The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics
and toxicity
Michael Palmer, MD and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD
July 23rd , 2021

Abstract
We summarize the findings of an animal study which Pfizer submitted to theJapanese health authorities in 2020, and which pertained to the distribution
and elimination of a model mRNA vaccine. We show that this study clearlypresaged grave risks of blood clotting and other adverse effects. The failure tomonitor and assess these risks in the subsequent clinical trials, and the grossly
negligent review process in conjunction with the emergency use authorizations,have predictably resulted in an unprecedented medical disaster.

1

Introduction and backgroundAs with any drug, a key consideration for the toxicity of the COVID mRNA vaccines
is where exactly in the body they end up, and for how long they will stay there.
Such questions, which are the subject of pharmacokinetics, are usually thoroughly
investigated and during drug development. Initial studies on pharmacokinetics andalso on toxicity are carried out in animals. If the outcome is favourable, similar
experiments will be performed on a small number of human volunteers. Only after
such preliminary studies have been successfully concluded will proper clinical trials
be approved, which will then determine whether the drug or vaccine in question has
the desired clinical efficacy.
Because of the officially sanctioned haste and systematic gross negligence inthe development and approval of the COVID-19 vaccines, our knowledge of theirpharmacokinetics is sketchy. The only somewhat detailed animal study that hasreached the public pertains to the Pfizer vaccine [1, 2]. These data were publicized
after Pfizer had filed them with the Health authorities in Japan when applying for
emergency use authorization of its vaccine in that country.1 These data pertainedin particular to the distribution of the vaccine within the body after injection and toits elimination from the body. Even though far from being comprehensive or evenadequate, this document has rather far-reaching implications: it shows that Pfizer—
as well as the authorities that were apprised of these data— must have recognized
the grave risks of adverse events after vaccination even before the onset of clinical
trials. Nevertheless, Pfizer’s own clinical trials failed to monitor any of the clinical1
The same data may also have been filed in the U.S. and other wester countries, but the FDA andthe corresponding health regulators did not release them to the public.

1

risks that were clearly evident from these data, and the regulatory authorities failed
to enforce proper standards of oversight. This dual failure has caused the mostgrievous harm to the public.
Before we discuss this study and its implications in detail, we will briefly review
how the Pfizer mRNA vaccine works. These explanations also apply to the ModernamRNA vaccine, whereas the AstraZeneca and the Johnson & Johnson vaccines differ
in some aspects.

1.1

How the mRNA COVID vaccines work

The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines consist of a synthetic messenger RNA(mRNA) that encodes the SARS-CoV-2 “spike protein,” which normally is foundon the surface of the coronavirus particles. This mRNA is coated with a mixture ofsynthetic lipids (fat-like molecules) that protect it during transport within the body,and which also facilitate its uptake into the target cells through endocytosis.
After the vaccine has entered a cell, it initially finds itself enclosed by a membrane vesicle—a little bubble that was pinched off from the cell membrane. The
subsequent accumulation of acid inside this bubble causes the lipids to be stripped
off, and the mRNA to be released into the cytosol (the intracellular fluid); this release
step is facilitated by the cationic lipid ALC-0315 (see later). The mRNA then binds
to ribosomes—the cell’s little protein factories—and induces the synthesis of theactual spike protein molecules. Most of the spike protein molecules will then betransported to the cell surface.
Once it appears there, it will be recognized by B-lymphocytes (B-cells), which willthen start making antibodies to it.2 Furthermore, some part of the spike protein canalso be cleaved off by proteases on the cell surface and released from the cell. If
this happens within the circulation, the released fragment—referred to as S1—canbind to blood platelets (thrombocytes) and activate them. In this manner, the spike
protein directly promotes blood clotting.
2

B-cell activation involves additional steps and auxiliary cells that are here omitted for simplicity.

