I request you review the evidence presented here, in conjunction with other submissions, that Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, knowingly ordered the removal of critical manufacturing safeguards, knowingly released covid vaccine material contaminated with the Simian Virus (SV 40), knowingly distributed covid vaccines despite prior warnings that their lipid based adjuvant technology would cause cytokine storms and other injuries, and so knowingly caused mass injuries and deaths, and that he engaged in a coordinated effort to suppress the whistleblower, myself, whose warnings preceded by ten years the resulting injuries and deaths.
I request an investigation into whether the ongoing persecution of myself warrants the pretrial detention of Albert Bourla and measures against Pfizer to prevent the destruction of evidence because no effort has been made by Bourla or his circle to correct the violaations in D 15 218 or E 17 449, E 17 378, E 179, 484, 485 2021, restore my righs or give me emergency help so I continue to he homeless, have to sleep rough, am penniless and in grave danger despite my explicit warnings of the threat to me in Larisa sent my email to Bourla, Pfizer s corporate compliance unit, Bill Gates, Jared Kushner and Kyrriakos Mitsotakis also today.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yfreupvzbwqrkc2p05quv/GatesCrimesInTheNetherlandsAndD15218.pdf?rlkey=5w6htfz5320qv7pxdkhlmi7kt&st=zpewgcji&dl=0
Key evidence which Bourla seems to be seeking to suppress and destroy concerns documents, probes and my warnings from 2009 concerning a contamination incident by Baxter in Austria, which draw attention to the almost certain existence of a deliberate order byBourla to bypass standard biosafety procedures intentionally to contaminate vaccine material which can be identified in logs and so which would make Bourla criminally responsible for the vaccine contamination and harms if authorities investigate Pfizer s internal records.
Plesase preserve copies of these 2009 Baxter records because I believe this is what Bourla wants to stop you having to connect the dots and show his knowledge, authority, decision and intention.
KEY DOCUMENTS
MY CHARGES AGAINST BAXTER IN 2009 8th April 2009
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pjbjmc00f8i01/Baxter%20Birdflu%20charges%202009.pdf?dl=0
CONFIRMATION OF AN INVESTIGATION BY THE VIENNA PROSECUTORS FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE AUSTRAN HEALTH MINISTER 20th May 2009 (Hinausschrift)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qzcg1e1teq9qo5n/BMG%20Baxter%20Anzeige.pdf?dl=0
Prosecutor assigned Dr Stefan Apsostol
Vienna prosecutor office file number 501 UT 23- 09W
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tg76rkkgm1byseu/BaxterFileNumber.pdf?dl=0
File sent to Korneuburg, responsible for Orth an der Donau area wher Baxter was located
(Email from 5h May 2009 "My email to the Korneuburg Prosecutor)
Prosecutor Christian Pawle, Korneuburg file number 8st 130 / 09v
(Email from 11 November 2009 "Akteneinsicht" )
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d6vt6j21u5cf5y5/Gmail%20-%20BaxterAkteneinsicht.pdf?dl=0
Austrian parlimentary answers May 20th 2009 on the Baxter contamination incident revealing 72 kilos were involved
My charges Faymann 2009 concerning the discovery that the contaminated material was 72 kilos enough to vaccinate perhaps 250,000 people
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2zx3jll4l1fe2ci/Charges%20Faymann%202009.pdf?dl=0
My cytokine storm post from 2009
My 2009 FBI charges
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m3rx9mn7cjtk4h4/FBI%20Swine%20Flu%20Report%202009.pdf?dl=0
Email chain with Christina Fadeeva 2016 asking about the charges (E 17 449)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j08prckw6j535ox/ChristinaFadeevaEmailsJune2016%20comp_.pdf?dl=0
SUMMARY E 17 449
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j08prckw6j535ox/ChristinaFadeevaEmailsJune2016%20comp_.pdf?dl=0
In this submission, I show how three things that are otherwise separate are connected to provide the strongest possible circumstantial evidence that Albert Bourla and Pfizer management knowingly and deliberately contaminated vaccine material with the SV and gave Americans a lipid based covid vaccine they could foresee would trigger cytokine storms and other damage while simultaneously supressing a reporter giving accurate warnings
The hree things I connect here are advance warnings by me from 2009 about contamination of vaccine material with the SV, the specific mechanism of harm of vaccines like covid, namely, cytokine storms, and Bourla's subsequent conduct in relation also to the stand down of biological manufacturing safeguards at Pfizer designed to prevent contaminaion.
2009 : I predict that a particular manufacturing change will create a particular contaminant with the Simian Virus (SV 40) and predict a particular inflammatory injury from the lipid based pandemic vaccine technology, specifically, cytokine storms
I also predict the pandemic vaccines will cause more injury to young people with stronger immune systems.
Crucially, I allege my 2009 Baxter charges and the investigation shed light on whether Bourla knowingly and deliberately ordered the stand down of all biossafety safeguards to allow the covid material to be contaminated wit SV40 material and point investigators to Pfizers internal records where it maybe definitely shown that Bourla ordered the stand down of safeguards by examining production and quality control logs.
