The vaccinations may have severe effects
Medical expertise advises against the "vaccinations"
Medical expertise advises against the “vaccinations
To the BÄK / BAK / LÄKs / LAKs
Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 "Ask your doctor or pharmacist"
Dear Mr. President / Dear Madam President,
In recent weeks, associations of panel doctors and chambers of physicians and pharmacists have called on their members to participate in vaccination campaigns against SARS-CoV-2 in state-established vaccination centers. We, as physicians, pharmacists and natural scientists signing by name, can neither support nor endorse these vaccinations for medical-scientific, ethical and professional legal reasons1. We urge you to immediately inform the medical and pharmacy communities of the facts listed below. We urge you to cease your support of these vaccination campaigns in view of the current state of knowledge about incalculable risks2,3,4,5,6 specific to this vaccination. This is in line with the responsibility of our medical and pharmaceutical profession and the vow1 of the profession to protect patients ....
In recent weeks, associations of statutory health insurance physicians and the chambers of doctors and pharmacists have called on their members to participate in vaccination campaigns against SARS-CoV-2 in state-run vaccination centers. As the undersigned doctors, pharmacists and natural scientists, we can neither support nor advocate these vaccinations for medical-scientific, ethical and professional reasons1. We ask you to inform the doctors and pharmacists immediately about the facts listed below. We urge you to stop your support of these vaccination campaigns in view of the current state of knowledge about incalculable risks2,3,4,5,6 especially this vaccination. This corresponds to the responsibility of our medical and pharmaceutical profession and the vow1 of the profession to protect patients
Reasons:
1. Like other drugs, vaccines also have undesirable effects. In individual cases, these can be serious or even fatal. This was shown, for example, in the course of the Pandemrix vaccination against H1N1 viruses in 2009. In retrospect, the risk-benefit ratio was clearly negative. The immense harm, especially the increased incidence of narcolepsy in children and adolescents, was ultimately far greater than the ex ante assumed benefit13. The victims still suffer from these vaccine damage to this day. 2. In order to prevent damage caused by drugs and vaccines as much as possible, as a lesson from the thalidomide disaster, the 1978 Medicines Act in Germany created legal requirements for the development, manufacture and testing of medicines and vaccines and continues to improve them to this day. These regulations are now largely standardized worldwide.
The importance of recording adverse drug reactions at an early stage for a risk-benefit assessment of vaccines did not only become apparent with the Pandemrix scandal. 3. The development of a vaccine is complex and time-consuming, it requires extensive tests not only for effectiveness, but also for safety. These tests include preclinical pharmacological and toxicological studies which, under normal circumstances, can take several years. A vaccine may only be administered to humans for the first time if these examinations do not reveal any disproportionate risks. These so-called preclinical investigations, especially long-term studies, are largely absent due to the short development time of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The immunologist and toxicologist Hockertz, among others, pointed out the associated risks of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.
Also in the independent information sheet "Der Arzneimittelbrief" (publisher is the chairman of the drug commission of the German medical profession), open questions and concerns regarding the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 currently in the approval process are discussed.7 The ongoing clinical phases I and II were shortened by so-called "telescoping"; this with the acceptance of incalculable risks (e.g. unwanted autoimmune reactions). The pharmaceutical letter also states7: “A very important efficacy endpoint of vaccines,“ sterile immunity ”, is hardly taken into account in the ongoing studies. If a vaccination were to achieve sustained sterile immunity - the ideal effect of a vaccination - chains of infection could be broken. However, the results of the current vaccination studies published so far do not allow us to expect that.
Some of the vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 currently in the approval process in Europe are genetic vaccines with new mechanisms of action. Such vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans worldwide5,8. The development and testing of these vaccines requires particularly careful assessment of the benefit-risk profile. The data required for this cannot be obtained in the abbreviated approval procedure. 6. Therefore, with regard to the planned vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, it must be determined that the vaccines were not developed lege artis in accordance with the regulatory requirements.
The shortened development periods imply considerable risks. Assuming the previously applicable approval requirements, a development and approval period of 5 to 8 years would be required here8. 7. Due to massive safety concerns in view of the current study situation9, Wodarg and Yeadon petitioned the EMA to end the ongoing clinical approval studies. The potential vaccine damage cannot currently be adequately assessed either in terms of frequency or severity5,6. Examples of risks to be mentioned are: a. Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), a known adverse effect on vaccines that has been studied for dengue, Ebola, HI, RS and other coronaviruses. This leads to an excessive immune reaction when infected with the respective virus after vaccination and thus to a usually serious illness or even death.
