![\"\"](\"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
VSK<\/strong>: Ok \u2013 I\u2019ll now come to my second point, which is determining the vaccine dose, which they were supposed to analyse in the Clinical Phase 1. There\u2019s a Clinical Phase 1, and BioNTech has the task of not just detecting side effects, i.e. spontaneous adverse effects, but also of determining the vaccine dose. They tested three or four different vaccine dosages \u2013 10 micrograms of RNA, 20 \u00b5g, and 20 \u00b5g respectively in two doses, and [\u2026- Inaudible] of just one injection. And then they conducted their test 34.56 and the patients were supposed to make notes in the seven-day digital diary. Basically what they found was the higher the vaccine dose \u2013 the stronger and higher the concentration of RNA \u2013 the more frequent were the side effects<\/u>. Generally one can say that there were always more and stronger side effects with the second dose than with the first. Older trial participants had fewer because their immune system is already aged and is not so reactive. They naturally analysed the side effects that have been published \u2013 fever, fatigue, headaches, joint pain, myalgia, shivering, vomiting, diarrhea. Nothing more is covered in the the publication \u2013 we don\u2019t know whether they did more.<\/p>\n They also looked at how many antibodies were produced and then bind the spike protein: they did a binding assay and investigated the antibodies when they encounter a virus. They generated an artificial SARS-CoV-2 virus that contains a GFB [NB: \u201cgreen fluorescent protein<\/em>\u201d, I think this was mNeonGreen \u2013 a fluorescent marker], i.e., cells that are infected with the virus light up green, then one can count how many green cells there are at the end. And if one then isolates the antibodies from the vaccinated trial participants and mixes them with the viruses, then they partially neutralise the viruses, and then one has fewer green cells, you can see that.<\/p>\n So to summarise, the vaccine has a positive effect, but the criticism is that there is no positive correlation between the different vaccine doses, i.e., we see the same effect at 10, 20 and 30 micrograms. Despite this they want to use 30 micrograms as the vaccine dose. Although 30 micrograms has many more side effects than 10 micrograms<\/u>. The benefits are the same, but the risk is different. This is not scientifically justifiable!<\/p>\n If I were writing an application for an animal trial and I wanted to vaccinate the animals with 30 micrograms and I had to justify why 30 micrograms, why not 10, then I would never get past the door with my animal trial application if I got the same effect with 10 micrograms. There is simply no additional benefit if I increase the RNA volume in these assays.<\/p>\n WW<\/strong>: I have a question: do these microgram values include the additives (37.51), are the LNPs included, or do these dosages only refer to the mRNA?<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: The dose only refers to the mRNA. But they are of course wrapped in the LNPs, and the higher the microgram dosage mRNA, the more LNPs you need.<\/p>\n WW<\/strong>: Ok.<\/em><\/p>\n VF<\/strong>: Is that a question of costs?<\/em><\/p>\n WW<\/strong>: If the side effects come from the nanoparticles, then the dose dependency could be explained by that, and not by the effect of the mRNA.<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: The side effects?<\/p>\n WW<\/strong>: Yes.<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: Yes of course. Because these are primarily due to the LNPs. But I\u2019ll get onto these at the end.<\/p>\n The fact is that the clinical study Phase 1 is normally there to find out what quantity of vaccine you need<\/u>; it is important to prove<\/strong> what the vaccine dose should be. What vaccine dose you need to get the effect you want to have, ultimately.<\/p>\n To do that you need to conduct a statistical test across all the different vaccine doses: in science that is a clear case of [Wanneranzapf mengen test<\/em> \u2013 inaudible \u2013 a volume test with a name], that is a particular test that one has to use, it tells you whether there is a positive correlation, i.e., that the effect increases with a rising vaccine dose or not, whether it falls, or whether it remains the same. They didn\u2019t do this test<\/u>, giving the excuse that there were too few data points per group, i.e., that they only had 12 trial participants per group. I wonder whether they knew from the outset why they weren\u2019t consigning more trial participants.