2016: Bourla s key government contact in USA for negotiating the covid vaccine contracts, Jared Kushner, allegedly sought my above mentioned warnings after they apparantly obtained a report from 2009 via Russia journalists and an interview in Larisa in June 2016
2017 My post with the allegation Kushner helped the Russians obtained the visa to interview me in Greece and obtain the 2009 report and warnings triggers criminal charges against Kushner and Trump, E 17 449
This, after a lawyer Simos Samaras misuses a defamation ruling to try to put me in prison without due process for it, suggesting Kushner consciousness of guilt and that he did not want to be linked to the warnings of SV 40 and cytokine storms years in advance of their appearance because he knew the covid vaccines would be contaminated and cause cytokine storms and still negotiated the contracts and immunity clauses with Bourla and Pfizer
2020, 2021: Pfizer adopts Process 2 for manufacturing covid vaccines for the public different from Process 1 for the clinical trials and without vital data
2023: Testing identifies the contaminant Simian Virus in Process 2I had described.
2021–onwards: Doctors begin documenting the particular injury I predicted from the covid vaccines, noting cytokine storms, autoimmune over reactions
2021 onwards: Epidemiologists discover that the injury is substantially more common among the very group I had predicted, particularly young males (myocarditis)
2021 September Reporter, myself, faces two criminal trials for the same ten posts documenting the disappearance of evidence concerning Bill Gates from D 15 218 from Samaras with the file number E 17 378 and E 17 379 and is, am declared innocent and guilty orally but only served the written guilty verdict 485 2021 and not served the innocent verdict 484 2021 in violation of my rights to prevent me showing the underlying conspiracy to silence a reporter and crime
Reporter is sentenced to one and a half years in prison for E 17 379 for defamation against Samaras, appeals the guilty sentence 485 2021
2021 9th November Bourla calls the small subset of people to which the reporter belongs ("professional" critics of the covid vaccine) criminals and suggests they should be in prison at an the event titled “A conversation with Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla.”
“There is a very small part of professionals [who] circulate, on purpose, misinformation so that they will mislead those that they have concerns [with the vaccine]. Those people are criminals. They’re not bad people. They are criminals because they literally cost millions of lives.”
2022 January Reporter sends Bourla and Mitsotakis an email warning concerning Molnupiravir and the suppression of the reporter s wrnings
2022 May 2nd Reporter sends AG s evidence
2022 May 4th Appeals trial for 486 2021 is held and the prison sentence suspended
2022 May 7th Reporter notifies A G s of evidence tampeering in the uploads sent on May2d 2022 concerning a Florida news paper article connecting Bill Gates, Foundation to the reporter which is also evidence in D 15 218 against Gates which has disappeared from the official file opened in 2015 and identifying Theodekti as his instrument
When the reporter documented this disappearance, Samaras and Theodekti launched defamation charges which would become E 17 379 and result in he guilty decision 485 2021 and a prison sentence for offending the honour of Samars
2022 May 27th Reporter notifies Bourla, Gates she has sent warnings to the A G s in an email at 5 15 pm local time
around 7 30 to 8 pm Gates arrives in Athens at the invitation of Bourla according to media
2022 June 28th Theodekti reappears and, together with the corrupt network at Larisa court, has the reporter imprisoned close to Thessalonik
2022 July 27th Reporter escapes, reaches Thessaloniki and sends out email warnings
2023 onwards Scientists find the contaminant SV I had warned about
2023 onwards More evidence emerges that the covid vaccine injuries are caused by the specific mechanism, cytokine storms, I warned about and that covid had its origins in a lab
2026 onwards Private communications from Fauci show that he was aware of warnings of covid vaccines causing cytokine storms from January 2021 and injuries but told the public the vaccines were safe
2026 onwards Bourla, Gates, Mitsotakis repeatedly warned that the refusal to correct the violations is causing extreme financial hardship, homelessness and penniless and refuse to correct the violations
Larisa Municpality refuses emergency help
Larisa court criminal records division refuses to confirm that I was never served the innocent verdict 484 2021 in an email to deny me crucial evidence of the corruption of Larisa court as can be seen in the email chain.
The result is the reporter continues to be homeless, penniless, and gravely impeded fromliving and working and communicating with US law enforcement
To sum up
My warnings from 2009 establishes prior knowledge. If I accurately identified the alleged contamination mechanism and the characteristic injuries 12 or so years before the contamination appeared and the deaths occurred, then we can infer the mechanism was not invented retrospectively after people became ill.
It supports temporal and mechanistic coherence.
The sequence is: the reporter identifies a particular hazard → the product containing the alleged hazard is later distributed → recipients develop the predicted type of injury.
Temporality and biological plausibility are recognized considerations in causal inference.
Three things that are otherwise separate are connected. Advance warning, the specific mechanism of harm, and Bourla's subsequent conduct.
My prediction from 2009 becomes evidence of intention and that Bourla had the knowledge, authority and intention to cause mass deaths in the USA by contaminated material and vaccine material triggering cytokine storms and he had and has the intention to suppress the reporter whom he knew was giving accurate warnings to conceal his responsibility.
In 2009, I warned
a pandemic related vaccine product would contain SV40-derived material;
contamination could result from a particular manufacturing change or the standdown of safeguards;
the pandemic vaccines could produce severe inflammatory reactions;
cytokine storms would occur by design; and
mortality among younger recipients would increase.
