STRONGER VERSION AGAINST BOURLA, PFIZER, SHOW HOW CANADA, USA HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DELIBERATE MASS INJURIES, MURDER

 MORE SOON

CANADIAN LAW SAYS CANDA HAS JURISDICTION WHEN THE TION WHEN THE VICTIMS OF A CRIMINAL PLAN ARE IN CANDADAPLAN ARE IN CANDA EVEN IF THE PLAN IS MADE, EXECUTED IN PART OUTSIDE OF CANADA

SAME LAWS APPPLY FOR US STATES LIKE FLORIDA 

LOGIC SAYS A FLORIDA BILLIONAIRE, FOR EXAMPLE, CANNOT  MASS POISON MILLIONS IN FLORIDA AND GET AWAY WITH IT SIMPLY BECASE HE WAS CAUGHT PLANNING THE ACTION IN SPAIN

IF JURISDICTION WERE SO NARROWLY CONCEIVED A US, CANADIAN BILLIONAIRE WOULD JUST HAVE TO GO TO , FOR EXAMPE, ITALY TO PLAN THE MASS MURDER IN USA, CANADA AN DTHEN COULD COME BACK TO USA, CANADA AND TELL LAW ENFORCEMENT HE CANNOT BE TOUCHED BECAUSE THE VICTIMS MAY BE IN THE USA, CANADA BUT HIS PLANNING WAS IN ITALY

CLEARLY THAT IS ABSURD AND DOES NOT HAPPEN

14th September 2026

Evidence Albert Bourla, Pfizer knowingly gave Americans contaminated SV vaccine material designed to cause cancer and cytokine storms

Dear James Uthmeier, Attorney General of Florida,

Dear Liz Murrill, Attorney General of Louisiana,

Dear Attorney Generals of the USA

I respect fully presented evidence in the form of Greek prosecutor probes D 15 218 and E 17 449 that the close associates of Dr Anathony Fauci, Bill Gates and Jared Kusnner, knowingly supplied toxic covid vaccines and deliberately cause mass death and sickness to Americans, and the globe and that they knowingly sought to suppress a science reporter, myself, for my warnings in submissions.

Please see summaries available at the link here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ctbBU6RMJWya1dGiyhf3V9iro8lx-eB/view?usp=sharing

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yfreupvzbwqrkc2p05quv/GatesCrimesInTheNetherlandsAndD15218.pdf?rlkey=5w6htfz5320qv7pxdkhlmi7kt&st=zpewgcji&dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/frci8gkqajfy8jfwj6cs9/2017-Grk-prosecutor-probes-convict-Kushner-of-covid-treason-Iran.pdf?rlkey=tz6jztrrgfjorigb8p1vzwfj1&st=60q3gz5g&dl=0

The crimes happened against me, a science reporter with a large audience in the USA and Canada, in Greece. The Greek police investigated.

But the crimes were committed by US citizens so that the American (and Canadian) public and law enforcement would not know. Would not know the evidence showing that covid was a scheme, not know the evidence that the covid vaccine injuries and deaths were deliberately inflicted, who has personal criminal responsibility and so obtain convictions and compensation, giving the US (and also Canadian) law enforcement and states jurisdiction as I discuss below. The witness intimidation, evidence tampering and obstruction continues in Greece but it is to prevent especially covid vaccine victims are in the USA and Canada and other countries from getting vital evidence of knowledge, intent, planning and authorization.

In this submission, I will present the evidence of a different but connected level of responsibility, namely, against the managers of Pfizer and the CEO, Albert Bourla, and of their criminal knowledge of both levels of the system, specifically, of the production of covid vaccine material with the SV virus (Process 2) and of the use of mRNA LNP technology to cause cytokine storms on one side, and of the retaliation against a reporter on the other to suppress warnings and hide their personal knowledge and criminal responsibility/

If it can be shown that Bourla and Pfizer knowingly gave the American, and Canadian public, a toxic vaccine and deliberately targeted a reporter to stop them getting warnings, then their criminal responsibility for the vaccine deaths and injuries will be proven, piercing their immunityshields and opening the door to fines and compensation for victims.

Because the plan was and is for a global pandemic and because covid is the culmination of a plan I first warned of in 2009, every country affected by covid and whose citizens and residences suffered from Pfizer covid vaccine injuries has jurisdiction over the evidence of the criminal responsibility of Bourla and Pfizer.

The evidence against Bourla and Pfizer I present here is not a vague guilt by associations.

I document a chain of knowledge, warning and deliberate concealment.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is a Greek American whose home town is Thessalonki . He studied at a university in Thessalonki. He has frequently met the Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis and other members of the Greek government and so acquired the political influence to secure, on the one hand, the support for covid vaccine contracts, and, on the other, to cause the machinery of the state to retaliate against reporter, myself, who threatened to expose not just the activities of Bill Gates and Jared Kushner but also of Pfizer and to have me imprisoned in June, July 2022 as discussed below

I do not say that Bourla himself came to Larisa court and imprisoned me close to Thessaloniki because he feared my communications about his activities to US A G s in May 2022. I am saying that after he was notified by me of those communications, he used his influence as a powerful pharmaceutical manager and a Greek American to use the state bureaucracy to imprison a reporter, who connected Pfizer s covid vaccines to a plan from 2009 to cause mass deaths and sickness. and so exposed him and Pfizers leadership to criminal responsibility for the approximately 3 million excess deaths in the USA during the period of the covid vaccines and for tens of millions of injuries.

First, I show my warnings of a plan to contaminate pandemic vaccine material from 2009 with the Simian Virus and of a plan to use pandemic style vaccines to cause cytokine storms and injuries and deaths deliberately also from 2009.

Second, I show how my warnings became reality from 2021 when covid vaccine material contaminated with the SV virus was found (in 2023 by Kevin McKernan) and when the mRNA covid vaccines did cause cytokine storms and the kind of injuries I predicted.

Third, I show the emails and notifications to Bourla and Pfizer from January 2022 where I placed before them the evidence that a reporter was being subjected to crimes to silence their warnings.

The key documents are available as links and in the Appendix of this submission.

Because of the apparent effort to hide, render illegible, tamper and destroy these original documents as well as the reporter, myself, I ask you to make copies of these documents.

Fourth, I document the subsequent chain of events.

When I persisted in notifying the US attorney generals on May 2nd 2022, and when I found out that key evidence in D 15 218 against Bill Gates appears to have been tampered with in my communications to them on May 7th 2022, and when I notified Bourla on May 27th 2022, Bourla did not merely ignore the warning but sought to silence the reporter through the corruption of justice and my imprisonment in June, July 2022 close to Thessaloniki, the home town of Bourla working hand in hand with Gates and the tools from D 15 218.

Of note, the attempt to use economic coercion to obstruct communications with US AG s was made again on September 11 2026 and after I included Pfizer s corporate compliance office, havivig previously included other Pfizer entities in email, in an email as I show below.

The significance of these events lies not in any one piece of evidence standing alone, but in their sequence: the plan precedes the warning, the warning precedes the suppression, and the crime follows exactly as foretold. When a CEO is warned of a criminal purpose, attempts to destroy the person who gives that warning, and then sees the predicted crime carried into execution, the inference of knowledge is no longer one of mere suspicion; it is the natural conclusion from the whole chain of circumstances.

