16). Such changes of protocol in the middleof a study are actually not permitted at all. Why was anexception made here?But that is not all. The AstraZeneca study was interrupted in July and September 2020 because of the occurrence in vaccinees of an extremely rare autoimmunedisease, which affects the spinal cord (17). “Transverse myelitis” is associated with paralysis and normallyoccurs at the very low frequency of approximately 3per 1 million population, every year. It is surprising,Bhakdi/Reiß, Corona unmasked11

then, that 2 such cases occurred among a relativelysmall number of vaccinated individuals. AstraZenecaannounced days later: calm down people, the first testperson had incipient multiple sclerosis, the second casewas purely an unfortunate coincidence. The show willgo on! And so it did – AstraZeneca continued to forgeahead. But not only AstraZeneca – so did everyone else.The Biontech/Pfizer vaccine caused acute facial paralysis in 4 participants, and Moderna vaccine in 2, without the cause having been clarified (18). The prevailing attitude was, apparently: Why bother with suchdetails if the race is on to save the world’s populationfrom ruin, for better or worse ?Comparable events occurred with competitors Moderna and Biontech/Pfizer. With both vaccines, volunteers suffered similarly severe general side effects. Thissentence might be moved up to the discussion of general febrile reactions to the AstraZeneca vaccine.Such a variety of immediate sid