2

As with any protein that is synthesized within the cell, a small number of molecules will undergo fragmentation, and the fragments will be presented on the cellsurface in association with specific (HLA-) carrier proteins. The purpose of thismechanism is immune surveillance—as soon as fragments show up of some protein
which the immune system does not recognize as “self,” an immune response will bemounted against that protein and against the cells that produce it. This response ismediated by cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs, T-killer cells).
In mounting its cytotoxic response, the immune system will not distinguishbetween a true virus infection and the expression of an mRNA vaccine—as longas the spike protein fragments appear on the cell, the killer cells will be on themarch. If the vaccine is expressed in the cells that line the blood vessels—theendothelial cells—the vascular lesion caused by the immune attack will again set off
blood clotting. Thus, we have at least two distinct paths toward blood clotting after
vaccination.

1.2

The lipid-coated mRNA vaccines acquire an apolipoprotein “corona”

Lipoprotein particles occur naturally in the bloodstream and within the tissues ofour body. They consist of a core of lipids that is surrounded with a shell of proteins
called apolipoproteins. Their purpose is to transport lipids such as cholesterol
and triacylglycerol (regular fat) between organs. For example, a specific type oflipoprotein called chylomicrons transports dietary fats after they have been taken
up in the small intestine. Other lipoproteins called VLDL and LDL distribute fatsthat have been synthesized in the liver to other organs and tissues.
The various apolipoproteins that encase the lipoproteins stabilize the particles,
and they also serve as “address tags” that bind to receptor molecules on cell surfaces.
This interaction will trigger the uptake of the lipoproteins into those cells. Artificial
lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) like those used in the COVID mRNA vaccines can acquire
a shell—a “corona”—of the body’s own apolipoprotein molecules [3]. This enables
these vaccines to be taken up into the cells of our body, too.
The liver has a central place in lipid and lipoprotein metabolic turnover. Accordingly, liver cells are rich in specific surface receptor molecules which mediate3

lipoprotein uptake, suggesting that they will efficiently take up LNPs decorated withapolipoproteins also. This is indeed the case. However, other organs have high rates
of lipoprotein uptake, too, and they must therefore be expected to accumulate theapolipoprotein-decorated vaccine LNPs as well.

1.3

Receptor-mediated cellular uptake of lipoproteins and of vaccines

This slide illustrates the role of cellular receptors and the apolipoproteins in facilitating the uptake of vaccines into cells through endocytosis. They bind to the same
cellular receptors as the regular lipoprotein particles do, and they subsequently gettaken up in the same manner. The subsequent events—release of the mRNA andprotein synthesis—have already been discussed above.

1.4

Transcytosis of lipoproteins from the bloodstream into the tissues

All substrate exchange between the tissues and the bloodstream occurs in the capillaries. In these finest of all blood vessels, the blood is separated from the extracellular matrix of the tissues by only one cellular layer—namely, the endothelial cells.
The capillary wall permits free passage only to small molecules such as for example
4

blood sugar (glucose) or amino acids. The lipoproteins, which are far larger, mustbe transported across the capillary wall by transcytosis. In this two-stage process,endocytosis on one side of the cell is followed by exocytosis, that is, by release of
the particles, which occurs on the other side.
While this figure shows transcytosis from the bloodstream to the tissue, theprocess actually works in both directions. In this manner, cells in the tissues canavail themselves of cholesterol carried by circulating LDL, but they can also returnsurplus cholesterol through the bloodstream to the liver via other lipoproteins(HDL).
Transcytosis will also apply to the “corona”-decorated vaccine LNPs and enable
them to reach the tissues in various organs. Reverse transcytosis of vaccine might
contribute to its uptake from the muscle tissue into the circulation after injection(see below).