Then, years later, investigators independently find the alleged contaminant and the predicted clinical pattern in Pfizer covid vaccines.
I identified the alleged contaminant, mechanism, and type of injury before the relevant manufacturing decision and before the injuries appeared and deaths occurred.
The specificness of my warning is more significant than a generalized prior warning.
The manufacturing records could bridge prediction and causation
The most important evidence would be the Pfizer Pharma production logs.
If the logs actually showed as they almost certainly do because we can infer from the contamination that standard production and quality controls were stood down, that Bourla ordered the removal of safeguard X, Y, Z → Process 2 begins → the alleged contaminant appears → contaminated lots are distributed → predicted injuries occur
then we have a much more concrete causal chain.
In 2009, in my Baxter charges, I had identified the intervening manufacturing event that produced contaminated material.
It was a deliberate order, stand down of standard biosafety procedures designed precisely to stop such contamination from occurring.
Crucially, my charges were investigated by Vienna prosecutors.
That means, investigators obtained records, logs of production, quality control, viruses, and so may well have documented the stand down and deviation from standard protocols occurred and who ordered it, establishing knowledge and authority and intent.
I allege that is what Bourla fears as the CEO of Pfizer.
He fears an investigation of Pfizer logs will show he ordered the stand down and deviation from standard protocols to allow the material to be contaminated and contaminated material to be released.
In May 27th 2022, I sent an email to Bourla and Gates basically saying "I have already warned the State Attorneys General that you are trying to silence me for exposing covid as a scheme similar to Baxter in 2009 where central evidence was that Baxter removed standard safeguards to produce the contamination with bird flu.
Subsequent events suggest that Bourla understood the significance for him of the Baxter charges in proving that he ordered the change in manufacturing to allow contaminated material and so in proving his intention.
My email from May 27th 2022 sent at 5 15 pm establishes notice and knowledge.
Bourla was warned about contaminaton with SV 40 and vaccines with adjuvant, lipid based technologies → Bourla understood the specific warning → Bourla nevertheless ordered the alleged change → the predicted contaminant SV 40 appeared → the predicted injuries occurred → Bourla understood the significance of specific warning of the reporter from 2009 → Bourla wanted to suppress the reporter and the records in her possession, also concerning the Baxter charges and the prosecutor investigation from 2009 and the FBI swine flu report from 2009
The attempted imprisonment of the reporter is circumstantial evidence
The attempt to have the reporter imprisoned near Thessaloniki in June 2022 doe not itself prove that Bourla caused anyone's death.
But it demonstrates consciousness of wrongdoing.
Why would Bourla, immediately after receiving my warnings and learning that I had contacted state attorneys general, attempt to silence or imprison me?
Why would Gates immediately after receiving my warnings and learning that I had contacted state attorneys general, travel to Greece arriving in Athens around 7 30 to 8 pm attempt to silence or imprison me?
The answer is that Bourla and Gates wanted to prevent her warnings from reaching investigators.
That inference is particularly powerful because suppression effort occurs after Bourla receives the warning and before scientists discovered the contamination with the SV 40 from 2023.
The chain:
My warnings 2009 —
↓
Specific prediction of SV40 contamination and inflammatory injury from adjuvant based pandemic vaccines to which the squalene adjuvants and class of mRNA vaccine broadly belong (both funded by Fauci, NIAID)
↓
I warn authorities in 2009 that safeguards in Baxter have been deliberately subverted to allow the contamination
↓
Bourla knows about the warnings
↓
Bourla orders removal of the manufacturing safeguard
↓
Process 2 produces the allegedly contaminated material
↓
Bourla learns of the contamination
↓
Distribution continues
↓
Recipients develop the previously predicted injuries
↓
Excess mortality appears, particularly among the predicted population of young people
↓
My warnings begin attracting renewed investigative attention
↓
Bourla and Gates to have the reporter imprisoned
↓
The reporter escapes
↓
The suppression effort escalates
Here we have circumstantial-evidence narrative that does rely on a single piece of evidence.
The key to proving Bourla engaged in a premeditated design to cause death and or imminently dangerous act demonstrating a depraved mind regardless of human life is the fact that the existing safetguards at Pfizer to prevent contamintion had to be subverted.
We can prove a reasonable doubt:
The contamination with SV 40 actually existed.
We can infer that Bourla knew about it or knew of the relevant danger.
We can infer that Bourla personally caused or participated in the manufacturing/distribution decisions
We can infer the safeguard removal actually caused the contamination.
The contamination actually caused the relevant injuries.
Those injuries caused particular victims' deaths.
Bourla possessed the mental state required for the particular homicide charge.
Pfizer logs will almost certainly show that Bourla ordered not just a deviant, Process 2 but a stand down of quality controls
My evidence potentially helps with several of those questions simultaneously: prior notice, foreseeability, mechanism, knowledge, and motive for the alleged suppression.
SV40, cytokine storms, the contamination, the deaths, Baxter, Pfizer, Bourla are also all linked to Bill Gates as he architect of the global pandemic plan and emergency declarations to provide a flimy pretext to remove all safeguards.
In fact, as the German lawyer Ralf Ludwig testified to the Brandenburg parliament, an emergency is a reason to be especially careful with he safeguards.