Here the warning.

Here the fulfilment.

Here the retaliation.

Here the knowledge of Bourla.

The chain establishes the danger and the plan was contemplated in 2009 before the killings from 2020 themselves.

The reporter was targeted for suppression before the killings themselves, during the killings and after the killings to enable the deliberate nature of the killings to be hidden.

This persecution is continuing right now, as I will show.

I am not the only person subjected to censorship, restrictions, a smear campaign but I may be the only person who can connect Gates, Kushner, Bourla and other key actors in the covid campaign to ordinary sense crimes against reporter and so establish their criminal responsibility through the existence of ordinary criminal probes as discussed.

The fact that Donald Trump was also accused by Appeals Prosecutors in Greece in E 17 449 and implicated in private and unofficial actions and crimes from 2017 to prepare and plan for covid and the way these proofs allow for his arrest, is discussed below

As Pfizer s CEO, he also occupies an important position in the production and commecical network at the epicenter of the negotiation of contracts for Pfizers covid vaccine conducted largely by Jared Kushner in the USA and by Ursula von der Leyen in the EU discussed in the main submission.

In this submission, I will connect the activities of Bourla and Fauci with those of Gates, Kushner and others discussed in the earlier submission to invite consideration if the documents and evidence establish the criminal knowledge, intent, authorization, and participation of Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and Pfizer as a corporation, in knowing

1. the covid vaccines were contaminated with SV as they were found to be from 2023 (Kevin McKernan et al)

2. the covid vaccine were being used to cause cytokine storms and cause mass sickness and death as they have been found to do from epidemiological, clinical and other evidence

3. knowing Americans were being injured and killed with it on an enormous scale from the covid vaccines

4. and nevertheless, they continued to supply the machinery of killing with covid vaccines, sanctioned, approved or supported the coercive mandates for the covid vaccines

5. deliberately covered up the harms up

6. and knowingly suppressing a reporter issuing accurate warnings since 2009 with Bourla s personal knowledge established by email notifications in 2022 as discussed

7. and knowingly threatening the life of the reporter today to prevent this evidence from reaching the US public and law enforcement.

The chronological structure

The key events

• 2009 – The plan: Establish that warnings plan concerning contaminated SV material and vaccine to cause cytokine storms existed years before the their later fulfilment in covid

• My warning: Show the documents, charges in which I discovered or reported the danger and specifically warned about what could happen in early 2009.

• Bourla response: Bourla response was not that of an innocent man hearing a false accusation: On being notified in May 2022, the legal process was interfered with, and I was imprisoned close to the home town of Thessaloniki and had to

• The significance of the suppression: Atempting to silence the warning is evidence that ter Bourla understood its importance.

• From 2021 – Fulfilment: The predicted contamination of covid vaccine material with SV virus and Pfizer vaccine causing cytokine storms actually occurred.

• What had previously been warned about became reality.

• Conclusion: The individual pieces become stronger when placed together: plan → warning → suppression → fulfilment → knowledge.

The thematic structure

In this submission, I will look first at the warnings in 2009 that there was a plan concerning the use of contaminated vaccine material (bird flu, SV) and to use vaccines to cause cytokine storms.

Then, I will show the cytokine storm warnings given before being fulfilled, first, on a small scale in the swine flu vaccine campaign in 2009 with GSK s Pandemrix and then on a much larger scale during the covid vaccine campaign from 2021.

I will also show the contaminated SV material warnings being fulfilled.

In addition, I will show a continuity in the networks of scientists and funding in the various pandemic virus and vaccine research programmes from 2009 involving the bird flu, ebola and covid to argue there is a core network embedded inside US government and global health programmes which is engaged in dual use biological warfare research.

I have used AI to trace funding and other relationships.

I am aware that AI can make mistakes but in as far as I was able to cross check the material with underlying documents, sources and references, the information generated by AI appeared accurate.

This will form Part 1 of this submission

In Part 2 of this submission I will focus on my warning to Bourla and the Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. When they were given the evidence that a reporter was being subjected to crimes to suppress warnings of the very danger which was later to become a terrible reality, what was the response of Bourla and Mitsotakis?

Was it to investigate the warning, to expose the crimes or to correct the corruption of due process>

No: the evidence shows instead that the efforts to silence me escalted and that the machinery of justice was corrupted against me, and that a reporter who gave the warning was imprisoned in June, July 2022 apparently unlawfully because no attempt was made by police to return me after I escaped and sent a warning from Thssaloniniki.

It is not an isolated email or document that I present as evidence against Boutla and Pfizer.

It is the sequence that matters—the plan, the warning from 2009, the suppression of the warning, and finally its fulfilment. Each event gives meaning to the next, and taken together they provide the prosecution with the compelling inference that Bourla did not merely discover these crimes when they occurred; he had knowledge of the purpose and danger beforehand and acted to prevent that knowledge from being brought to light, and continues to do so.

The plan is crystallized in my charges against Baxter and other entities in 2009. The failure to investigate has allowed the original plan to start pandemics and give toxic jabs under special emergency rules goverrned by WHO has allowed the plan to be repeated. Covid and the covid vaccine injuries are the fulfilment of the 2009 plan. That is why my predictions are significant. If the contamination with SV material and cytokine storms had not appeared from 2021 as I warned in 2009, then there would still be evidence of repeated attempts to suppress a reporter not connected to he covid harms. But my warnings from 2009 were fulfilled and so the repeated attempts to suppress a reporter become the significant evidence linking institutional and personal knowledge to the crimes and making individuals criminally responsible for covid vaccine harms.

KEY DOCUMENTS

MY CHARGES AGAINST BAXTER IN 2009 8th April 2009

CONFIRMATION OF AN INVESTIGATION BY THE VIENNA PROSECUTORS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE AUSTRAN HEALTH MINISTER

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

PART ONE

MY WARNINGS FROM 2009 FULFILLED

NOTE 1

When talking about the deaths caused by Pfizers covid vaccines, I take this as a fact proven by a combination of independent types of evidence, which has been collected and discussed also by Ron Johnson’s U.S. Senate hearings on covid vaccines.

At his May 21, 2025 Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearing, Johnson presented:

• VAERS reports — reports of myocarditis, deaths and other adverse events occurring after vaccination. Johnson argued that the volume and timing of reports warranted greater investigation. However, FDA and CDC explicitly say that a VAERS report by itself does not establish causation.

• Internal government records and emails — his staff obtained more than 2,400 pages of records concerning what federal officials knew about myocarditis and when they knew it. Johnson's report argued that officials had evidence of myocarditis in young people following mRNA vaccination before publicly communicating the risk.

• Data-mining/safety-signal analyses — Johnson's 2026 investigation presented analyses that he said identified statistically significant signals for events including sudden cardiac death, Bell's palsy, pulmonary infarction, myocardial infarction and thrombosis.

• Medical case reports and testimony — witnesses described individual patients with myocarditis, neurological problems, cardiovascular problems and other conditions that they attributed to vaccination. The 2025 hearing record subsequently included hundreds of documents and peer-reviewed studies submitted by the witnesses.