2

The Pfizer vaccine pharmacokinetics study on rats
• A “model vaccine” was used—same LNPs, different mRNA (coding for luciferase)• Cholesterol contained in the LNPs was labeled with radioactivity ( 3H) for tracing• The distribution of the lipid between different organs was measured at various

time points following intramuscular injection
This is the key experiment in Pfizer’s animal study [1]. The technical approach usedhere is quite common, since radioactivity can be very sensitively and accurately
measured. The radioactively labeled vaccine preparation was injected into rats. The
animals were “sacrificed” (cut up) at various time points after the injection, and theamount of radioactivity in different organs was measured.
The model protein used in this study was a firefly protein called luciferase. Thisis the very protein that permits fireflies to glow in the dark. When the rats’ bodycells take up the mRNA that encodes luciferase and then synthesize the protein,
they, too, will begin to glow in the dark. Light, like radioactivity, is convenient tomeasure; the more light that emanates from a given tissue, the more mRNA uptake
and protein synthesis have occurred.3 Therefore, between the radiolabel on the lipid
and the luminescence elicited by luciferase, it was possible to determine both the
distribution of the model vaccine within the body and its biological activity.

2.1

Key data from the lipid distribution study

The first thing to note is that the labeled lipid shows up in the blood plasma after avery short time. The highest plasma level is reached at two hours after the injection;
however, even after only 15 minutes (0.25 hours) the level already reaches almost
half of that maximal value. Reverse transcytosis might in part account for this
rapid uptake process. A more important factor may be drainage of tissue fluid3
To generate light, luciferase also requires a specific small-molecule substrate named luciferin
and adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The luminescence assay is therefore more complex and less quantitatively accurate than measurements of radioactivity.

5

through the lymphatic vessels into the bloodstream. Lymphatic drainage will likely
be accelerated by the acute release of inflammatory mediators within the muscle
tissue.

Lipid equivalent (µg/g)

30
25
20

blood plasma
liver

15

spleen10

ovariestestes5adrenal glands

0
0.25

1

2

4

8

24

48

Time after injection (h)As the blood plasma level drops off, the activity rises in several other organs. The
fastest and highest rise is observed in the liver and the spleen. Both of these organs
are rich in macrophages, a cell type that is in charge of clearing particles such as
microbes or the fragments of decayed cells from the bloodstream. Macrophages arealso numerous in the bone marrow, where the vaccine reaches somewhat lower but
still substantial levels (not shown).
While the macrophages are likely responsible for most of the uptake in the spleen,
this may not be the case in the liver. Here, the vaccine likely ends up mostly
in the organ-specific epithelial cells, which are very rich in lipoprotein receptors.
Uptake into the ovaries and into the adrenal glands is most likely also mediatedby lipoprotein receptors. Both organs take up lipoproteins to obtain cholesterol,
which they use as a precursor for producing steroid hormones—corticosteroids inthe adrenal glands, and female sexual hormones (estrogens and progestins) in theovaries.
The testes, too, produce sexual hormones (in particular testosterone) from cholesterol, but here the accumulation of vaccine lipid is remarkably much lower. The
scientific literature does not offer a full, straightforward explanation for the restricted uptake into the testes, but it may be related to the so-called blood-testesbarrier. In most other organs examined the levels were similarly low as in the testes.
We note, however, that at least the blood vessels will be affected in every organ andin every tissue.

2.2

Direct vs. indirect transport of radiolabel to the ovaries

It is noteworthy that the level of radioactivity in the liver rises very fast within
the first eight hours but then stagnates, whereas in the ovaries and the adrenal
glands the rise continues even two full days after the injection. This suggeststhat the radioactivity may be redistributed from the liver to these glands. In thiscontext, we must remember that the LNP component which carried the label wascholesterol. The labeled cholesterol would behave just like endogenous (unlabeled)6cholesterol, and after uptake into the liver we would expect it to be recycled andredistributed to other organs. Cholesterol redistributed from the liver would likely
be unaccompanied by the mRNA. Therefore, the question whether the cholesterol
found in the ovaries is acquired in this indirect manner or through direct uptake ofthe vaccine is of considerable importance.

