The Paul Ehrlich Institute’s (PEI) safety report is an outrage. The report does not meet any of the criteria that must be applied to a report by an institute that is supposed to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines / gene therapies.
The great trivialisation already starts with the title of the report: “Suspected cases of side effects…”. What are the people at the Paul Ehrlich Institute paid for, if all they are useful for is to produce a supposed safety report after months of work, in which only SUSPECTED CASES are shown? Is there no one at the Paul Ehrlich Institute who can pick up a phone to follow up suspicious cases? Is there no one who has mastered a basic technique of empirical social research, such as a snowball method, with which it would be easy to answer the question of how many of the suspicious cases have progressed beyond the state of suspicion and become certainty?
But that is exactly the problem.
Political actors and their henchmen have no interest in certainty about the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines / gene therapies for whose manufacturers they are acting as door-to-door salesmen. If there were the political will, it would be easy to achieve certainty about the side effects of vaccines / gene therapies, side effects such as myocarditis. Myocarditis is interesting in that the fact that Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna gene therapies cause heart muscle inflammation cannot be disputed. It is well known. All that remains for those who want to make COVID-19 vaccination/gene therapy the only path to eternal salvation against all risks is to discredit their own data, to downplay and trivialise the data, to leave it out of context, and all this can be found in the PEI report when you read the remarks on myocarditis.
It starts with these two tables compiling the number of reports of cases of myocarditis after vaccination:
If you read the PEI safety report from page 22 onwards, you will notice that it only describes what can be seen in the tables. There is no classification whatsoever. This is what was reported to the PEI. Be satisfied with that.
Stand-alone, monolithic descriptors that act as if the data being reported had fallen out of the blue and accordingly did not need to be placed in any context are an indication of concealment, that PEI staff want to shirk responsibility, an indication that turns into certainty [it does exist] a few pages further on. It states:
“The reporting rate of myo-/pericarditis is highest for Comirnaty in male adolescents and young men (18-29 years) after the second vaccination with 8.97 and 8.68 cases per 100,000 vaccine doses, respectively (imputation of missing dose data, see methodology for explanation). In comparison, the reporting rate for female adolescents and young women after Comirnaty in the same age group is significantly lower with 0.76 and 1.53 cases per 100,000 vaccine doses, respectively.
For Spikevax, the reporting rate was highest in young males (18-29 years) after the second dose, with 25.60 cases per 100,000 vaccinations. Because of the small number of cases (n=3), it was not meaningful to calculate the reporting rate for children and adolescents aged 12-17 years. For young women (18-29 years), the reporting rate of myo/pericarditis after second vaccination was 5.77 cases per 100,000 vaccine doses. No cases were reported in female adolescents after the first dose.”
This passage attempts to feign accuracy in order to cover up the fact that essential information is simply being suppressed here:
Where is the reporting rate for all other age groups?
Where is the reporting rate for the cases of myocarditis that occur after the first vaccination?
How can it be explained that the PEI data do not seem to reflect a solid result of previous research on side effects, according to which boys aged 12 to 17 have the highest risk of developing myocarditis as a result of gene therapy?
One of the studies that directly addresses the risk of children and adolescents aged 12-17 years is entitled “SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children Ages 12-17: A Stratified National Database Analysis”. Tracy Beth Høeg, Allison Krug, Josh Stevenson and John Mandrola produced it. For the study, the authors chose very narrow selection criteria for the diagnosis of “myocarditis” or “pericarditis”. The data come from the CDC’s VAERS database, which collects Vaccine Adverse Reactions. The cases of myocarditis or pericarditis resulting from vaccination recorded in this database are underreported. This is not a controversial finding. It has been known for years that databases collecting adverse reactions to drugs or vaccines record only a fraction of actual cases. Høeg et al. (2021) again find evidence in their data that the CDC database captures at best 40-50% of actual cases, but probably much less.
On the basis of the reported side effects of myocarditis and pericarditis, the determination of which the authors, as already mentioned, define very narrowly and validate via other complaints, Høeg et al. (2021) calculate the ratio of benefits to risks of COVID vaccination for healthy boys aged 12 to 15 years and 16 to 17 years.