These facts several elements at once:
Identity: the decision to subvert the standard biosafety protocols at Pfizer can be attributed directly to Bourla.
Knowledge: specific log and production and quality control entries show Bourla allowed all the irregularities.
Deliberateness: Bourla “ordered the safeguard removed” indicates an affirmative decision rather than an accidental omission.
Causation: if the safeguard was necessary to prevent the contamination with SV 40, the entry connects Bourla's decision to the alleged contaminant.
Foreseeability: Bourla must have known, been aware about the specific consequences before making the decision.
Mens rea: prosecutors could argue that knowingly removing the safeguard despite the warning supports an inference of intentional or reckless disregard for human life.
Motive for suppression: the later attempt in May 2022 the reporter following the email to US Attorney Generals and the suppression was evidence that Bourla understood the significance of what he had done and did not want investigators to examine further
A G s and investigators have the authority to look at Pfizer s records and scrutinize, for example, production records showing the safeguard was actually removed and who ordered it.
Bourla was warned about the specific danger, personally ordered the protective measure removed, the predicted contaminant subsequently appeared, and the predicted injuries subsequently occurred.
The case against Bourla is a cumulative evidentiary chain rather than resting on any single allegation.
A ten year old warning
I predicted the specific contamination, identified SV40-related material, warned of severe inflammatory reactions, and specifically warned that deaths could result.
I preserved those warnings in records with the time stamp
Bourla knew of the warnings
Emails from January and May 2022 establish that I personally warned Bourla
The May 27th email stated I had notified state attorneys general, eliminating a plausible argument that Bourla was unaware of the allegations.
The critical Pfizer log
Bourla did not want investigators to look at Pfizer logs and find evidence that Bourla had ordered the safeguard removed despite warnings.
This is potentially the most important document because it directly links Bourla to the manufacturing decision.
Process 2 actually differed
Production and regulatory records establish that the allegedly protective safeguard was removed and that Process 2 was materially different from the process underlying the original authorization.
The predicted contamination appears
Independent testing from 2023 subsequently identifies the alleged SV40-related contamination or other biological material I had specifically predicted.
The predicted injuries appear
Medical records allegedly show the particular inflammatory syndrome I had described is linked to Pfizer s mRNA covid vaccine using the same broad lipid tecnology of the squalene based adjuvants of the bird flu and swine flu from 2009 funded by NIAID and Fauci.
Epidemiological evidence demonstrates an excess of those injuries amongthe very people predicted and for the reason predicted, and so provides additional corroboration.
Deaths, heart attacks follow the predicted pattern
The dots connect.
The contamination and the lipid based vaccine technology are connected to the cancers, injuries and inflammatory injuries and then to particular deaths.
Evidence of excess mortality strengthen the epidemiological component.
Bourla continues distribution.
Bourla knew about the contamination and or emerging injuries but nevertheless allowed distribution to continue.
I am subsequently targeted
After the public acceptance of the covid vaccine sharply declined around September 2021 and after my warnings become relevant to the investigation, Bourla publicly portrayed the group to which I belong ("small" group of "professionals" as a criminal in November 2021 and attempted to have me imprisoned near Thessaloniki.
I escaped and was able to alert people.
The attempt at imprisonment is the strongest possible proof of as consciousness-of-guilt and evidence of an effort to obstruct the investigation.
The pieces corroborate one another
The extraordinary feature is the convergence:
specific warning → Bourla's knowledge → explicit order → safeguard removal → contamination → predicted injury → deaths → attempted suppression.
This was not an unforeseeable accident. Bourla was warned about a specific danger, personally ordered the protective measure removed despite that warning, and then allowed the resulting product to reach the public. When the predicted contamination and injuries appeared, he tried to silence the person who had issued the warning in 2009 .
The single strongest piece of evidence would probably be the Pfizer logs and internal records which A GS can obtain
CYTOKINE STORMS
I and others pointed to two WHO memoranda published in WHO Bulletin 47 (1972) concerning virus-associated immunopathology. We interpreted the documents as describing a potential three-stage mechanism:
weaken or otherwise alter the immune system;
expose the person to an infectious agent/antigen;
produce an excessive immune response, which they characterized as a “cytokine storm.”
Our interpretation became known as the “One, Two, Three, Dead” argument. We explicitly described the third step as switching the immune system on and producing a cytokine storm.
Squalene-containing swine vaccines
I argued that pandemic H1N1 vaccines containing squalene-based adjuvants represented the dangerous third component of this alleged mechanism.
The underlying factual point is that some 2009 pandemic-influenza vaccines did use oil-in-water adjuvants. MF59, for example, is a squalene-based adjuvant, while AS03 also contains squalene. WHO documentation at the time discussed oil-in-water adjuvanted pandemic vaccines.
I argued that these adjuvants could provoke excessive immune activation and thereby produce severe injury or death.
Cytokine storms
The biological concept itself is real: an excessively dysregulated inflammatory response can cause severe tissue damage and organ dysfunction. But Burgermeister's 2009 argument effectively made the following leap:
squalene adjuvant → excessive immune activation → cytokine storm → potentially fatal injury
I then connected that proposed mechanism to the 1972 memoranda and alleged that the pandemic vaccination campaign was being designed to exploit it.