<\/p>\n And second, it is an absolutely stupid excuse because any scientist would be happy to have 12 datapoints per group, i.e. 12 trial participants per group. It is entirely possible to draw a statistical conclusion \u2013 you can do it with 5 or 6 people, it won\u2019t deliver such robust results, but with 12 per group you can draw a fairly good conclusion as to whether there is a correlation or not.<\/p>\n If I look at the image \u2013 and I\u2019ve got a trained eye \u2013 and compare the median values and the scatter of the data, I can already say that there is no correlation. Whatever test I do, it fluctuates, they all have more or less the same effect.<\/p>\n I.e. the excuse that they didn\u2019t want to do this test \u2026 or let\u2019s say if they had done this test, they would have produced the evidence that 30 micrograms would be too much, they should have used 10 \u00b5g vaccine doses.<\/p>\n RF<\/strong>: But that is a particularly egregious error. If that is part of the Phase 1 trial to test out the dose that will be effective, if at the same time as you are telling us Dr. Schmidt-Krueger it doesn\u2019t increase the efficacy: the efficacy remains the same regardless of whether 10 \u00b5g or 30 \u00b5g are used but the side effects increase, that is severe medical malpractice<\/u><\/em>.<\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: You have completely understood. That\u2019s exactly how it is<\/u>. In my opinion they intentionally didn\u2019t use the test because they would have had the evidence and no justification any longer for 30 \u00b5g. And then they give the stupid excuse that they can\u2019t do the test because they don\u2019t have enough samples.<\/p>\n MT<\/strong>: First of all I\u2019m wondering how expensive this vaccine is. If I need more of this strange fluid, then it will be more expensive, and for me as a layperson that doesn\u2019t really have an impact on the issue of whether – I mean, if one assumes that it is this miracle treatment, how much do I get from a dose if I increase the dose, or am I getting this wrong? Wouldn\u2019t I get more out of the vaccine if I said right from the outset that I need to use less? Or am I misunderstanding something?<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: We know that the vaccine vial is for 5 people, but you get enough out for 6. You give a little less, but you have previous knowledge that that will also work.<\/p>\n RF<\/strong>: The point you are explaining here will have further consequences. We are seeing that it has adverse effects through to death, this point and what\u2019s occurring here will play an extremely big role because the doctors have to take responsibility, they are participating in this \u2013 this is serious medical malpractice.<\/em><\/p>\n This also involves a reversal of the burden of proof. Those who have been damaged no longer need to provide evidence that the cause of what has occurred is the vaccine: the doctor has to prove that it was not the vaccine and that he\/she is not guilty. This is going to be a really strong argument.<\/em><\/p>\n VF<\/strong>: Sorry, another question about the costs. Normally one would think \u2013 after all, it\u2019s a commercial enterprise \u2013 I wouldn\u2019t put ingredients into it that are three times the quantity of what I really need: the RNA surely has a cost.<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: It\u2019s costing US more!<\/p>\n RF<\/strong>: That was the simple question. The more of the stuff is pumped into people, the more expensive it is, that\u2019s logical. It would be a remarkable result and difficult to explain \u2013 to the taxpayer particularly.<\/em><\/p>\n VF<\/strong>: Let\u2019s say the price people are willing to pay for a product of this kind, where they don\u2019t really know what\u2019s in it, is EUR 50, it wouldn\u2019t really be the case that this price would increase if I said I\u2019m putting three times the quantity in. So if is achieved the same effect, they could say this effect costs EUR 50. They won\u2019t have negotiated a price that revolves around how many DNA particles it contains or whatever?<\/em><\/p>\n RF<\/strong>: The contracts are secret. Do you know anything about it, is it calculated according to vaccine quantity? I can\u2019t imagine anything else really.<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: I don\u2019t know how reliable the data are, but I have heard that normally there 5 vaccines in one vial, but they charge 6 vaccines per vial. Although the company doesn\u2019t have any extra costs for this. That\u2019s a piece of information I have, but I don\u2019t know if it is true, I\u2019ve just heard it.<\/p>\n Dr. H<\/strong>: And something else. The vaccine is mixed by hand: you take the vial, take the unit of measure that you need for one person, and add saline to it, and then it\u2019s injected?