In addition to cholesterol, the vaccine LNPs contain another naturally occuring lipid(distearoyl-phosphatidylcholine) and two non-natural ones (see below). Thus, wemust ask to what extent these other lipids would undergo redistribution from theliver and then also accumulate e.g. in the ovaries.
Finally, it must also be noted that the distribution of the vaccine might be affectedby the protein encoded by its mRNA component. If instead of the presumably inert
luciferase enzyme the spike protein had been expressed, this might have affectedvascular integrity, particularly also at the blood brain barrier. This might translate
into increased uptake into other organs, including the central nervous system.
Each of the posed questions could readily have been answered using experiments
similar to those reported by Pfizer—in particular, each of the relevant lipids shouldhave been radioactively labeled in turn, and the proper mRNA encoding the actual
spike protein should have been used instead of the one encoding luciferase. It
should go without saying that the FDA, the EMA and other regulators should never
have authorized the use of the vaccine without mandating and reviewing thoroughstudies of this kind.

2.3

Very slow elimination of the cationic lipid ALC-0315 from rat liver

Of the two non-natural lipids contained in the vaccine LNPs, one (ALC-0315) is
weakly basic, whereas the other (ALC-0159) carries a polyethyleneglycol (PEG) moiety. As just discussed, no comprehensive distribution studies on these lipids werecarried out. However, Pfizer did report the change over time of their concentrations
within the liver. The level of the PEG-modified lipid dropped slowly but regularly

7with time. The other one, however—the cationic lipid ALC-0315—remained at very
high levels at two weeks (336 hours) after the injection. Even after 6 weeks some of
the compound was still detected in liver. As discussed in the preceding section, we
cannot rule out that these synthetic lipids, too, are redistributed from the liver toother organs, where they might then be stored for even longer periods of time.

Concentration (µg/ml)

1000
100
10
1
Cationic lipid

0.1

PEG−modified lipid

0.01
0.1

1

10

100

Time after injection (h)You may have heard that some pesticides such as DDT can persist in the humanbody for months and even years. This typically occurs with compounds which arevery lipophilic, meaning that they partition into fat droplets within fat tissue andother organs. As long as the fat within these droplets is not utilized, the chemicals
dissolved within them will be safe from metabolic turnover and degradation. The
cationic lipid ALC-0315 is likely able to accumulate in the same manner. If so, we
can expect persistence for even longer periods of time than evident from this graphin tissues that have lower metabolic activity than the liver.

2.4

Slow degradation is built into the structure of ALC-0315

HO

O

N

O

O

2 H2 O

O

HO

HO

OH

N

O

HO
O

OH

8

This topic is rather technical, and it is not necessary for the big picture. If you can’t
make out what this diagram is showing, feel free to skip it.
The structure at the top shows the intact cationic lipid referred to as ALC-0315.
Hydrolysis of the two ester (C(=O)O) bonds produces the three fragments at thebottom; according to Pfizer’s document, this is the initial step in the degradationand elimination pathway of this lipid. The following features suggest that inside thebody this step will occur rather slowly:
1. The entire molecule contains no permanent charge and only one ionizable atom(the nitrogen, N), which is linked to three alkyl chains. Aside from the one polarhydroxy (OH) group, the entire remainder of the molecule is hydrophobic. Thismeans that the molecule will partition very strongly not only into lipid bilayers(membranes) but also into lipid droplets, where it will be effectively hidden fromany degradative enzymes.
2. When this molecule is part of a lipid bilayer, as is the case within the vaccine
LNPs, the two ester bonds will still be buried deep within the hydrophobic portion of that bilayer, which will protect them from hydrolytic cleavage.
3. Hydrolysis of the ester bonds will to some degree be sterically hindered by thethe adjacent branches in the fatty acyl residues.
With the possible exception of the lack of a permanent charge, none of thesefeatures is essential for the desired function of the molecule, namely to release
the mRNA from the vaccine particles after the latter have been taken up into ourbody cells. There are many ways in which this molecule could have been modified
for faster degradation in vivo. It is therefore noteworthy that this was not done—
the vaccine was deliberately formulated with a compound that is degraded andeliminated from the body very slowly. Given that this lipid will most likely stay in our
tissues for months, we must expect cumulative toxicity with repeated vaccinations.