• Specific pathological/autopsy evidence — Johnson's later records include individual cases where autopsy findings showed myocarditis following vaccination. Importantly, some of those cases also had competing explanations; for example, one 13-year-old's CDC examination found Clostridium septicum infection and concluded that bacterial toxin could explain the cardiac injury.

• Personal testimony from people who considered themselves vaccine-injured or whose relatives died after vaccination, including testimony at his July 2025 "Voices of the Vaccine Injured" hearing.

In 2026, there are many pieces of circumstantial, statistical, documentary and medical evidence, showing the covid vaccines cause death.

Evidence	What it could establish
Medical records	Who received the vaccine, when, dosage, symptoms and time of death.
Autopsies/pathology	Physical injuries or disease processes consistent with the suspected treatment, while excluding other causes.
Toxicology/chemical analysis	Whether the administered substance or its effects could be detected in tissues or organs.
Microbiology	Whether victims died from the disease they were deliberately infected with rather than from the vaccine itself. This distinction is crucial.
Clinical chronology	If previously healthy people developed severe symptoms shortly after vaccination and then died, the timing would support causation.
Comparison/control group	Mortality,, cancers among vaccinated people compared with an otherwise similar unvaccinated group is a particularly powerful epidemiological evidence.
Dose-response relationship	If higher doses were consistently associated with more severe illness or higher mortality, that would strengthen the causal argument as is the case with mRNA Moderna vs Pfzer vaccines
Mortality statistics	Calculate death rates in the US population after the covid vaccine and compare them to the previous five years to show all cause excess mortality
Survival curves	Show whether deaths clustered immediately after administration of the covid vaccines rather than occurring at the background rate.
Witness testimony	Covid vaccine injured or medical personnel could describe what was administered and the sequence of symptoms and deaths.
Experimental documents	Doctors' notes, laboratory reports, batch numbers, dosage sheets and correspondence could connect the substance to the victims.

To define causation, I refer to the combination of circumstances that can legitimately support an inference of causation according to 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.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62015CJ0621&utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62015CJ0621

The Court said a combination of events could prove causation.

The Court identified factors that could potentially be relevant, including:

• Temporal proximity — the disease appearing relatively soon after vaccination.

• Absence of personal medical history — the person had not previously suffered from the relevant condition.

• Absence of family history — there was no comparable hereditary history.

• A significant number of similar reported cases following vaccination.

• Other evidence capable of forming a serious, specific and consistent body of evidence.

Taken together, these could potentially allow the national court to conclude that the vaccination was the most plausible explanation for an injury.

This is also the standard, historical scientific consensus.

MY WARNINGS 2009

CONTAMINATED VACCINE MATERIAL

VACCINE MATERIAL CONTAMINATED WITH THE SV

In 2009, I, and others, gave very specific warnings which allow for the inference of criminal knowledge to be built.

WARNING 1

I did not just make a prediction about vaccines contaminated with SV material in 2009. My 2009 warnings establish that I specifically warned about safeguard changes to allow contamination with material like the SV in a report I wrote for the FBI as a private, concerned citizen and submitted on June 10th 2009 to the US embassy and sent by email to US law enforcement.

The Baxter bird flu contamination incident in 2009 and my charges documents are a significant piece of evidence because they connect intention to execution.

The significance of the 2009 Baxter incident and police charges is that they focus attention on the fact that the contamination of Pfizer s covid vaccine material with the SV virus must have been a deliberate act.

I did not merely file charges against Baxter for releasing 72 kilos of vaccine material that had been contaminated with the bird flu virus to nearly start a global pandemic in 2009.

I exposed d the model, plan, and template for how these pandemics were to be organized and repeated, how they were to be started, how the material was to be contaminated, specificaly by standing down standard biosafety safeguards, what role WHO s emergency declaration played, and what the matching pandemic vaccines were designed to do and how they were designed to do it. referring to a 1972 WHO Memo outlining a method of causing cytokine storms to injure and kill people.

If later pandemics, the swine flu, ebola and covid followed that design, the 2009 document provide a concrete link between what was planned and what was done, while identifying the people, materials, procedures, and decisions involved.

The crucial point is that the 3 stage model of 1972 WHO Memo also fits the mRNA covid vaccines with m1Ψ but also the swine flu vaccines of 2009 as discussed below

WARNING 2

THE WARNINGS FROM 2009

The Documentary Timeline

2009: Burgermeisters warning Covid record

SV/biological contamination awarned aboutFROM 2009 onward: from 2023 SV contamination events a documented in covid vaccines by Kevin McKernan et al

Standard biosafety safeguards deliberately stood down by Baxter in 2009 to allow material to be contaminated and released Pfizer records likely will show show standard safeguards (quality control, production logs) being suspended to allow contamination of covid vaccine material with the SV and its release?

Bird flu virus contamination to start a global pandemic deliberately: covid virus manipulated to start a covid pandemic with Fauci, NIAID involved in funding both

Emergency declaration by WHO (PHEIC) deliberately manipulated Covid emergency measures deliberately manipulated (with Gates, Foundation identified as key players shaping WHO, PHEICS

Normal clinical trials and adverse events monitoring abandoned Normal clinical trials and adverse events monitoring abandoned

1972 WHO Memo vaccine mechanism producing cytokine storms severe inflammatory effects Doctors, scientists document cytokine harms from the mRNA covid vaccines with lipids and a new technology

Warning delivered April 2009 to Vienna prosecutors about Baxter, who investigated the biosafety stand down Police records allegedly show who received it

Burgermeister targeted after warning from May 2009 Retaliation documented in Austrian and Greek police files from 2009 until today

WARNING → DOCUMENTED KNOWLEDGE → RETALIATION → LATER CORRESPONDING EVENTS

The “Resemblance” Graph

2009 2020 → PRESENT

│ │

│ Burgermeister warns │ Later events

│ │

├── contamination ───────────────────► contamination

│

├── safeguards stood down ───────────► safeguards suspended

│

├── emergency manipulated ───────────► emergency measures

│

├── clinical protections abandoned ──► clinical restrictions

│

└── predicted harms, mass deaths and injuries ───────► documented medical harm

BAXTER AND THE BIRD FLU CONTAMINATION INCIDENT OF 2009

To understand why I made prediction about vaccines contaminated with SV material in 2009, it is necessary to look at the Baxter bird flu contamination incident of 2009 and my charges alleging that someone at Baxter r must have authorized the removal of safeguards to allow for the contamination and it must be documented in the production and quality control logs.

In a nutshell, I alleged that Baxter had deliberately tried to start a global pandemic by knowingly contaminating vaccine material with the bird flu and distributing it while circumventing standard biosafety, BSL 3 controls, designed to prevent just such contamination.

The Vienna prosecutors investigated Baxter on the basis of my charges and may have found corroborations of my allegations of the removal of safeguards in production and quality control records as well as information about where the virus came from

The significance of the first contamination incident is not confined to Baxter, to 2009 and to Austria. Once contaminated material on a vast scale, 72 kilos, could be manufactured and distributed to people without effective objection, without investigation, and without consequence, the machinery was free to operate again and again.