<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: Yes, it arrives dehydrated, i.e. all the water is removed. It contains a small amount of white powder. This is then dissolves in the saline solution and then you have to take the respective amount out of that. The people who received five times the dose probably got all of it.<\/p>\n Dr. H<\/strong>: Exactly, that was the point I wanted to get at: first of all, why do they do that? That seems to me to be a clear vulnerability in the system. That\u2019s the source of error really. Is it because of transport volumes, or what is it?<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: Yes, transportation is much better when it is dehydrated. It can be stored better that way.<\/p>\n Dr. H<\/strong>: That explains it. I find that risky. From what I have heard, it has gone wrong. Someone actually forgot to divide off the right quantity, and the patient was given five times the dose. What would the risks of that be in your opinion?<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: [Inaudible, \u2026 \u201cThe damage\u201d] is much higher. But I will come to that.<\/p>\n We are still talking about the volume: what I\u2019ve covered is not the only point of criticism while we\u2019re on this subject. In the same study they have also \u2013 well, they claim that it is important to give two doses. That may well be true, but they haven\u2019t proved it<\/u>; they haven\u2019t tested it scientifically<\/u>. What they did in this study was they gave two doses of all the quantities: 10 \u00b5g, 20 \u00b5g and 30 \u00b5g. Normally to make the assertion [translator: that it is necessary to use 2 doses], you need to have a group where you give just one dose. Normally it\u2019s like this: you get an injection, then the body forms antibodies, it takes a while until it starts, the antibody titre rises and then it forms a saturation curve. So at some point it doesn\u2019t go any higher: then you have reached saturation. And this goes up over time. But to find out whether the second dose has an effect you have to give the injection and find out how high the titre is after 35 days. And then do the same with the other group; after the same time, 35 days, look at how high the titre is. And if the titre is higher, then the second dose has had an effect. If it is not higher, then the second dose has not had an effect.<\/p>\n I assume it did have an effect because in another vaccine similar to this [Which? Would be useful to know] it did have an effect, but in that case the scientific data were generated a little shoddily \u2013 the time is sometimes missing in the data, they simply left it out so that one can\u2019t prove whether it has had an effect or not \u2026. But from experience I think that a second dose is likely to have an effect \u2026 but I\u2019m sure it\u2019s like that in a court of law: belief is not evidence or knowledge<\/u> \u2013 i.e., they would have had to prove it in this clinical study with this vaccine. They didn\u2019t do that: they are simply making the claim.<\/u><\/p>\n RF<\/strong>: There isn\u2019t a study on it?<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: No, I haven\u2019t found one. There is the Clinical Study No. 1 on human beings, that is where they should have tested it.<\/p>\n RF<\/strong>: They should have tested it within the aegis of the Phase 1 study.<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: In the study on mice\/rats. I don\u2019t know, but this small study on human beings: that would have been the moment where they should have tested it. That\u2019s my opinion.<\/p>\n RF<\/strong>: No, that is correct. Legally that\u2019s the case. They have simply made the claim. Somewhere along the line they made the assertion: better twice than once \u2013 perhaps even three times wouldn\u2019t be a bad idea, would have been just as good from all one can tell. That is really ghastly. Professor Hockertz told us that it is usual in the development of new medications \u2013 also in the case of vaccines: no preclinical phase was done, no animal trials: Phases 1, 2 and 3 took place in a completely telescoped fashion, and now you are telling us after having \u2026 you have just pointed out that the EMA has made various demands that haven\u2019t yet been fulfilled in some cases because they only have to be met by July \u2013 but they\u2019re already going ahead and vaccinating. What\u2019s going on here? The study is basically taking place now, right before our eyes, live on stage \u2013 on patients who have no idea what we are discussing here just now! We\u2019ll have to tell our Israeli colleagues this, they won\u2019t be happy at all \u2026.