2.5

Strong expression of luciferase in the rat liver and spleen

9This picture is taken from the Pfizer study. As far as I can tell, it shows three skinned
rat bodies. The time point of the measurement is 6 hours after the injection. The
red ovals indicate the injection sites in the hind legs, and the various colors (mostlyblue) within them indicate the luminescence produced by the local expression of
luciferase. This luminescence indicates that the vaccine entered cells near the
injection sites and successfully delivered its mRNA to the ribosomes within thecell.
The separate blue and purple areas to the right are over the liver and the spleen.
Thus, the pronounced accumulation of lipid in these organs correlates with strong
expression of the delivered luciferase mRNA also.

2.6

Does the correlation between lipid uptake and mRNA expression apply toother organs, too?

• Only cholesterol was traced, but distribution of mRNA was not• Luciferase or spike protein expression could have been tested with other organs,but no such results were reported• Distribution of mRNA could easily have been traced directly

In Section 2.2, we noted that radiolabeled cholesterol might reach organs other thanthe liver, in particular the ovaries, either through uptake of the vaccine particles
themselves by these organs, or indirectly after initial uptake into the liver, where
it would be repackaged into newly synthesized lipoprotein particles. In the former
case, the radioactivity would be accompanied by the mRNA, whereas in the latter itlikely would not be. It would therefore have been important to study the expressionof the mRNA in these other organs also.
Rat ovaries are small, and therefore luminescence measurements on this organ
might not be very sensitive; however, in that case, such measurements could havebeen performed on a larger animal species. Expression of the spike protein itself
could have been measured using labeled antibodies. At the very least, if expression
analysis was deemed too cumbersome, it would have been easy enough to detect
the uptake of the mRNA itself into different tissues, for example by labeling it withradioactive iodine [4]. Such measurements would have been even more accurate andstraightforward than those which were actually carried out for the lipids.
Since such experiments would not have been particularly difficult, I suspect that
Pfizer did in fact perform them, but decided not to report the results. Be that as it
may, however—we do know that most of the lipid will remain bound to the mRNA
until after both have been taken up into cells. In the absence of proof positive tothe opposite, we must therefore assume that a close correlation exists between lipid
uptake, mRNA uptake, and mRNA expression. This raises obvious concerns for thehealth and integrity of the ovaries.

3

What do Pfizer’s animal data presage for biological effects in humans?
• Rapid appearance of spike protein in the circulation10• Toxicity to organs with observed high rates of uptake• Toxicity to organs with expected high rates of uptake, in particular placenta andlactating breast glands• Penetration of some organs might be higher with the real vaccine than with thisluciferase model
The rapid entry of the model vaccine into the circulation means that we must expect
the spike protein to be expressed within the circulation, particularly by endothelial
cells. We have seen before that this will lead to activation of blood clotting throughdirect activation of platelets and also, probably more importantly, through immune
attack on the endothelial cells.
We must furthermore expect damage to organs that take up high amounts ofthe vaccine. The EMA assessment report on the Pfizer vaccine [5] does in fact
mention such organ damage (see Section 3.4). The toxicity will likely pertain tosome organs that were not examined in Pfizer’s study. This includes in particular
the placenta, which like the ovaries produces large amounts of progestin hormonesfrom cholesterol, likewise acquired from circulating lipoproteins, and the lactating
mammary glands, which acquire fat and cholesterol contained in lipoproteins for
secretion into the breast milk.
The distribution studies discussed here did provide some useful and relevant
information; however, as already noted in Section 2.2, the expression of the spike
protein instead of the presumably inert luciferase enzyme might affect the distribution of the vaccine due to its interference with vascular integrity, including at the
blood brain barrier. The actual COVID vaccine might therefore achieve greater entry
into the brain than the luciferase model vaccine. The FDA, the EMA and other regulators should have insisted that such experiments be carried out and documented.