Each subsequent contamination was not an isolated transaction, but another act made possible by the success of the preceding one. The records of the material contaminated, quantities supplied, the destinations to which they were sent, and the continuing relationship between the supplier and the authorities demonstrate how a single commercial act could become a continuing system. The question, therefore, is not merely whether the accused participated in one transaction, but whether they allowed a system to continue after the circumstances surrounding it were sufficient to demand inquiry. Once the machinery of supply had been established and allowed to proceed unchecked, its continuation was not accidental; it was the consequence of a system in which each successful delivery made the next easier.

When the prosecutors closed their investigation into Baxter in late 2009, despite the enormous quantity of contaminated material, 72 kilos, the system could continue without resistance.

The lack of publicity helped the system to establish itself.

The failure to stop Baxter s contamination became a part of the mechanism that alloed it to continue and allowed Pfizer from 2021 to employ the system on a scale far beyond any isolated or accidental event.

Pfizer covid vaccine material contamination with the cancer causing SV became Process 2, the material which was given to the American public as discussed below.

Thus the crime did not sustain itself by accident; it was sustained because the means of committing it remained in operation. Every failure to intervene, to investigate, preserved the capacity for another contamination event, another trigger for a global pandemic. What began as a manufacturing and supply and commercial relationship could therefore become an instrument of mass death precisely because those who possessed the ability to question, investigate, or interrupt that relationship failed to do so or were silence liked myself.

However, Bourla and Pfizer s managers must know if procedures to prevent contamination have been altered, weakened or removed. The argument that covid was an emergency and biosafety procedures cannot be applied when massive quantities of vaccine material are required cannot apply when the entire point of the vaccine intervention is to preserve lives and prevent injury and when contaminated material is known to cost lives and cause sickness.

When there is a documented precedent of Baxter seeking to start a global bird flu pandemic in 2009 to profit from giving the matching bird flu vaccines, and an investigation, then we have to ask how innocent pharma managers are when the contamination keeps appearing.

When a CEO like Bourla possessing authority chooses not to investigate what he has every reason to suspect, his deliberate blindness may itself become evidence from which knowledge can be inferred. But the notification to Bourla in 2022 and my imprisonment is significant because of what the actions revealed about Bourla s state of knowledge.

When I brought before Bourla and Gates a warning of what had been communicated to the US A G s in May 2022 and the response was not investigation but the destruction of the warning and the imprisonment of the peson who gave it, then we must ask why such extraordinary measures were necessary. An innocent man confronted with a false accusation would have every reason to expose it; a man who knew that the accusation threatened to reveal a criminal purpose would have reason to suppress it. The imprisonment of myself in 2022 therefore gives meaning to the warning that preceded it. It is circumstantial evidence of personal knowledge: Bourla was not merely in the presence of information—he had reason to fear that information being made public. And when the very events of which I warned subsequently occurred, when the SV material ws found in the Pfizer covid vaccine from 2023 by Kevin Mckernan, the significance of his suppression becomes greater still. The warning, the effort to silence the warning, and the later fulfilment of the warning form one continuous chain from which knowledge may be inferred as I will show in Part 2.

FAUCI AND THE BAXTER BIRD FLU CONTAMINATION INCIDENT

Before discussing the Baxter contamination incident, I will briefly discuss the role of Dr AnthonyFauci in the bird flu research and ask whether Fauci and his bird flu virus and vaccine research programme was already in 2009 a key component of the Baxter contamination incident.

The significance of the Baxter incident lies not only in what happened in Austria in 2009 to nearly trigger a global pandemic but in what happened afterwards. Once the contamination of 72 kilos of the seasonal flu with the deadly bird flu virus had been permitted to proceed without effective objection, the same machinery remained available to rigger the next pandemic , and the next after that.

The bird flu incident was followed by the swine flu and the swine flu by ebola and ebola by covid. A single departure from the rules, when left unpunished, becomes a precedent; a precedent repeated becomes a practice; and a practice continued year after year becomes a system. The evidence points to the involvement of Fauci and Gates in this continuing system from 2009 until now.

Fauci NIAID supported a scientific ecosystem in which researchers and laboratories worked across multiple emerging-virus threats, including the bird flu, Ebola, coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2. Some individual scientists working across Peter Daszak, Clifford Lane and Ursula Buchholz, worked directly across several of these areas.

The records establish that:

1. NIAID funded Daszak/EcoHealth's coronavirus work.

2. Daszak/EcoHealth had previously conducted emerging-virus and avian-influenza research.

3. Daszak's coronavirus program ran for years before COVID-19.

4. EcoHealth's grant files are now available through NIH's FOIA library.

5. There was a documented communication network involving Fauci, Daszak and Baric.

6. NIAID scientists independently worked across influenza, Ebola and SARS-CoV-2, with Buchholz being a particularly clear example.

NIAID's own biography says Buchholz laboratory developed vaccine vectors for highly pathogenic emerging viruses including:

• SARS-CoV-2

•  influenza

• Ebola

and that in 2020 her program expanded into SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates.

So this is a documented three-way scientific overlap:

avian influenza ↔ Ebola ↔ SARS-CoV-2

The question is therefore not merely whether Fauci funded covid gain of function reseach to help start the covid pandemic. It is whether Fauci has been funding pandemic virus gain of function research sine 2009 and participated in every major pandemic. If the first attempt to engineer a pandemic was followed by another, and another, over years, then the passage of time does not erase the first warning—it strengthens the inference that the practice had become known, accepted, and deliberately continued.

It also supplies the grounds for believing that more pandemics will follow (hantavirus, ebola) if this network is not investigated and dismantled.

Fauci provided key funding to bird flu research and bird flu vaccines in the ecosytem as the Baxter in 2009 and it is possible that the specific bird flu virus used by Baxter for the contamination came from a virus research programme funded by Fauci because the same bird flu virus was used for both as discussed.

Baxter records from 2009 and the police investigation should shed light on this.

Fauci commented on an op-ed that criticized risky research that created a more transmissible bird flu influenza virus by led by Ron Fouchier and funded by the NIAID.

The op-ed said the virus appeared to spread easily and would be lethal to humans if it escaped confinement or was stolen by terrorists. It highlighted the government's funding of the research.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fauci-told-aide-delete-email-about-risky-research

Significant for investigators is a pattern of three interconnected components.

The first concerns the underlying crime I allege Fauci, Gates have been engaged in of deliberately engineering pandemics.

In 2009, I filed charges against Baxter in Orth an der Donau for the deliberate release of a seasonal flu material contaminated with the the bird flu from its BSL3 lab in Orth an der Donua alleging a deliberate release to start a global pandemic and

Vienna prosecutors investigated Baxter and the bird-flu event and the records must be available to US investigators.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/avian-influenza-bird-flu/news-scan-avian-flu-tainted-baxter-samples-hhs-secretary-nomination-h5n1

Please attachment for the original charges.

Please see the email from the Austrian Health Ministry confirming Vienna prosecutors investigated Baxter on the basis of my charges.

This investigation may well include records from Baxter establishing a direct connection to NIAID and Fauci also through the particular virus which came from the same strain as used in bird flu vaccine programme funded by NIAID

There is a clear link between Baxter bird flu incident and NIAID and Fauci.

NIAID funded Baxter's H5N1 vaccine program; Baxter's vaccine used A/Vietnam/1203/2004 supplied by CDC; and the H5N1 implicated in the 2009 Orth contamination was also identified as A/Vietnam/1203/2004.