A separate part of my case concerned the February 2009 Baxter incident in Austria. Baxter's Austrian facility distributed material to laboratories that was subsequently found to contain bird flu alongside seasonal influenza viruses. In my charges I argued the contamination must have been deliberate and biosafety rules suberverted.
The contamination allegations, also with Simian Virus, and the squalene/cytokine-storm argument were logically different claims.
The connection I claimed is.
Pharma company Baxter deliberately contaminated material by passing safety checks and nearly caused a pandemic and were ready then to supply governemtns with the matching pandemics vaccines under emergency rules, imposed by WHO, which allow vaccines with squalene adjuvants to get approval bypassing safety checks.
I allege this same system was repeated essentially during covid.
Fauci, NIAID funded research created covid in Wuhan, where it was released, to allow WHO to declare an emergency, Pfizer to have a pretext to rush through vaccinde development and bypass checks,contaminate with the SV 40 and give jabs with LNP causing cytokine storms.
SQUALENE AND LIPID NANOPARTICLES
There is a meaningful technological relationship between MF59/AS03-type lipid emulsions and the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, although they are not the same formulation.
MF59 is a squalene-based oil-in-water emulsion that functions as a conventional vaccine adjuvant: its principal purpose is to enhance the immune response to an antigen.
The lipid nanoparticles used in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have a different primary function. They are engineered delivery systems containing multiple lipid components that protect mRNA and facilitate its entry into cells. However, LNPs can also have intrinsic immunostimulatory/adjuvant activity. NIAID-funded research has specifically investigated the relationship between LNP composition, their adjuvant properties, and their function in mRNA vaccines.
Accordingly, the scientifically defensible comparison is:
MF59: lipid/squalene emulsion → immune stimulation → enhanced response to an antigen.
mRNA-LNP: lipid nanoparticle → mRNA delivery into cells → antigen production, while the LNP itself can contribute to innate immune stimulation.
NIAID has supported rese
THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CONTAMINATION AND THE SPECIFIC DEATHS
I refer the CJEU's 21 June 2017 judgment in N.W. and Others v Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Case C-621/15. It concerned an alleged link between Sanofi's hepatitis-B vaccine and multiple sclerosis under the EU Product Liability Directive.
The Court said a combination of events could prove causation.
It specifically identified:
Temporal proximity — the disease appeared relatively soon after vaccination.
Absence of personal/family history — the claimant had no relevant prior or familial history of the disease.
A significant number of similar reported cases — there were numerous reports of the disease occurring after administration of the vaccine.
Taken together, these could potentially allow the national court to conclude that the vaccination was the most plausible explanation for the disease.
So the logic is roughly:
vaccination → close temporal relationship → unusual clinical event → similar cases → few/no competing explanations → sufficiently serious, specific and consistent injuries
Using this logic, the mRNA covid vaccines can clearly be identified as causing injuries.
WHY THE SAME INJUIES?
THE SAME LIPID BSED ADJUVANTS
MF59 and ASO3 are squalene-based lipid emulsion adjuvant, whereas COVID-19 mRNA vaccines use lipid nanoparticles that function primarily as mRNA delivery vehicles but also possess intrinsic adjuvant activities
FUNDED BY FAUCI, NIAID
NIAID funding / development map
U.S. GOVERNMENT
│
┌────────────┴────────────┐
│ │
NIH DoD / BARDA
│
NIAID
│
┌───────┼─────────────────────────────┐
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
ADJUVANT PANDEMIC INFLUENZA mRNA / LNP
RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH
│ │ │
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
MF59 AS03 vs MF59 mRNA vaccines
squalene H5N8 / H7N9 + lipid nanoparticles
emulsion influenza │
│ │ │
│ │ ▼
│ │ NIAID-funded
│ │ LNP research
│ │ │
│ │ ▼
│ │ "Lipid nanoparticle
│ │ adjuvants for
│ │ mRNA vaccines"
│ │
▼ ▼
licensed pandemic/
influenza avian-influenza
vaccines preparedness
1. MF59
NIAID's own strategic-plan material identifies MF59 as a squalene-containing emulsion adjuvant and records NIAID-sponsored clinical research comparing MF59 and AS03 in H5N8 and H7N9 influenza vaccines.
N
NIAID
+1
Importantly, this should not be represented as “NIAID invented MF59.” NIAID's documentation describes MF59 as an established adjuvant used in influenza vaccines; NIAID subsequently funded research involving it.
2. Baxter / pandemic influenza
There is a particularly relevant distinction here: Baxter was a private vaccine manufacturer, whereas NIAID was a government research/funding institution.
NIAID's pandemic-influenza program included clinical research involving adjuvanted H5/H7 vaccines, including comparisons of AS03 and MF59. Its 2018 strategic plan explicitly lists these trials.
N
NIAID
So I would draw this as:
NIAID
│
├── pandemic/avian influenza research
│
├── H5/H7 vaccine studies
│
└── AS03 ↔ MF59 comparisons
│
▼
influenza vaccine ecosystem
│
└── private manufacturers
(including companies such as Baxter)
That is different from saying “NIAID funded Baxter's entire vaccine program.” That stronger claim would require tracing individual contracts/grants.
3. mRNA + lipid nanoparticles
This is the most striking connection to your question.