3.1

Expression of spike protein shortly after injection of an mRNA vaccine into
humans

The early entry of the vaccine into the circulation observed in animals leads us to
expect the same in humans. In keeping with this, spike protein becomes detectablein the blood plasma of human vaccinees even on the day of the injection (day 0) andpeaks several days later [6]. Note that this assay measured only the S1 fragment
which was cleaved from the cell surface and released, not the intact spike proteinthat remained on the cells (see Section 1.1).
The triangles on day 29 and later in the figure indicate the levels of free S1fragment after the second injection. The very low levels most likely do not reflecta failure of the injected mRNA to be expressed, but rather result from the immune
response triggered by the first injection. Circulating antibodies will bind to the spike
protein and interfere with its measurement. The resulting spike-antibody complexes
may be cleared from the bloodstream by phagocytes, but they may also contributeto inflammation. The same antibodies would also bind to the spike protein thatremains on the cells. Once bound, they can set off the complement system, a cascadeof plasma proteins that ultimately kills cells by punching holes into them [7].

11

Together with rising antibodies, the first injection will also induce T-killer cells
directed against the spike-producing cells (see Section 1.1). The more rapid andintense cytotoxic action of these T-cells may destroy the cells which took up thevaccine before they had much time to produce spike protein. Whatever the relative
contributions of antibodies/complement and of cytotoxic T-cells to the suppressionof free spike protein levels may be, it is clear that this finding indicates greater harmto the blood vessels after the second injection than after the first.
We should mention that the above data were obtained from a fairly small sample—
13 persons overall, out of whom 11 exhibited detectable free S1 fragment. Quite
possibly, even higher levels would have been observed among a larger group of
test persons. Altogether, the findings in this study substantiate the hypotheticalmechanism of vaccine-induced blood clotting that was stated clearly and early onby the Doctors for Covid Ethics [8], and which has since been fully borne out by
experience [9].

3.2Complement pores on the surfaces of red blood cells

We just saw that in particular the second injection will likely cause the activationof the complement system on endothelial cells. This picture, which is taken froma seminal paper on the action mode of the complement system [7], illustrates thatthe complement system is perfectly capable of “shooting up the joint”—of utterly
destroying a cell.
In the depicted experiment, antibodies against sheep red blood cells were allowed
to bind to such cells in the presence of human serum, which provided the complement proteins [10]. As you can see, the cells are riddled with holes. An individual
pore consists of multiple complement protein molecules; it protrudes from themembrane (see arrows) and has a diameter of approximately 10 nanometers. The
pores will break down the barrier function of the cell membrane, and the cell willdie.
12Similar effects must be expected with endothelial cells downstream of spike protein expression and antibody binding. The damage to the capillaries will promote
vascular leakage as well as blood clotting.

3.3

Cationic lipids are cytotoxic

This graph is taken from a study [11] that is not related to the Pfizer vaccine; it isincluded here only as an illustration of cationic lipid toxicity in general. It shows thedose-dependent effect of the cationic lipid in question (stearylamine) on the viabilityof three different cell lines. Among these, the two macrophage-like lines RTS-11
and SHK-1 are more sensitive to the cytotoxic effect than the liver-derived cell line
RTH-149.
While the various cationic lipids that have been used for DNA or mRNA delivery
differ in cytotoxicity, they all are toxic to some degree; and as this figure illustrates,
various cell types differ in susceptibility. The high susceptibility of macrophages
is due to their built-in capability to produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) such13

as hydrogen peroxide and superoxide. When this pathway is triggered by cationiclipids, the ROS produced may kill the cells outright—as observed in the depicted
experiment. A lower level of activation may cause the macrophages to “misbehave,”which may lead to inflammation, autoimmune disease, and potentially cancer.
It is interesting to note that the above-mentioned evidence of liver and muscle
toxicity in the EMA report was obtained with the model mRNA encoding the presumably non-toxic luciferase enzyme. Therefore, this observed toxicity does not
involve the spike protein. Luciferase, unlike spike protein, is not transported to thecell surface; and moreover the animals will have had no pre-existing immunity toluciferase that could have set off a rapid, intense immune response. We thus inferthat the reported cell damage is due to chemical toxicity, mediated most likely by
the cationic lipid components of the LNPs. Accordingly, future vaccines that use thesame delivery technology must also be expected to share this toxicity, regardless ofwhether they be directed against the spike protein, another SARS-CoV-2 antigen, ora different antigen or disease altogether.