<\/em><\/p>\n Dr. H<\/strong>: And just to mention Reiner: without the vaccinated being tracked like the trial participants that they are. If I were a trial participant in a vaccine test series then I would have to be medically tracked, i.e., assessed. People are simply being vaccinated, and if they die it\u2019s counted as a Covid death<\/u>. That\u2019s the reality. Or more frequently it\u2019s said they died of their underlying conditions. Anything to prevent it being seen as a result of the vaccine.<\/em><\/p>\n RF<\/strong>: We just heard that at the start Renate: The fact that three times the quantity that is really necessary is being administered, and at the same time the risk is increased by three times: we definitely have medical malpractice<\/u>, we definitely have the reversal of the burden of proof, and we can\u2019t say any longer that was Covid, instead we can say we want to hear from you: is the causality \u2026 you have to prove that as you have made huge blunders. Is the causality different to the severe medical malpractice that we have to accuse you of. That is what I said from the beginning: this is definitely bodily harm. At the very least because there isn\u2019t any proper up-front clarification\/information provided, [as there would be if you were taking part in a study]. But what I\u2019m hearing now in addition to that \u2013 my goodness \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: I haven\u2019t managed this for Moderna or AstraZeneca yet. I will do it soon, but had too many commitments and so many requests, broadcasts on Youtube etc.<\/p>\n Dr. H<\/strong>: Moderna would be more important than AstraZeneca because Moderna is already on the market<\/em>.<\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: Exactly, that will be the next that I do, looking into the studies. Any more questions on that part? Because now we are getting to the side effects. That\u2019s a real head turner. I suspect it will knock you for six.<\/p>\n A preclinical study was done, but at the time Professor Hockertz discussed this it didn\u2019t exist, he didn\u2019t know anything about it. It came out with the report at some point in mid-December. And I spoke to him at the end of November.<\/p>\n So there is a preclinical study. Let\u2019s look at the basics to start with.<\/p>\n The technology of the nanoparticles<\/strong>. I don\u2019t want to completely malign it. It\u2019s a superb technology really. But the problem is that it is still much too early for use in human beings. The toxicity is still too high<\/u>, that first needs to be eliminated, then it would really be a brilliant technology. There are many scientists working on getting rid of this toxicity, research has been conducted on that for years. [Trans: for 20 years she says at the end.]<\/p>\n It is actually used for cancer patients, but there the risk\/benefit ratio is very different, I\u2019ll come back to that. In a healthy person such as with a vaccine, I consider it disproportionate to apply this technology at the moment while this toxicity exists<\/u>. Nanoparticles, these are very small particles and always damaging to cells<\/u>, because the smaller the particle, the more interaction they can have with cell components, i.e., with the proteins, with other lipids, or with the DNA etc. But one needs a nanoparticle lipid envelope because one can\u2019t just inject the RNA into people, it is broken down within 10 minutes by the nucleases that are swimming around. The cells won\u2019t take up the RNA\/DNA if it is not nicely presented via a lipid nanoparticle for example<\/u>.<\/p>\n There are various studies in vivo on mice or rats \u2013 I don\u2019t know which animal, I have to ask \u2013 it has been found that if one gives long-lasting LNPs to animals, via inhalation over the lungs, that you get DNA strand breaks in the lungs. And that can trigger serious lung disease or lung cancer<\/u>: it has been found that lung cancer develops<\/u>. And the uptake of LNPs in the spleen has been detected: DNA strands breaks were also identified there<\/u>. And it has also been found that when the LNPs are transported in the blood then thromboses can occur, or haemolysis<\/u> \u2013 haemolysis means the sudden dissolution of erythrocytes, i.e. red blood cells, this causes hypoxia.<\/p>\n (Whisper)\\ VSK<\/strong>: I\u2019ll get round to speaking about that. That can directly be applied to the BioNTech vaccine.<\/p>\n And now I want to explain to you how this technology functions<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Could you let me use the screen \u2013 then we\u2019ll have a better idea of where the toxicity comes from.<\/p>\n RF<\/strong>: We\u2019ll get that sorted.<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: Now you can see a white piece of paper, right? Can you see it? Ok, it\u2019s like this. Here is an LNP. Inside it is the RNA. This LNP, it isn\u2019t just one RNA, there are lots of RNAs inside, always the same, but lots of them. The LNP in this lipid envelope consists of many different lipids. There is a helper lipid: that is completely uninteresting, it\u2019s not toxic or anything. It\u2019s simply there for the structure of the envelope. Then there is a cationic lipid 1. And then there is the PEG component. It is cationic. And then we have cholesterol.