Recap.

The same strain was used in NIAID funded bird flu vaccine research as in the Baxter contamination incident.

An Austrian parliamentary response says that Austria entered a 2006 contract with Baxter reserving production capacity for up to 16 million pandemic-influenza vaccine doses of bird flu vaccines developed with funding by NIAID, which would have been triggered if Baxter had succeed in triggering a global pandemic.

The question for investigators is whether Fauci is at the center of a pattern of concealment going back to 2009 and whether Fauci and other government officials, including senior officials responsible for virus research and vaccine policy and safetycommunications, possessed material information concerning the development of viruses for global pandemics and the development of experimental vaccines serious vaccine-associated adverse events and nevertheless deliberately withheld, minimized, mischaracterized that information for years.

The Baxter incident should be examined to understand what was known, by whom, when it was known, what records existed, what was communicated, what was omitted, and whether subsequent actions were intended to prevent discovery of theunderlying evidence.

The Baxter bird flu incident was followed as soon as the investigation started by the swine flu "pandemic" which had all the hallmarks of another engineered pandemic.

2009 Baxter/Orth incident → H5N1 contamination of influenza material

Investigation by Vienna prosecutor

2009

2009 Celvapan → H1N1 (“swine flu”) vaccine

2009 Pandemic Influenza Vaccine H5N1 Baxter → bird-flu vaccine

But the Baxter incident is very well documented.

US investigators should ask Vienna prosecutors for their records.

Fauci, NIAID and Baxter and the virus

A U.S. Congressional record states that in May 2005, NIAID subcontracted with Baxter to produce whole-virus, Vero-cell-derived H5N1 vaccine.

Baxter's H5N1 vaccine used A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1).

Baxter's 2008 NEJM study explicitly says its vaccine was produced with wild-type A/Vietnam/1203/2004, obtained from the CDC. It also acknowledges CDC scientists Nancy Cox and Alexander Klimov for providing the H5N1 viruses.

New England Journal of Medicine

The 2009 Orth contamination involved H5N1, or the avian, bird flu virus.

The contaminated material at Baxter's Austrian facility contained H5N1 mixed with H3N2 research material. The ferret experiments in the Czech Republic exposed the contamination.

A/Vietnam/1203/2004 is a real, well-established H5N1 reference virus.

CDC scientific literature identifies VN/1203/04 as a representative clade 1 H5N1 virus and notes its use in development of H5N1 vaccine reference stocks.

2009 Baxter contamination

│

└── H5N1 identified as

A/Vietnam/1203/2004

│

│ SAME STRAIN DESIGNATION

▼

Baxter H5N1 vaccine program funded by NIAID

│

└── A/Vietnam/1203/2004

obtained from CDC

Prosecutors in Vienna may have obtained the actual virus-transfer records and sequence data.

Recap

Baxter's own 2005 annual report states:

“We received a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to develop a candidate H5N1 influenza vaccine based on an avian strain.”

That's unusually direct evidence: NIAID → Baxter → H5N1 vaccine development.

And Baxter's 2007 scientific publication confirms that the H5N1 vaccine platform was being developed at its Biomedical Research Center in Orth/Donau, Austria.

So there is a documented chain:

NIAID funding

↓

Baxter H5N1 candidate-vaccine development

↓

Baxter Biomedical Research Center, Orth, Austria

And there is a CDC connection

And then there's the CDC connection

In the 2008 NEJM Baxter H5N1 vaccine paper, the authors explicitly thank Nancy Cox and Alexander Klimov of the CDC for providing the H5N1 viruses used in the Baxter study. The paper says the study itself was supported by Baxter.

New England Journal of Medicine

So the documentary network looks like:

NIAID and Baxter and the vaccine

→ funding for Baxter H5N1 candidate vaccine

CDC / Nancy Cox + Alexander Klimov

→ H5N1 viruses supplied to Baxter

And Baxter contaminated 72 kilos of the seasonal flu with the the same strain of bird flu virus which NIAID funded vaccine work used in its BSL3 lab to nearly start a global pandemic in 2009. This, while pre positioning itself to profit from thematching experimental vaccine contracts for the bird flu, developed with NIAID funding, signed with the Austrian and other government.

The contaminated material reached multiple European laboratories and nearly started a pandemic.

Ferrets in the Czech Republic became ill, leading to discovery of the contamination.

I alleged in my Baxter charges that the seasonal flu was contaminated with the bird flu to create a super transmissible virus capable of infecting humans deliberately in a BSL 3 lab

72 kilos were contaminated, it emerged from parliamentary questions in May 20th 2009, a staggering amount of virus!

This in a biosafety level 3 lab with strong safeguards against accidental contamination like double locks, negative pressure etc

Please see the answer to parliamentary questions (Fragen) 14 and 15 where then Health Minister said 72 kilos was contaminated.

https://www.parlament.gv.at/dokument/XXIV/AB/1457/fname_158854.pdf

In response to the question about the threat to humans, the Austrian Health Minister admitted it when he said that all the "potentially contaminated persons" took a neuraminidase inhibitor (such as Tamiflu) and were examined at a hospital in Vienna and none were found to be sick.

Exact German words.

"Zu den proaktiv getroffenen präventiven Maßnahmen gehörte die prophylaktische

Einnahme eines Neuraminidasehemmers durch möglicherweise kontaminierte

Personen, sowie deren medizinische Untersuchung in einem Wiener Spital. Es konnte

sehr rasch festgestellt werden, dass es zu keiner Erkrankung gekommen ist. "

It was found to be contaminated when lab technicians in the Czech republic tested it on ferrets.

Given how well known the Baxter bird flu incident became, and given NIAIDS funding of Baxter bird flu vaccine research, the question is what Fauci knew in 2009 and what his communications about Baxter nearly starting a global pandemic with that very same virus may have been.

Fauci s NIAID funded the dangerous research of Fouchier in April 2012

April 2012 that the Fouchier manuscript described “NIH-funded research” on H5N1 transmissibility. NIH specifically identified Fouchier's Aerosol transmission of avian influenza A/H5N1 virus as one of the two NIH-funded studies under review.

More specifically: Ron Fouchier's laboratory: Erasmus Medical Center (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam.

Funding: NIH/NIAID.

Contract: HHSN266200700010C is identified in the scientific literature as the NIH/NIAID contract financing the H5N1 transmission studies.

PubMed Central (PMC)

A scholarly analysis of the funding arrangement says NIH retained the Erasmus MC Department of Virology to conduct research supporting the U.S. HHS Pandemic Influenza Plan.

PubMed Central (PMC)

NIH itself says Fouchier's team was funded in part by NIAID.

And this wasn't merely peripheral influenza research. Fouchier's group conducted the controversial experiments demonstrating that experimentally altered H5N1 could acquire respiratory transmission between ferrets. NIH described the work as research

into mutations that could enable bird flu to move more readily between humans.

In fact, as I argued in 2009, contaminating the bird flu with the seasonal flu aimed at just that same ease of transmission between humans.

The 2012 literature itself explicitly discussed the pandemic potential of avian influenza, mammalian transmission, accidental release, misuse, and the tension between scientific benefit and biosecurity risk.