3.4

Toxicity in tissues and organs• Muscle fiber degeneration and scarring• Subcutaneous inflammation• Liver cell vacuolization and degeneration• Inflammation and function damage to nerves and joints

These findings from rat experiments are listed in the EMA report [5]. They, too,
were obtained using the model vaccine which coded for luciferase rather than theactual SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which means that the toxicity is most likely due
to the cationic lipids in the LNPs. It must be noted that none of these toxic effects
observed in animals were monitored in the so-called clinical trials. They do, however, correspond to adverse effects observed in vaccinees since the onset of massvaccinations.

3.5

Animal data on reproductive toxicity• Very limited data collected in only one animal species (rats)• Loss of early embryos before implantation in the uterus >2 times more common

in vaccine group than in controls• Malformations more common in vaccine group than in controls

Pfizer tested its vaccine for reproductive toxicity on only one species (rats) andon only small numbers of animals (21 litters). A greater than twofold increase in
pre-implantation loss of embryos was noted, with a rate of 9.77% in the vaccine
group, compared to 4.09% in the control group. The EMA report merely states thatthe higher value was “within historical control data range” [5, p. 50]. EMA should ofcourse have obligated Pfizer to state unambiguously whether or not the observed

14difference was statistically significant; and if it was not, to increase sample sizes so
as to ensure the required statistical power.
The same criticism applies to the reported observations of “very low incidenceof gastroschisis, mouth/jaw malformations, right sided aortic arch, and cervicalvertebrae abnormalities.” Overall, Pfizer’s studies are inadequately described andapparently were also inadequately carried out.
The observed pre-implantation loss indicates toxicity at a very early stage ofdevelopment, either to the embryo or the nascent placenta. It might be caused
by a high level of spike protein expression, but also by toxic lipids; and it mightoccur already within the ovaries, but also affect the fertilized egg or subsequentdevelopmental stages within the Fallopian tubes or the uterus. This also applies tomalformations, although these would more likely be caused by damage later on inembryonic development, suggesting transfer of toxicity across the placenta.

3.6

Two possible pathways for vaccine toxicity to breastfed infants

Uptake of the vaccine by mammary gland cells opens two possible pathways of toxicity to the breastfed child: firstly, the expression of spike protein and its secretion
into the breast milk, and secondly, the wholesale transfer of the vaccine into themilk.
The mammary glands are apocrine, which means that they pinch off and releasefragments of their own cytoplasm into the milk; thus, anything that has reached
the cytoplasm might also reach the breast milk. In this connection, we note thatboth the VAERS database and the EU drug adverse events registry (EudraVigilance)
report fatalities in breastfed newborns shortly after vaccination of their mothers.
At least in some cases, the clinical picture included diffuse bleeding, which has also
been observed in vaccinated as well as in SARS-CoV-2-infected adults. Of course,
these cases should have triggered a careful search for vaccine components in breast
milk, and a targeted study of breast-fed infants of vaccinated mothers. A recent
PCR-based study found no mRNA in the breast milk, but the methodology of that15

study is questionable [12]. Studies on the presence of spike protein in the milk seemto be lacking entirely.

