Even if the Western blots had been produced by Pfizer/BioNTech using fully automated processes [31], this would explain the square blot geometries, but this does not explain the partly exactly identical blot patterns for different samples and test series. The explanations (wording) in the text accompanying the test series also use common terms from the manual Western blot technique and provide no reference to a fully automated analysis process [32, 1(b)]. What was actually delivered is a fictitious pseudo-experimental circular argument in which exactly the desired result is presented.
If you consider that the analysis method is used to detect or ensure the protein verification of the spike protein formed by the ribosomal translation by the modRNA active ingredient, as well as its purification and the reproducible composition, which ensures the required pharmaceutical quality of the drug, then the question arises o.a. Suspicion of manipulation raises the question, what is actually contained in the vials/vials of the end product? The request to create Western blots for the characterization of the expressed (spike) protein was a requirement in the EMA’s external audit process for GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice [33]) for industrial mass production [34]. It resulted from a so-called serious deviation (Major Objection or Specific Obligation) registered by the approval authorities in the assessment report, in which the manufacturers were shown that they had simply “forgotten” to document the essential end product characterization and had only sent this to the approval authorities with an extremely long delay. or officially published at the beginning of 2023 [5], with the above-mentioned manipulated data. This already incredible sloppiness is supplemented by a further 28 serious deviations identified, which should actually have led to the immediate termination of the approval process. For comparison, if several serious deviations are identified in an equivalent external certification or recertification audit for a medical device (e.g. a medical training device) by a notified body, the manufacturer will immediately have production shut down until it can prove that these glaring defects have been permanently eliminated became. For the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 active ingredient, the approval authorities disregarded all gold standards of quality assurance that have been established for decades and simply waved approval through, despite the unacceptable product risks. The manufacturers were given until mid-2021 as a deadline to submit the remedial measures, i.e. the injection campaign was started with official authorization before the quality assurance measures were even ensured. In addition, the world’s three most important regulatory authorities (FDA, MHRA {UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency}, EMA) had already agreed to coordinate a common date for the conditional or emergency approval, which is foreseeable in any case before the final one Product certification was a problem, as leaked internal emails from high-ranking government officials show [35]. No wonder that those injected (“vaccinated”) are literally executed by gene therapy (or through contaminated batches) or experience serious side effects, as the pharmacovigilance data document shockingly clearly (even with enormous under-reporting and considerable delay in reporting!) [36].
In this context, a small retrospective on the tradition of falsifying scientific data is added, which goes back a quarter of a century and sheds significant light on the Pfizer/BioNTech/#blotgate case. At the end of the 1990s, the largest scientific scandal in medical history to date was uncovered involving the gene therapy [sic!] and oncology research duo Prof. Friedhelm Herrmann [37] and Prof. Marion Brach [38], who had worked for years at the universities of Freiburg, Ulm, Lübeck and Mainz [sic! where BioNTech CEO Ugur Sahin has a chair and BioNTech has its headquarters] have been up to academic mischief. The Freiburg gene therapy [sic!] pioneer Prof. Roland Mertelsmann (Univ. Freiburg) also came into the sights of the investigators. When the DFG (German Research Foundation) task force presented its final report in June 2000, a shock wave went through the scientific community in view of the extent of data manipulation and falsification that became apparent [39]. And what a coincidence, the “creative” research duo Hermann/Brach used, among other things, the infancy image processing software Adobe Photoshop to cobble together blot band patterns via copy & paste for the desired research results. The following original illustration from the DFG Task Force report illustrates the striking similarity to the obviously equivalently manipulated Western blots in the above. Pfizer/BioNTech publications.