There is another connection to NAIAD and Fauci.

In 2007, Novartis sponsored an H5N1 vaccine trial in Poland. Serious misconduct occurred at one site, including failures of informed consent and falsification of records. Doctors and nurses were subsequently convicted.

In 2007, Novartis commissioned a clinical trial of FLUAD-H5N1, an experimental vaccine against pandemic bird flu which used a technology funded by NIAID

NIAID → MF59/Novartis technology: documented. NIAID-supported research included H5N1 vaccines using MF59, the adjuvant developed by Novartis.

NIAID funded the adjuvant which I alleged was causing the cytokine storms in 2009.

Lipid based adjuvants used during the swine flu have some parallels with the lipid nanoparticles used in the MRNA covid vaccines also found to cause deaths and cytokine storms in studies as discussed.

One of the trial sites was a clinic in Grudziądz, Poland. The Polish Supreme Court's account says the study had been approved in 2007, but patients at the clinic were not properly informed that they were participating in a clinical trial or that they were

receiving an unapproved H5N1 preparation; some believed they were receiving an ordinary seasonal-flu vaccine.

Many died.

The subsequent Polish criminal investigation was quite damning. Prosecutors found that:

patients weren't properly given informed-consent information;

nurses sometimes presented consent forms as though they were simply attendance/sign-in documents;

medical records were falsified;

some people were recruited who didn't meet eligibility requirements;

some patients were vaccinated while ill or intoxicated;

some nurses allegedly altered dates of birth to make people appear eligible;

doctors and nurses were accused of manipulating the trial to increase the number of participants and therefore their compensation.

The criminal case ultimately resulted in convictions of three doctors and six nurses, including for fraud, falsification/certification of false medical documentation, and vaccinations without patients' consent.

Recap.

Just before Baxter contaminated 72 kilos of the seasonal flu with the bird flu material to be used as experimental vacicne material, Novartis was conducting illegal trials with the same experimental bird flu vaccines in Poland, parallel with NIAID funded

Baxter s bird flu vaccine programme.

It used an adjuvant funded by NIAID

To emphasize, there is a historical paper trial between Baxter, the bird flu release in 2009, Fouchier s research and Fauci.

If investigators establish that Fauci knew there was evidence of a secret programme to weaponize viruses, release them and give the public experimental vaccines with significant vaccine-associated injury, understood that evidence to be material to public

health and informed consent, and deliberately caused investigators, regulators, physicians, or the public to receive a materially false or misleading account of that evidence, the conduct could potentially constitute evidence of intentional concealment or official misconduct.

If the investigation further establishes that the concealment was undertaken to protect a government program, prevent political or institutional consequences, or obstruct an investigation into vaccine injuries, the evidentiary significance would be substantially greater.

I also warned in 2009 also that the matching experimental vaccines are designed to cause cytokine storms and autoimmune diseases and that they would especially affect young people who have stronger immune systems.

These predictions have been largely substantiated.

Pandemrix (GSK) swine flu vaccine was an AS03-adjuvantedvaccine. Multiple epidemiological studies found an increased risk of narcolepsy, particularly narcolepsy type 1 in children and adolescents, after Pandemrix swine flu vaccination. A systematic

review concluded that the increased risk appeared to be limited to Pandemrix and Europe among the vaccines it evaluated.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28847694/

Immune activation and inflammatory cytokines may participate in the biological processes associated with narcolepsy, according to studies.

Some studies have found altered cytokine/inflammatory markers in people with narcolepsy.

And now recently released messages show Fauci discussing a warning in early 2021 that immune overactivation/cytokine storms could contribute to early-term miscarriage, while also publicly stating that real-world data had not produced a safety signalat that point.

And on another track, there is a pattern of retaliation against myself as a reporter starting in Austria in May 2009 immediately after I filed charges against Baxter for deliberately releasing a virus to start a global pandemic and to profit from it and continuing in Greece until today involving the same network of Gates, Fauci and the same methods as discussed in my submission.

BAXTER CONTAMINATION AND PFIZER S CONTAMINATION OF COVID VACCINE MATERIAL

PFIZER CONTAMINATION WITH THE SV VIRUS

PROCESS 2

I did not just make a prediction about vaccines contaminated with SV material in 2009. My 2009 warnings establish that I specifically warned about safeguard changes to allow contamination with material like the SV in a report I wrote for the FBI as a private, concerned citizen and submitted on June 10th 2009 to the US embassy and sent by email to US law enforcement.

I allege that Bourla and Pfizer must have authorized the removal of safeguards to allow for the contamination and it must be documented in the production and quality control logs of Pfizer

My charges against Baxter in 2009 alleged:

Baxter did not merely fail to prevent contamination with the bird flu virus. They knowingly ordered the removal of safeguards that existed to prevent contamination, while knowing what the resulting material would do.

That distinction is enormous.

If safeguards can be removed, vaccine material can be contaminated with any dangerous thing, with the bird flu virus, simian virus.

It matters for considering Pfizer s contamination with the SV material. Such contamination is not an accident.

Safeguards specifically intended to prevent such contamination must be removed. They are not ordinary manufacturing changes whose consequences could not reasonably be foresee.

The 2009 Baxter precedent and investigation suggests Bourla, as CEO of Pfizer, acting individually and in concert, did unlawfully and from a premeditated design to effect the deaths of human beings cause deadly biological material contaminated with the Simian Virus to be manufactured and administered to Americans, by knowingly directing and authorizing the removal, abolition, or circumvention of established manufacturing safeguards designed to prevent contamination of such material, while knowing that the resulting material could cause fatal illness and death, thereby causing the deaths of numerous persons.

The Simian Virus is known to cause cancer in mice.

Vaccine material cannot be contaminated with the SV virus unless Pfizer executives knowingly and intentionally agreed with one another and with other persons to manufacture contaminated material and distribute contaminated material capable of causing fatal illness and to remove safeguards that would otherwise prevent or detect such contamination, with the purpose of facilitating the manufacture and administration of that material to Americans.

The presence of the SV material was not included in the filings to the regulators.

It was found by scientists from 2023 (Kevin McKernan et al)

The manufacture of the contaminated material became Process 2, the material which was given to Americans.

But the 2009 Baxter case suggests Bourla and Pfizer knowingly and recklessly ordered the removal of established safety measures after receiving scientific and medical information concerning the danger presented by the resulting material, and thereby caused the deaths of Americans exposed to the material.

Pfizer s internal logs and production and quality controls become vital records.

If the production logs contained authenticated orders such as:

Bourla's signature removing a filtration or sterilization requirement;

Bourla s signature authorizing the corresponding production change;

contemporaneous laboratory warnings describing SV contamination;

subsequent production records showing that the altered process was actually used; and

the prosecutor could construct a very tight evidentiary chain:

warning → Bourla' knowledge → signed order → altered production process → contaminated material → prisoner exposure → characteristic illness → deaths.

Bourla and Pfizer occupied positions of authority within the relevant industrial organization and possessed authority over the manufacturing procedures at issue.

Established safeguards existed for the purpose of preventing, detecting, or removing biological contamination.

Bourla and Pfizer received or possessed scientific information concerning the presence and effects of the alleged SV agent.