<\/p>\n So these are the different components and these 4 components are also needed for this. And then we have a cell. Let\u2019s call it a muscle cell because we inject into a muscle. And this cell has a negative charge here because of the lipids that are stored in it. And this LNP up here is neutral i.e. the cell has absolutely no reason to absorb it. How it gets into the cell is as follows: there are many publications on this subject that have established that it comes in through an ApoE transporter \u2013 there\u2019s a lot of chemistry now but you need to understand this.<\/p>\n There are proteins in the blood called ApoE. Those are the components of HDL-LDL that are tested in human blood tests to find out cholesterol levels, ApoE is always there. The ApoE can bind to cholesterol, that is why it binds the cholesterol from the particle here. And now this whole particle is recognised by the cell; the cell has ApoE receptors, there are different ones. There\u2019s the LDL-receptor or LAP \u2013 there are many, certainly well over 10 different receptors and they then bind the ApoE where the whole lipoprotein complex binds to it and then it goes into the cell. Then the whole cascade begins. The LNP is located in a vesicle out here. And there\u2019s a sensor in the membrane here, the TLR \u2013 toll-like receptor \u2013 they are there to recognise\/locate foreign DNA\/RNA. So if it were a virus rather than the vaccine, it would recognise RNA and break it down.<\/p>\n That is part of the immune system. But since the RNA is surrounded by an LNP shell, the immune system cannot recognize the RNA and it is not broken down, this is done on purpose. We don’t want or the vaccine manufacturers don’t want the RNA to be broken down. And what occurs now is a completely normal process, it\u2019s what always occurs in the cells: it doesn’t matter at all, regardless of these LNPs, that protons now migrate in. So everything in here is positively charged. Due to this positive charge, part of the PEG lipid is split off – it is pH-sensitive, the lipid is broken apart and this PEG can no longer suppress the cationic charge of the lipid in the shell here. This means that the lipid is positively charged. And so everything in here becomes positive – and then, in principle, water flows in, and the whole thing bursts open and the RNA it is released into the cell.<\/p>\n You now have the released RNA and the individual components: helper peptide, the cationic peptide that is now positively charged because it is no longer suppressed by the PEG, then there\u2019s the PEG and the cholesterol.<\/p>\n What has occurred now is that the TLR can access the RNA, which sends a signal to the outside. The cell then produces chemokines and cytokines that are released from the cell. That is the first part of the innate immune response.<\/p>\n At the same time the RNA goes into an area of the cell, it is transported to a specific area where the production of proteins takes place. The protein \u2013 this is where the RNA is then \u2013 the protein is then only synthesised\/produced here so that the spike protein can be resynthesised. And the spike protein can be found everywhere in the membrane; it migrates to the surface of the cell so that there are spike proteins everywhere on the surface of the cell. The spike protein was not there at first \u2013 it came into being in response to the vaccination and that\u2019s why it\u2019s called a genetically modified cell<\/u>. We have therefore become a genetically modified organism<\/u>. As long as the spike proteins are there and the RNAs, we are GMOs. They\u2019ll go away at some point, then we\u2019ll no longer be a GMO but we are a GMO for as long as they are there.<\/p>\n This is genetic modification. It is not integrated in the DNA but occurs in a different way, namely indirectly.<\/p>\n OK, let\u2019s carry on.<\/p>\n [Question<\/strong>: How long does it stay in there?<\/em>]<\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: Such an RNA has variable stability \u2013 it can last from a few minutes because these RNAs are important for development, but also several days. I will talk about the length of time it is in there later on.