The results are such that you want to beat all the political buffoons who are rushing across the nation spreading their vaccination propaganda like the Pied Piper of Hamelin:
- Healthy boys aged 12 to 15 years are 3.7 times more likely to develop myocarditis or pericarditis than COVID-19.
- Healthy boys aged 16-17 years are 2.1 times more likely to develop myocarditis or pericarditis than COVID-19.
- Healthy boys aged 12 to 15 years have a 4.3-fold to 22.8-fold higher risk of being hospitalised for myocarditis or pericarditis than for COVID-19.
- Healthy boys aged 16-17 years have a 2.5 to 13.2-fold higher risk of being hospitalised for myocarditis or pericarditis than for COVID-19.
In fact, there is evidence that children and adolescents in Germany also contract myocarditis after vaccination, in large numbers in the first table, Table 6 of the PEI safety report. Myocarditis after gene therapy from Pfizer and Biontech is reported for 82 boys between the ages of 12 and 17. These 82 boys are omitted from the rest of the report. Instead, there is the note: “Due to the small number of cases (n=3), a calculation of the reporting rate for 12-17 year old children and adolescents was not meaningful” This note refers to Spikevax by Moderna, so one must conclude that the corresponding calculation for Comirnaty was possible but not desired, so it was omitted.
The indications that the PEI’s “safety report” is a cover-up report are so numerous that one cannot come to any other conclusion than that the true extent of considerable side effects, which primarily affect boys and young men aged 12 to 29, is being deliberately concealed here. Last but not least, the fact that the report pretends that the reports on which it is based are the universe of all myocarditis cases that have occurred after vaccination is a clear indication of this intention to conceal.
We have cited a paper in this text that shows that adverse events following drug treatment are notoriously underreported. The extent to which estimates of how many of the cases that actually occurred are reported varies from 5% to 50%. The only consensus is that at least 50%, and probably many more, of the adverse events that do occur are NOT reported.
Against this background, we have extrapolated the data of the PEI report to get an idea of what the reporting rate of 25.6 mentioned in the PEI report actually means. The fact that this reporting rate is simply passed on to the readers is another indication that the PEI report is trying to obfuscate and deceive, because if you don’t know what to make of the statement that the “reporting rate in young men … was highest after the second dose with 25.60 cases per 100,000 vaccinations” with Spikevax, then you have to deal with that. The PEI is only interested in placing a small number “25.6” next to a large number “100,000” in order to give the impression that the risks are few, isolated and very rare. Chapter 6 is entitled “Very rare risks of COVID-19 vaccines”. It is therefore already clear before data collection that the risks are “very rare”. Why should a researcher who wants to know whether certain side effects are frequent or rare classify these side effects as “very rare side effects” even before he has dealt with their frequency – if not for reasons of ideological cosmetics?
How common is myocarditis among young men who have not been vaccinated? An important comparison criterion, without which it is not possible to assign any meaning to the 25.6 per 100,000 SpikeVax vaccinated. The important data is missing from the PEI report. It is suppressed. Why?
And so we could go on listing what distinguishes this report, which is everything but a safety report.
However, we think it is more useful to give our readers an idea of the incidence of myocarditis among young men aged 18 to 29. To do this, we have taken two approaches. One based on the number of cases given in the two tables above for these young men, and one based on the reporting rates calculated in the PEI report for this age group of young men, however that may be.
Both numbers form the starting point that we have used to extrapolate the number of actual cases of myocarditis for different reporting rates, i.e. different unreported cases, on the basis of the approximately 6,000,000 young men who fall into this age group [data from the Federal Statistical Office] and taking into account the proportions for Comirnaty and Spikevax, which have a ratio of 4.9 : 1 to each other. The result can be seen in the following figure, it is a result that would prompt a responsible politician to stop the vaccination mania, and suspend the vaccination of young men until it is clarified how many thousands of victims the vaccination mania has already claimed in this age group. Victims who, for the most part, would not have been in any danger from COVID-19.Young men made sick because political actors want to feel important for once and have no problem risking the health of thousands.