NIAID's RePORTER database currently identifies an NIAID project explicitly entitled:
“Lipid nanoparticle adjuvants for mRNA vaccines: composition-function relation and mechanism of action.”
The project is led by Norbert Pardi and Michela Locci at the University of Pennsylvania, with NIAID listed as the funding institute. The 2026 funding shown is $804,269.
R
RePORTER
So the modern relationship can be represented:
NIAID
│
▼
mRNA vaccine research
│
▼
Lipid nanoparticles
│
┌───────┴────────┐
│ │
▼ ▼
mRNA delivery "adjuvant"
properties
│ │
└───────┬────────┘
▼
mRNA vaccines
NIAID itself also says its Vaccine Adjuvant Discovery Program contributed to COVID-vaccine development and has supported “non-traditional adjuvant approaches.”
N
NIAID
4. The key historical distinction
The evidence supports something more nuanced than:
MF59 → NIAID → Baxter → COVID LNPs
A better representation is:
LIPID / VACCINE TECHNOLOGY
│
┌──────────────┴──────────────┐
│ │
▼ ▼
SQUALENE/EMULSIONS NUCLEIC-ACID
│ DELIVERY
▼ │
MF59 LNPs
│ │
▼ ▼
influenza vaccines mRNA delivery
│ │
│ ┌─────┴─────┐
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
H5/H7 mRNA innate-
pandemic vaccines immune
research effects
│ │
└───────────┐ │
│ │
NIAID │
research/funding│
│ │
└─────┬─────┘
▼
COVID-era mRNA-LNP
vaccines
Fauci and NIAID were supported research involving squalene-based adjuvants such as MF59 and later directly funded mRNA/LNP research, including research specifically examining LNPs' adjuvant properties.
MF59 was developed as an immune adjuvant, whereas LNPs ultimately became both an mRNA delivery technology and, a source of immune/adjuvant activity themselves. NIAID-funded research explicitly studies this latter propert
To sum up
This was not an unforeseeable accident. Bourla was warned about a specific danger, personally ordered the protective measure removed despite that warning, and then allowed the resulting contaminated product from Process 2 to reach the public.
When the predicted injuries appeared, Bourla escalated attempts to silence the person who had warned the public and who was in Greece.
The single strongest piece of evidence would probably be the the Pfizer logs , while the strongest overall case would be the combination of those logs with independent evidence in the criminal probes in Greece and Austria of crimes against a reporter for warnings from 2009.
If the Pfizer manufacturing, quality control logs prove Bourla repeatedly intervened to ensure standard safeguards were ignored and warnings brushed aside, then his intention is proven. In fact, the intention to release contaminated material to the public is proven by the systematic sabotage of safeguards which are the pre requisite, the sine qua non for Process 2.
That Bourla knew that the contaminated material could cause deaths is shown by his familiarity with the reporters warnings which are documented in 2009 and the criminal invesigation of Baxter for similar contamination as confimed by the Austrian HealthMinister.
When the deaths and injuries did appear, and in the very specific manner warned by the reporter, Bourla and his co conspirators did not stop the material from being released. They instead undertook an elaborate campaign of deception and intensified their suppression of the reporter in the hope that the vital Baxter records and 2009 warnings would not reach the US AGs and their signifiance be understood in showing that Borula intentionally contaminated the Pfizer material and intentionally stood down existing safeguards to prevent contamination at Pfizer facilities in the USA and elswhere and to prevent investigators looking at Pfizer s internal records.
For the issue of Pfizer s criminal liability, I refer you to a discussion on May 20 2026 between Lawyer Hans-Georg Maaßen and Professor Sucharit Bhakdi called "The biggest organized crime against humanity" ("Das größte organisierte Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhJrO8nVKks
Maassen and Bhakdi make several arguments that overlap with German lawyers Ralf Ludwig's Process 2 criticism to the Enquete-Kommission of Brandenburg Parliament on July 15th 2026,Paw summarized in the Appendix, but they dsicuss toxicity and DNA contamination and criminal liability of Pfizer and Bourla.
The key common thread is: the product that was actually administered at scale allegedly differed from the product/process on which the original regulatory and clinical evidence was based.
The main points they share
The clinical-trial product and mass-produced product were allegedly made differently.
Bhakdi says the mRNA used for the first large clinical trial was produced using a relatively “clean” manufacturing process, which he calls Process 1. He then says the process was changed for the billions of doses subsequently produced.
Process 2 was introduced for economic/scaling reasons.
Bhakdi claims the original process was too expensive for mass production and that BioNTech therefore changed the manufacturing process. Maassen then frames this as a potential contract/regulatory compliance problem.
They argue that the change required regulatory approval/comparability evidence.
This is the closest connection to Ludwig. Their argument is essentially: if a regulator evaluated and authorized Product A, a manufacturer cannot simply supply Product B without demonstrating that B meets the relevant specifications and is covered by the authorization.
They claim the necessary details of Process 2 were not adequately disclosed.
Bhakdi says that the changed process was “never formally approved” because, in his characterization, the relevant details were not submitted. Maassen accepts this premise and develops the legal consequences from it.
They distinguish the authorization from the product actually delivered.
This is probably their strongest overlap with Ludwig. Maassen explicitly summarizes the argument as: the states purchased/authorized one product, while a differently manufactured product was ultimately supplied.