<\/p>\n So how do we get to the rest of the immune response? Down here there are chemokines and cytokines. You have to think of them as a fragrance secreted by the cells. And then there are immune cells, those are APCs: antigen-presenting cells. They pick up the scent of the chemokines and cytokines and migrate to the highest concentration of them. Because the production of the chemokines and cytokines is a cry for help from the cell, saying \u201cThere\u2019s something wrong here<\/em>\u201d. Something\u2019s occurring to me. And so the immune cells come along and check what\u2019s going on. What\u2019s wrong they ask themselves and they meet the LNPs \u2013 they are not all simultaneously taken in by the cell. They are also taken in by the cells \u2013 they are also inside here. The LNPs \u2013 the spike proteins are also formed here too, only these cells have the feature that the proteins are degraded again, that is the function of the cell. They have fragments of the spike proteins, and each one is presented on the surface of the cell for the rest of the immune system. This occurs via the MHC class of receptors. And when these APC cells have absorbed the spike protein, they migrate back to the spleen for example and are digested. Then they are presented to the other immune cells, i.e. the B-cells and the T-cells. I\u2019m keeping it simple because it is really much more complicated in real life. But what occurs now is on the one hand that the B cells are activated, they become plasma cells and now produce antibodies. Antibodies against the spike protein up here which is now finally on the surface of the cell. And these antibodies now migrate here, they migrate through the bloodstream and find their antigens and the cell where the spike protein is expressed. They then bind this spike protein onto the muscle cells for example. At the same time up here, T cells are activated and become for instance cytotoxic T cells which also migrate in the blood and seek these antibodies and bind to them via their T cell receptors. This is how a complex arises. Once formed, the T cell substance enters the cell so that this cell is prompted to commit cell suicide \u2013 cell death. This is called programmed cell death or apoptosis.<\/p>\n What we have here that is new with this vaccine is it\u2019s not just proteins that are injected into us that swim in the blood and are then eliminated by the antibodies: we have here various avenues whereby toxicity\/cell destruction take place<\/u>. One way is via this here: the cytotoxic T-cell forces the muscle cell into apoptosis. And then we have RNA, which is fundamentally also toxic for the cell from a certain length onwards. And above all \u2013 this is particularly important \u2013 the cationic lipid, it is cationic, i.e. it has a positive charge. And that is very very toxic, we have known that for over 20 years.<\/p>\n So, that is the process for now. Do you have any questions about it?<\/p>\n RF<\/strong>: That is the process after the vaccination, before you even get into the vicinity of a dangerous virus?<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: Yes, that\u2019s how the immune response arises, i.e. it\u2019s part of the immune response. It is much more extensive, there are other factors, but that is very roughly how antibodies are produced and how the antigens – the spike proteins – are destroyed in the cell.<\/p>\n So: I wanted to show you exactly what the toxicity is. We definitely have these cationic lipids in the cell, and now I\u2019ll talk about what they do with the cell.<\/p>\n I\u2019ll just leave the screen share now.<\/p>\n Ok, that\u2019s fine.<\/p>\n So: the cationic lipids<\/strong>. I\u2019ll go back to the BioNTech vaccine: the LNPs consist of up to 50% of these cationic lipids: 50% is very high, they are toxic because they have this positive charge. This enables them to enter into interactions with other components of the cell really well, they can also basically interact with negatively charged amino acids. This destroys the proteins which lose their ability to function because they \u201cunfold\u201d as it is called. In principle they can interact with the DNA because the DNA is also negatively charged due to its phosphate groups, creating DNA strand breaks. They can also interact with other lipids because they are also negatively charged, especially the lipids of the cell membrane. E.g. the cell membrane of the mitochondria, these are the powerhouses of the cell that are vital for energy generation; I\u2019m mentioning this because oxygen radicals are formed in the mitochondria when energy is produced. This is a very natural process, but the cell also has a repair mechanism so that these oxygen radicals are removed again and rendered harmless, this is how the cell survives, it is simply a balance. They are produced, you can\u2019t prevent that because oxygen is consumed, which generates oxygen radicals, but avenues have been found to disable these oxygen radicals. If however these cationic lipids gain entry, it is confirmed in many publications that they destroy this membrane [Trans: meant is the mitochondrial membrane, here] and this