These were reasons why previous attempts to develop vaccines against coronaviruses had to be discontinued based on the in vitro data or animal experiment data7.b. Allergenicity with severe and very severe allergic reactions to vaccines to which polyethylene glycol or nanoparticles are added5. c. Antibody development against spike proteins and thus also against syncytin-1 with a potentially resulting female infertility9 and possible influence on the development of neuropsychiatric diseases such as MS and schizophrenia9,10.8.
Even the administration of vaccines for which a positive risk-benefit ratio cannot be proven with sufficient certainty does not seem ethically justifiable to us. If, however, as is the case here, potential risks have not been adequately investigated and there are serious indications of considerable health risks, especially with this vaccination, then the administration of such a vaccination is irresponsible in our view and incompatible with medical professional ethics1.
Conclusion:
For the reasons mentioned (incomplete data situation, incalculable medical risks), we can neither support nor support the introduction of the new vaccines
Even the approval of the new vaccines by the EMA does not release us as doctors and pharmacists from our medical-scientific 11 and legal responsibility 12 towards each individual. This includes a conscientious individualized education, advice and application. The involvement and hearing of critical experts and scientists is imperative and prompt and should now also be demanded by medical and pharmacist organizations. With the argument that they acted to the best of their knowledge, politics and the pharmaceutical industry will ultimately pass their responsibility on to doctors and pharmacists as advisory and executive bodies. The doctors and pharmacists involved are at the end of the chain of responsibility. It is the duty of all doctors and pharmacists to use their knowledge of medical risks, especially this vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, for the benefit of the patients entrusted to them and to refrain from acting with potentially harmful consequences.
With urgent concern, we ask our professional representatives to include the aspects listed above in the considerations on vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, to provide adequate information about the risks and to end the previous open or indirect approval of the vaccination.
With kind regards,
as correspondence addresses: Dr. med. Thomas Hampe (surgeon / trauma surgeon retired), Ginsterweg 19, 59821 Arnsberg
Priv.-Doz. Dipl.-Psych. Dr. med. Christian Wolff (FA for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine), Zur Höhe 67a, 58091 Hagen
Radimé Farhumand (anesthetist), Roggenkampsweg 6, 45883 Gelsenkirchen
Astrid Kipp (pharmacist), Maximilian-Kolbe-Str. 11, 33378 Rheda-Wiedenbrück
Dr. rer. nat. Notker Böhm (pharmacist), Am Mühlenrain 4, 04435 Schkeuditz Rolf-Herbert Müller (doctor for general medicine and chirotherapy), Azorenstr. 10e, 33729 Bielefeld
Dr. med. Ulrich Zacharias (specialist in gynecology), Altenmeller Ring 12, 49324 Melle
Dr. med. Thomas Quak (doctor), Hauptstr. 18, 82256 Fürstenfeldbruck
Dr. med. Matthias Keilich (doctor), Bismarckstr. 72/73, 12157 Berlin-Steglitz Dr. rer. nat. Angela Klein (pharmacist), Järkendorfer Str. 8, 97332 Volkach Heike Friedländer (pharmacist), Poststr. 4, 18225 Kühlungsborn
Bettina Weisheit (pharmacist), Lahnstr. 10, 26382 Wilhelmshaven
Dr. med. Andreas Becking (FA for internal medicine and psychotherapy), Eisenbahnstr. 64, 79098 Freiburg
Dr. med. Michaela Hösl (Department of Internal Medicine and Nephrology), Zehlendorfer Damm 75, 14532 Kleinmachnow
Helmut Keil (doctor), Weikersbergstr. 26, 89551 Königsbron
Literature All links checked December 23, 2020
1. BÄK, model professional code for doctors working in Germany, DÄB, 1.Febr. 2019; A 1-9; here: Preamble and Section 2 Paragraphs 2 to 4 DOI: 10.3238 / arztebl.2019.mbo_daet2018b and https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/pdf-Ordner/MBO/MBO-AE.pdf2. Phillips, N., et al. A leading coronavirus vaccine trial is on hold: scientists react. Nature 2020 Sept. 9 DOI: 10.1038 / d41586-020-02594-w and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32908295/3. Hockertz, S., Dec. 5, 2020 This vaccination is an experiment on humans https://reitschuster.de/post/die-imichtung-ist-ein-experiment-an-menschen/4. Haseltine, WA The Risks of Rushing a COVID-19 Vaccine Scientific American 2020 June 22 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-rushing-a-covid-19-vaccine/5. Jiang, S .: Don't rush to deploy COVID-19 vaccines and drugs without sufficient guarantees Nature 2020 March 16 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00751-96. Folegatti, P., et al .: Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nVoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report Lancet 2020 Aug15; 396 (10249): 467-478 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32702298/7. On the development of genetic vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 - technological approaches as well as clinical risks as a result of shortened test phases 2020, 54, 85 Pharmaceutical Letter Nov. 2020, updated Dec. 2020 8. Hockertz, S., Vaccines_ From development to approval - Critical Consideration of an immunotoxicologist, Environment - Medicine - Society, 33, Petition Wodarg, W., Yeadon, M., Petition / Motion to EMA: 2020, Dec.1, https://www.wodarg.com/app/download/9033912514 /Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_signed_with_Exhibits_geschwa%CC%88rzt.pdf?t=160744516910. Wang X, Huang J, Zhu F. Human Endogenous Retroviral Envelope Protein Syncytin-1 and Inflammatory Abnormalities in Neuropsychological Diseases. Front Psychiatry 2018 Sep 7; 9: 422 doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00422 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00422/full11. Board of Directors of the German Medical Association, October 18.10.2019, 117, on the recommendation of the Scientific Advisory Board: Science as a constitutional element of the medical profession, Deutsches Ärzteblatt, Jg 4, Issue 24, January 2020, 10.3238 DOI: 2020 / baek_wb_sn_wiss12 https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin /user_upload/downloads/pdf-Ordner/WB/Stellungnahme_Wwissenschaftlichkeit.pdf104. Parzeller, M. et al., Information and consent for medical interventions, Deutsches Ärzteblatt Vol. 9, Issue 2, March 2007, 104 https://cdn.aerzteblatt.de/pdf/9/576/a26.08.2009.pdf?ts= 07/3/35 + 3% 1713A2% 2015A63356. Flu vaccination: how Pandemrix triggered narcolepsy, Deutsches Ärzteblatt July 4, 2020: https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/9/ Flu vaccination-Wie-Pandemrix-ein-Narcolepsie-ausloes 2020/1 XNUMXth Petition Wodarg, W. , Yeadon, M., Petition / Motion to EMA: XNUMX, Dec.XNUMX,
YOU ARE ACTING IRRESPONSIBLY BY SUCH CALLS. FOR EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO KNOW IT IS PROPER, SCIENTIFIC ADVICE FROM REAL EXPERTS, NOT SELF-NAMED AS WODARK AND YEADON. YOUR OBJECTIVES ARE EXCEPTIONAL AND BECAUSE THEY DO NOT GIVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE FREQUENCIES OF SIDE EFFECTS, VERY SCIENTIFIC. POPULIST GUARANTEES ARE SPITTING BUT NOT ENLIGHTENING. THEREFORE WITHOUT WORDS: https://www.volksverpetzer.de/corona/impfstoffe-gutachterin-langzeitfolgen/
Ms. Falb is right: The damage, for example cancer, occurs very early, but the proof can only be obtained later. Narcolepsy processes are still going on now. And children with mutilated extremities were usually born after nine months, if pregnancy occurred at all. And the new DNA vaccine will definitely not cause cancer, so far these have only been experiments.
Your literatures all relate to “back then” and are no longer up to date. To a large extent they have nothing to do with the current issues. Perhaps Paracelsus has not already written something about the non-existence of Covid 19. Certainly!! So include in the list.
I doubt that you are serious about what you are writing, otherwise you would have referred to the two studies recently published in “Nature”, which have shown in a small and a large collective that ZERO infection is caused by healthy people. The topic is scientifically finished.
I would be interested in what qualifications Maritta S. has, which enables her to defame Wodark and Yeadon as “self-appointed experts”.
H.B.
There are far more qualified fields of study that have a higher scientific standard than medicine. Medicine lives from the “auxiliary sciences” such as chemistry, biology and physics. All advances and new findings in medicine come from this area or were made possible by it. The average doctoral thesis in the medical field corresponds in terms of scope and quality to a seminar paper in difficult subjects.
Goethe also already knew: “The spirit of medicine is easy to grasp”. However, Ewald Richter does not answer my question about Maritta S.'s qualification. Even if a physicist has written a doctoral thesis, he does not have to understand anything about virology and epidemiology.
Doctors, too, have always been critical of their profession. Johannes Müller said at the beginning of the 19th century: Medicine is not a science without the beginning and the end of physiology.
For the discussion about the Cologne Klabautermann, the following quote from the “Democratic Resistance”:
“The final message: Corona hits anti-social Lauterbach on the brain.
Zandvoort / umi. Not a day goes by on which Karl Lauterbach, half-finished medical student and member of the formerly respectable People's Party SPD, does not speak up with some alarmist nonsense. The current culmination: He is in favor of an “unlimited lockdown” because the coronavirus is mutating. But that is what viruses are like and that was true even before the Corona hoax. Note: It is evident that this virus - or some other disease - must have eaten its way through Lauterbach's brain. The best thing would be for this man to lock himself away indefinitely. Then the public would be spared the fantasies of this anti-social super-spreader. "