They use a “specification/contract” analogy.
Maassen compares it to a government contracting a builder to construct a bridge using specified materials. If the builder substitutes cheaper material without authorization, the government's duty is to inspect whether the delivered product still satisfies the contract. His point is that the purchaser/regulator cannot simply assume equivalence.
They argue that responsibility cannot simply be shifted between authorities.
Maassen asks who was responsible for checking the changed product. Bhakdi responds that the German authorities could not simply point to the EMA. Their broader argument is that regulatory responsibility remains with the relevant national/state institutions.
They connect the manufacturing change to bacterial-DNA contamination.
This is where their argument goes beyond the Process 2 point. Bhakdi claims the new production process used bacterial DNA as a template and that fragments remained in the final product. They characterize this as a contamination problem resulting from mass production.
They argue that the allegedly contaminated product was therefore not the same product that had been evaluated.
Maassen explicitly describes this as the decisive issue: a product allegedly containing bacterial DNA was sold to governments even though, in their account, the product originally tested/authorized did not contain that contamination.
They argue that this could have both contractual and criminal consequences.
Maassen's legal argument is that if governments ordered one product but received another, the issue might not merely be “cancelling the contract.” He suggests it could constitute non-performance/breach of contract, potentially supporting claims for repayment, while the alleged knowing distribution of a dangerous product could raise criminal-law questions.
Where Maassen/Bhakdi go further than Ludwig
This distinction is important.
Ludwig's argument is primarily about the regulatory evidentiary chain:
Process 2 differed → comparability had to be demonstrated → specific data were required → Ludwig argues those data were never properly supplied → therefore the authorization cannot simply be assumed to cover the product actually administered.
Maassen and Bhakdi add a second layer:
Process 2 differed → it allegedly introduced bacterial-DNA contamination → that contamination is allegedly dangerous → therefore the mass-produced product was not merely inadequately documented but potentially materially dangerous and unauthorized.
And then they add a third layer:
If manufacturers and authorities knew or should have known this and continued distribution, criminal liability could potentially arise.
One particularly revealing passage
Around 25:07–26:07, Maassen essentially combines all three arguments. He says the product supplied to governments allegedly did not correspond to what was purchased or licensed, and that if the delivered product falls outside the authorization, the pharmaceutical companies could potentially have civil and criminal liability.
That is very close to Ludwig's basic regulatory argument, but Maassen makes the legal conclusion much more categorical.
To sum up
The continuing ongoing threat to my life by Bourla, Gates through their intentional refusal to correct the violations in D 15 218 and E 17 449 to intentionally expose me to severe threats as a homeless and penniless person is designed to suppress the evidence in my possession from 2009 and to stop me conmunicating it to AGs in the USA.
It consitutes witness tampring, obstruction of justice.
To prevent Bourla, Gates, Soros, Kushner , Trump and co conspirators in the broad Epstein, Rothschild oligarchy who are the core group behind covid, from continuing to threaten my life and destroy evidence, I ask for their pretrial detention without bail and an examination of whether the assets of Pfizer, the Foundations and their busiensses should be frozen.
To this submission, I add summary of discssions by
German lawyer Ralf Ludwig on Process 2
APPENDIX 1
SUMMARY OF THE COMMENTS OF LAWYER RALF LUDWIG ON PROCESS 2
to the Enquete-Kommission des Landtags Brandenburg on July 15th 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnJJm8cwTfM
Ludwig argues that the vaccine was allowed onto the market even though the regulatory dossier was not yet complete. He says this exceptional pathway should have triggered much greater caution.
Important data were still missing.
His central criticism is that regulators accepted gaps in the evidence rather than waiting for all the usual information to become available.
The pivotal clinical study was not yet fully finalized.
Ludwig points specifically to the fact that the final clinical study report was not available when the initial conditional authorization was granted.
There was limited evidence for certain population groups.
He highlights pregnant and breastfeeding women, immunocompromised people, and other special groups as populations for which direct evidence was limited or absent at the time.
Long-term effects could not yet be assessed.
Because the trials and follow-up period were necessarily short, Ludwig argues that important longer-term safety questions remained unresolved.
The duration of protection was not established.
He argues that the authorization did not yet answer how long protection would last, making some subsequent claims about vaccination more uncertain.
Transmission and protection of others had not been demonstrated.
Ludwig distinguishes protection of the vaccinated individual from preventing transmission to other people. He argues that the latter questions had not been conclusively answered at authorization.
Some evidence came from substitute/comparative data rather than directly from the exact product.
He criticizes the use of different or substitute material in parts of the evidence concerning distribution, breakdown and elimination in the body, arguing that this weakened the evidentiary basis.
He alleges that established regulatory procedures were departed from.
This is actually one of his broader legal criticisms: emergency conditions may explain why authorities acted quickly, but, in his view, they do not justify abandoning established safety procedures or checklists without a transparent justification.
The risk–benefit assessment therefore remained insufficiently secure, in his view.
Ludwig's conclusion is that when significant data gaps and procedural deviations exist, authorities and doctors cannot simply rely on the fact that EMA or STIKO has approved/recommended the vaccine. They must consider the unresolved risks themselves.