4

Summary

Pfizer’s animal data clearly presaged the following risks and dangers:• blood clotting shortly after vaccination,

potentially leading to heart attacks,

stroke, and venous thrombosis• grave harm to female fertility• grave harm to breastfed infants• cumulative toxicity after multiple injections

With the exception of female fertility, which can simply not be evaluated within the
short period of time for which the vaccines have been in use, all of the above risks
have been substantiated since the vaccines have been rolled out—all are manifest in
the reports to the various adverse event registries [9]. Those registries also containa very considerable number of reports on abortions and stillbirths shortly after
vaccination, which should have prompted urgent investigation.
We must emphasize again that each of these risks could readily be inferred fromthe cited limited preclinical data, but were not followed up with appropriate indepth investigations. In particular, the clinical trials did not monitor any laboratory
parameters that could have provided information on these risks, such as thoserelated to blood coagulation (e.g. D-dimers/thrombocytes), muscle cell damage (e.g.
troponin/creatine kinase), or liver damage (e.g. γ-glutamyltransferase). That thevarious regulatory agencies granted emergency use authorization based on suchincomplete and insufficient data amounts to nothing less than gross negligence.
Of particularly grave concern is the very slow elimination of the toxic cationiclipids. In persons repeatedly injected with mRNA vaccines containing these lipids—
be they directed against COVID, or any other pathogen or disease—this would resultin cumulative toxicity. There is a real possibility that cationic lipids will accumulate
in the ovaries. The implied grave risk to female fertility demands the most urgent
attention of the public and of the health authorities.
Since the so-called clinical trials were carried out with such negligence, the real
trials are occurring only now—on a massive scale, and with devastating results.
This vaccine, and others, are often called “experimental.” Calling off this failed
experiment is long overdue. Continuing or even mandating the use of this poisonous
vaccine, and the apparently imminent issuance of full approval for it are crimes
against humanity.

References[1]

Anonymous: SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT162, PF-07302048) 2.6.4 [Summary statement of the pharmacokinetic study] (Japanese). 2020. url: https://www.pmda.go.
jp/drugs/2021/P20210212001/672212000_30300AMX00231_I100_1.pdf.

16

[2]

Anonymous: SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT162, PF-07302048) 2.6.4 Summary statement of the pharmacokinetic study [English translation]. 2020. url: https://archive.
org/details/pfizer-confidential-translated.

[3]

V. Francia et al.: The Biomolecular Corona of Lipid Nanoparticles for Gene Therapy.
Bioconjug. Chem. 31 (2020), 2046–2059. pmid: 32786370.

[4]

M. A. Piatyszek et al.: Iodo-Gen-mediated radioiodination of nucleic acids. Anal.
Biochem. 172 (1988), 356–9. pmid: 3189783.

[5]

Anonymous: Assessment report/Comirnaty. 2021. url: https://www.ema.europa.
eu/en/documents/assessment- report/comirnaty- epar- public- assessmentreport_en.pdf.

[6]

A. F. Ogata et al.: Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of
mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients. Clin. Infect. Dis. (2021). pmid: 34015087.

[7]

S. Bhakdi and J. Tranum-Jensen: Molecular nature of the complement lesion. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 75 (1978), 5655–5659. pmid: 281714.

[8]

S. Bhakdi et al.: Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European
Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns. 2021. url: https://tinyurl.com/d4ce-letter.

[9]

L. Johnson: Official Vaccine Injury and Fatality Data: EU, UK and US. 2021. url: https://doctors4covidethics.org/official-eu-adverse-event-data-eu-uk-us/.

[10]

J. Tranum-Jensen et al.: Complement lysis: the ultrastructure and orientation of theC5b-9 complex on target sheep erythrocyte membranes. Scandinavian journal of
immunology 7 (1978), 45–6. pmid: 635472.

[11]

K. Romøren et al.: Transfection efficiency and cytotoxicity of cationic liposomes insalmonid cell lines of hepatocyte and macrophage origin. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1663
(2004), 127–34. pmid: 15157615.

[12]

Y. Golan et al.: Evaluation of Messenger RNA From COVID-19 BTN162b2 and mRNA1273 Vaccines in Human Milk. JAMA pediatrics (2021). pmid: 34228115.

17