leads to the formation of a large number of oxygen radicals. These oxygen radicals create a lot of damage in the cell. They interact \u2013 they alter the amino acids, the cell pours out as many cytokines as it can, the oxygen radicals also attack membranes and create lipid peroxidation. Membrane integrity is jeopardised, the membrane becomes porous, and when a cell membrane becomes porous water flows in and then the ion balance is disrupted. This means the entire cell loses its function because the function of proteins depends on the ion concentration, on the calcium ion for example, and the magnesium ion. The cell experiences maximum oxidative stress, as it is called in the specialist terminology. And when that stress is so high and the DNA is also damaged, then the cell goes into apoptosis \u2013 it self-destructs.<\/p>\n That\u2019s all I have to say about that for now.<\/p>\n RF<\/strong>: So there are two factors that lead to that.<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: Yes: one is the immune response<\/u> \u2013 via the binding of the antibody.<\/p>\n The other factor is that specific component: the cationic lipid<\/u>. It\u2019s just this component that is so dangerous. It creates maximum oxidative stress in the cell leading to such damage that the cell can\u2019t repair itself fast enough<\/u>. And that\u2019s why it dies. It has to self-destruct, or it transforms into a cancer cell. That is the alternative. So it usually self-destructs because if a cancer cell develops, specific damage results, there are other factors involved, but generally it dies.<\/p>\n And now I\u2019ll get to the risk\/benefit ratio<\/strong>. The technology is very sensible in cancer therapy. The purpose of this technology there is to kill cancer cells. We are now getting a vaccine using the same technology that is used in cancer therapy to kill cancer cells. Where cancer therapy is concerned: up to now we have only had chemotherapy or radiotherapy; they have the aim of triggering oxidative stress in the cell to encourage it to self-destruct. But up to now this has been very unspecific: healthy tissue is also irradiated and dies.<\/p>\n With this [encapsulation] technology you can insert proteins or other substances in the nanoparticle envelope that are targeted at detecting and finding the cancer cells. There are already relatively good, successful studies, and this is why it is used in cancer therapy.<\/p>\n Cancer cells have a completely different pattern on their cell surface to healthy cells. They have for example a lot of transferrin receptors or folate receptors: when one inserts the ligands into LNPs, i.e. builds transferrin or folate into these LNPs, then these LNPs find the cancer cells that have the receptors for these. As a result, these LNPs target the cancer cells almost exclusively and create oxidative stress in them so that the cancer cells are killed.<\/p>\n VF<\/strong>: Is that a local occurrence, or can this spread out across the whole body, or locate to specific niches?<\/em><\/p>\n VSK<\/strong>: In the case of cancer cells it is designed so that it is local, and now we\u2019re really getting to the point: in the case of the vaccine it is not local<\/u>. It spreads out through the entire body.<\/u> I\u2019ll first say a sentence about that. There\u2019s the toxicity of the cationic lipid, which initially works on a cellular level. Now a word about the PEG \u2013 I believe it has been published in the media that in some cases if you have previously come into contact with PEG it is possible that you have formed antibodies to it, and if you have antibodies and then come into contact with PEG at any time after that, which is the case with the vaccine, then you may suffer an allergic reaction or anaphylactic shock due to this hypersensitivity. This depends on how much PEG is in these LNPs \u2013 it\u2019s 2 – 6% in the case of BioNTech, and on the how strong the binding affinity of your own antibodies against the PEG is. <\/u>Having antibodies doesn\u2019t always mean that they will immediately bind to the PEG: the binding strength varies from one antibody to another.<\/p>\n The strength of the allergic reaction is individual: it depends on how powerful the antibodies are, and the volume of PEG on this second contact<\/u>. Otherwise where the PEG is concerned, there are publications that say it is a little toxic, but one can\u2019t find any great detail on it.<\/p>\n So with PEG you can get allergic reactions, but the cationic lipids are absolutely toxic for cells.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/3.jpeg\")
<\/em>Dr. H<\/strong>: Have you conducted the same evaluation for the Moderna vaccine that is already being used, or only for BioNTech?<\/em><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/4-scaled.jpg\")
<\/p>\n