Despite that information, the defendants personally signed or authorized written orders abolishing, reducing, or circumventing specified safeguards.

Those orders were entered into contemporaneous manufacturing or production records bearing the defendants' signatures.

The resulting manufacturing process produced material containing the alleged SV agent.

The defendants knew, or intentionally disregarded information demonstrating, that the contaminated material could produce the fatal inflammatory syndrome subsequently identified by investigators.

The contaminated material was thereafter administered to Americans

The signatures would be particularly important. They potentially move the allegation from corporate responsibility toward individual responsibility: the prosecution could say that these weren't merely policies of Pfizer for which the defendants happened to have supervisory responsibility; the defendants themselves authorized the relevant changes.

Bourla and Pfizer acting individually and in concert, knowingly and intentionally caused the deaths of Americas by authorizing the manufacture and administration of biological material which they knew presented a substantial and lethal danger to human life.

Thett committed the foregoing acts after receiving specific warnings concerning SV contamination and lethal effects and after receiving information concerning established safeguards designed to prevent such contamination.

Bourla and Pfizer knowingly agreed with one another and with other persons to manufacture and distribute the contaminated material, to remove safeguards governing its manufacture, and to conceal the nature and consequences of those acts.

Bourla and co conspirators knowingly and intentionally sought to cause Burgermeister to be imprisoned, silenced, or otherwise prevented from communicating information to governmental authorities concerning their activities.

warning in 2009 → Bourla, Gates suppress warning → Bourla authorize production → product reaches USA from 2021 → predicted disease appears → mass deaths occur

Pfizer s contamination with the SV virus was not an unforeseeable accident. I gave a very specific warning in 2009 about pandemic vaccine material contaminated with the SV virus and noted that there had to be orders for the safeguards preventing contamination to be removed for material to be contaminated and released.

The single strongest piece of evidence against Bourla and Pfizer management would probably be the the Pfizer logs. If the Pfizer manufacturing, quality control logs prove Bourla and other executives repeatedly intervened to ensure standard safeguards were ignored and warnings brushed aside, then intention is proven. Despite a 2009 warning, they allowed material to be contaminated with the SV virus and the resulting contaminated product to reach the public as part of an unauthorized manufacturing process, which is called Process 2.

Independent scientists and health regulators confirmed that a SV40 DNA sequence was present in the vaccine's manufacturing plasmid but had not been explicitly labeled on initial ingredient filing.

Regulatory bodies like Health Canada and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have confirmed that while Pfizer provided the full plasmid DNA sequence during initial regulatory filings, the company did not specifically highlight or label the non-functional SV40 promoter-enhancer elements in its documentation.

When a pharmaceutical company adds an ingredient that is not disclosed or labeled in its official regulatory filings, it triggers severe legal, financial, and regulatory consequences. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) enforced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the medication is legally classified as both adulterated and misbranded.

If the omission was intentional, fraudulent, or the result of gross negligence, executives and the corporation can face criminal charges. Under the Park Doctrine (responsible corporate officer doctrine), pharma executives can be prosecuted, fined, and sentenced to prison for regulatory violations, even if they claim they weren't personally aware of the specific ingredient addition.

Between 1955 and 1963, early iterations of the polio vaccine were manufactured using rhesus monkey kidney cells that were infected with live SV40. Millions of people were exposed to the virus before testing protocols were updated.

SV40 causes tumors in laboratory rodents according to studies,as mentioned.

When the predicted injuries appeared from a DNA which can integrate into cells and cause cancer, Bourla escalated attempts to silence the person who had warned the public in 2009 that safeguards were being deliberately removed by pharma companies, specifically, Baxter, to contaminate vaccine material and who had specifically warned about the SV contamination.

The combination of the Pfizer logs, the contaminated SV material and the probes in Greece and Austria documenting crimes against a reporter for these warnings from 2009 offer a very strong case against Bourla.

That Bourla knew that the contaminated SV material could cause harms is shown by his familiarity with the reporters warnings which are documented in 2009 and include criminal investigation of Baxter for similar contamination as confirmed by the Austrian Health Minister.

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 significance 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.

Safeguards against contamination and impurities are an essential part of pharma manufacturing also against an accidental mixture with SV 40 reaching the public.

AI Overview Safeguards against contamination are an essential, mandatory part of the pharmaceutical manufacturing process to protect patient safety and ensure regulatory compliance. [1] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGFQIzQPRac)

Pharmaceutical facilities implement a comprehensive Contamination Control Strategy (CCS) based on Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). These multi-layered safeguards focus on key operational areas: [1] (https://pda.org/pda-letter-portal/home/full-article/eu-gmp-annex-1.-implementation-of-contamination-control-strategy), [2] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4nks3udhBs&t=1), [3] (https://www.freyrsolutions.com/blog/implementing-effective-contamination-control-strategies-in-pharma-compliance)

Facility and Engineering DesignCleanrooms: Production areas use smooth, non-porous stainless steel surfaces, sealed panels, and coved corners to prevent dust accumulation and microbial growth. [1] (https://omoriuk.co.uk/blogs/prevention-of-contamination-in-pharmaceutical-industry/)HVAC

Systems: Air handling units use High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters and positive or negative differential pressure gradients to control airflow and prevent airborne particles from entering critical zones. [1] (https://lindstromgroup.com/in/articles/key-measures-to-control-pharmaceutical-contamination-2/), [2] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4nks3udhBs&t=1)

Airlocks and Barriers: Transitional spaces, pass boxes, and Restricted Access Barrier Systems (RABS) separate unconditioned outside areas from sterile manufacturing cores. [1] (https://www.gmpsop.com/basic-overview-of-contamination-control-in-gmp-facility/), [2] (https://www.pharmaguideline.com/2022/08/contamination-control-strategies-for-manufacturing-area.html), [3] (https://lindstromgroup.com/in/articles/key-measures-to-control-pharmaceutical-contamination-2/)

Equipment ControlsClosed Systems: Utilizing isolators and closed fluid-transfer networks to eliminate direct operator and environmental exposure to the drug product. [1] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4nks3udhBs&t=1), [2] (https://omoriuk.co.uk/blogs/prevention-of-contamination-in-pharmaceutical-industry/)

Cleaning Validation: Establishing and verifying rigorous cleaning, sanitization, and sterilization cycles for shared or reusable equipment to prevent cross-contamination between different drug batches. [1] (https://www.assyro.com/blog/cross-contamination-prevention-pharma-guide), [2] (https://ensorcell.bio/newsroom/blogs-articles/minimizing-cross-contamination-risk-in-multiproduct-and-shared-pharmaceutical-manufacturing-facilities/)

Dedicated Facilities Completely isolating manufacturing lines for high-risk compounds like penicillins, hormones, or cytotoxics. [1] (https://www.assyro.com/blog/cross-contamination-prevention-pharma-guide), [2] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4nks3udhBs&t=1)

Personnel and Procedural HygieneGowning Protocols: Operators must wear sterile coveralls, hoods, masks, boots, and gloves to block skin flakes, hair, and micro-droplets. [1] (https://ijrpas.com/HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Research%20in%20Pharmacy%20and%20Allied%20Science;PID=2026-5-5-21), [2] (https://www.cfpie.com/fundamental-summary-of-gmp-facility-contamination-control)