The core of his argument
Ludwig is essentially making a precautionary/legal-process argument:
A public-health emergency does not suspend the obligation to follow safety procedures.
His airplane analogy captures it: if the warning indicators are flashing, you don't simply say “it's an emergency, so we'll fly anyway.” You investigate the warnings first. His 2026 testimony explicitly frames the issue this way and argues that deviations from established procedures should have been documented and justified.
PROCESS 2
Ludwig's criticism is essentially that the product used in the pivotal Pfizer trial was not manufactured by exactly the same process as the product that was subsequently manufactured at commercial scale. The EMA documents themselves confirm that Process 1 was used for the main clinical-trial material, while Process 2 was developed for large-scale production.
His argument can be broken down like this:
The clinical-trial product was Process 1.
Most of the vaccine used in Pfizer's pivotal trial came from the original manufacturing process, called Process 1.
The mass-market product involved Process 2.
Pfizer developed Process 2 to manufacture the vaccine at much larger scale. The manufacturing changes included differences in how the mRNA was produced and purified.
Therefore, Ludwig says you cannot simply assume that the clinical-trial evidence automatically applies to Process 2.
His legal/regulatory point is that a change in manufacturing process can matter if it changes the characteristics of the finished product. The whole purpose of pharmaceutical comparability testing is to establish that the change has not materially altered the product.
There actually were measurable differences.
The EMA identified lower RNA integrity in the initial Process 2 batches compared with Process 1 and requested additional information.
This is why the EMA required additional comparability work.
The EMA did not simply ignore the difference. Pfizer modified Process 2, and the regulators subsequently concluded that the relevant quality characteristics were sufficiently comparable.
Ludwig's criticism is that this creates a regulatory problem if Process 2 wasn't adequately represented in the original clinical evidence.
In other words: If the vaccine that demonstrated efficacy in the pivotal trial was manufactured differently from the vaccine subsequently supplied to millions of people, how strong is the inference from the trial to the mass-produced product?
He particularly focuses on the timing.
An EMA peer-review document records that the first Process 2 doses entered the trial in October 2020, but the interim analysis cut-off occurred before those participants had received the relevant second dose, meaning the interim efficacy analysis did not include Process 2 material.
He therefore treats this as a potentially serious departure from the normal regulatory process, rather than merely a manufacturing technicality.
The product used to establish the pivotal clinical evidence and the commercially manufactured product were produced by materially different processes; therefore the regulators needed to establish comparability rigorously before treating the clinical evidence as applicable to the mass-produced product.
The issue is not simply that “Process 2 was different.” The regulatory question is whether the evidence necessary to establish comparability was actually available at the time the initial authorization was granted.
The EMA's own assessment report confirms several relevant facts:
The pivotal clinical material was predominantly produced using Process 1.
Pfizer introduced Process 2 for scale-up.
EMA's comparability work found lower RNA integrity in the initial Process 2 batches compared with Process 1.
EMA required additional information and Pfizer subsequently adjusted Process 2.
The EMA ultimately considered the issue satisfactorily addressed.
But there is a crucial distinction concerning when the evidence was available.
The trial protocol was amended so that approximately 250 participants per Process 2 lot would receive Process 2 material, with immunogenicity and safety compared against Process 1 recipients. However, contemporary researchers pointed out that the results of this Process 1/Process 2 comparison were not publicly available at the time.
If Process 2 was materially different from the manufacturing process used to generate the pivotal clinical evidence, then the regulator needed corresponding comparability evidence before treating Process 2 as equivalent. His objection is that the necessary evidence was not available in the dossier at the point at which the authorization decision was made, yet Process 2 was nevertheless accepted.
Ludwig's claim is not merely that Process 2 was different. His claim is that EMA required specific additional data to establish comparability between Process 1 and Process 2, and that the required data were never actually supplied in the form required. He therefore disputes the premise that EMA had legitimately established comparability.
That is a significant distinction because the EMA's own initial assessment report contains language supporting part of the underlying concern. It says that Process 1 was the clinical-trial process and Process 2 the commercial process, and it explicitly states that differences between the processes meant that “additional characterisation data remain to be provided” as a specific obligation. It also says that the available data did not permit a definitive conclusion about some of the truncated RNA species and expressed proteins.
So Ludwig's argument is essentially:
Process 1 generated the principal clinical-trial material.
Process 2 was a substantially changed manufacturing process intended for commercial production.
Therefore, the regulatory authorities had to establish that the Process-2 product was sufficiently comparable to the Process-1 product.
EMA itself identified missing data and imposed further data requirements.
Ludwig argues that those requirements were not subsequently fulfilled in the manner required.
Consequently, in his view, EMA could not legitimately treat the Process-2 product as having the same evidentiary basis as the product tested in the pivotal trial.
That potentially affects the legal validity of relying on the clinical efficacy/safety evidence for the mass-produced vaccine.
And this is where I need to correct something from my previous answer: saying simply that “EMA investigated Process 2 and concluded it was comparable” skips over Ludwig's actual objection. The question is what precise data EMA required, whether those data were actually delivered, and whether the delivery satisfied the specific obligation.
The EMA's public assessment does show that it identified outstanding characterization work as a specific obligation (S01).
The fact that Comirnaty received conditional marketing authorization on December 21, 2020 is also undisputed.
.png)