Training: Regular staff education on aseptic techniques, hygiene discipline, and movement control from clean to less clean zones. [1] (https://lindstromgroup.com/pharmaceutical-contamination-types-causes-and-prevention/), [2] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9biEpsLjC4)

Line Clearance Verifying that a workspace is completely free of residues, documents, or materials from a previous run before starting a new production or packaging stage. [1] (https://www.lfatabletpresses.com/nl/articles/preventing-cross-contamination-in-pharmaceutical-production-process), [2] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGFQIzQPRac)

Material and Environmental MonitoringRaw Material Testing: Sourcing ingredients exclusively from approved vendors and inspecting incoming components for bioburden or damage.Continuous Monitoring: Regularly sampling air, water systems, and surfaces for viable and non-viable particulate contamination. [1] (https://www.icliniq.com/articles/drug-and-supplements/contamination-control-strategies-in-pharmaceutical-industries), [2] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGFQIzQPRac), [3] (https://lindstromgroup.com/in/articles/key-measures-to-control-pharmaceutical-contamination-2/)

In fact, the entire manufacturing process was changed by Bourla and Pfizer and unauthorized vaccine material was given to the public.

PROCESS 2 AN UNAUTHORIZED PROCESS

Germany lawyer Hans George Maassen has argued that product supplied to governments 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.

German lawyer Ralf 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.

But the point I am making is that a pharma company scaling up production cannot abandon the safeguards against contamination. Safeguards are are a part of the manufacturing process.

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.

Ralf Ludwig argued before the to the Enquete-Kommission des Landtags Brandenburg on July 15th 2026 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnJJm8cwTfM

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.

THE THREE STAGES OF THE 1972 WHO MEMO

To recap information on my blog included a biological sequence that I, and others in 2009, claimed was outlined in a 1972 WHO Memo and could be expressed as three stages:

Stage One: alteration or suppression of the initial immune response;

Stage Two: introduction of a biological antigenic stimulus;

Stage Three: subsequent immune activation producing severe inflammatory injury.

The 3 stage model of 1972 WHO Memo also fits the mRNA covid vaccines with m1Ψ found to cause cytokine storms and also in the very group I predicted in 2009 which is young and healthy people who have stronger immune systems and so are more susceptible to autoimmune over activation in the event of toxins entering their body.

Stage 1 — immune modulation.

The first requirement is to alter how the immune system initially perceives the genetic material. In the modern analogue, m1Ψ-modified RNA does exactly that at the level of innate RNA sensing: it makes synthetic RNA less readily detected and permits efficient translation. That is a real molecular property, although it is not equivalent to globally “turning off” immunity.

Stage 2 — introduce the antigen.

The modified RNA supplies the instructions for production of spike antigen. In the fictional interpretation, this supplies the persistent immunological target required for the second stage.

Stage 3 — immune reactivation and pathology.

Once the immune system recognizes the antigen, inflammatory pathways become activated. The biologist connects IL-6 to the acute-phase response, SAA to fibrinogen, and abnormal fibrin formation to thrombosis and tissue injury.

I published a reporton the 3 stages on my blog in 2009 which is included in the Appendix.

We explicitly described the third step as switching the immune system on and producing a cytokine storm.

Squalene-containing swine vaccines

We argued that pandemic swine flu 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.

Indeed, GSK s Pandemrix vaccine was linked with Narcolepsy and Cytokine storms as discussed.

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.

COVID VACCINE INJURIES DUE TO CTYOKINE STORMS AS PREDICTED BY THE 1972 MEMO

After the administration of the covid vaccine from 2021, the United States experienced an extraordinary increase in the conditions linked with cytokine storms that had warned about in 2009.

The injuries included myocarditis, inflammatory cardiac injury, thrombotic disease, abnormal coagulation, and other systemic inflammatory disorders.

Literature supports the notion that the injuries were caused by the very mechanism which I warned about in 2009.

All cause excess mortality and evidence ultimately attributed millions of deaths in the United States to the program.

The United States accumulated over 3.6 million excess deaths from 2020 through 2023 based on recent peer-reviewed health studies analyzing the U.S. mortality disadvantage.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/national-scandal-us-excess-deaths-rose-even-after-pandemic-far-outpacing-peer-countries

U.S. life expectancy dropped significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic—falling by about 1.8 years in 2020 and another 0.9 years in 2021

https://www.unc.edu/discover/u-s-life-expectancy-drop-caused-by-more-than-pandemic/

These deaths were not the unintended consequence of an unforeseeable event, but the foreseeable consequence of a biological sequence Kushner had investigated years before the deployment of the covid vaccines.

Of note, Moderna has generally shown a higher myocarditis risk than Pfizer, especially after the second dose in young males.

A large evidence synthesis concluded that, after dose 2, myocarditis was probably more frequent with Moderna than Pfizer in people aged 18–29 and in men aged 18–39.

There are also individual studies showing substantial differences. For example, one population study found myocarditis rates of about 35.6 per million after Moderna dose 2 versus 12.6 per million after Pfizer dose 2 in the studied population.

Amount of mRNA

Moderna's Spikevax dose contains more mRNA than Pfizer's Comirnaty dose.

This is a real difference.

For the 2025–26 formulation, for example:

Pfizer Comirnaty: 30 micrograms of nucleoside-modified mRNA per 0.3 mL dose for people ≥12 at higher risk.

Moderna Spikevax: 50 micrograms of mRNA per 0.5 mL dose.

GSK S SWINE FLU VACCINE LINED TO CYTOKINE STORMS IN 2009

PREDICTION COMES TRU IN 2009 ALREADY

In fact, in 2009, GSK s swine flu Pandemrix vaccine has been found to lead to excessive cytokine activation and this leading to immune-mediated hypothalamic injury and narcolepsy.

There is a substantial body of evidence linking Pandemrix (the AS03-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine) to an increased risk of narcolepsy, particularly narcolepsy type 1 in children and adolescents. The strongest evidence is epidemiological; it is not based on a randomized trial proving causation.

Key studies

Finland — Nohynek et al., 2012, PLOS ONE

This was one of the landmark studies. Among Finnish 4–19-year-olds, the incidence of narcolepsy was 9.0 vs 0.7 per 100,000 person-years in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, giving a rate ratio of 12.7 (95% CI 6.1–30.8). The estimated attributable risk was about 1 case per 16,000 vaccinated children. The authors concluded that Pandemrix contributed to the onset of narcolepsy.

Sweden — Persson et al., 2013/2014

A very large registry-based cohort included 3.35 million vaccinated and 2.50 million unvaccinated people. In those ≤20 years old, Pandemrix was associated with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% CI 1.78–4.79)—about a threefold increase. The excess risk decreased with increasing age.

England — Miller et al., 2013, BMJ

Researchers compared English children and adolescents who developed narcolepsy with vaccination rates in the age-matched population. They found an increased risk following Pandemrix, consistent with the Finnish and Swedish findings.

Western Sweden — 2013

A clinical study found that the incidence of narcolepsy was approximately 25 times higher after vaccination than before vaccination. Importantly, all of the post-vaccination children tested were HLA-DQB1*06:02 positive, the major genetic susceptibility allele for narcolepsy. The authors concluded that Pandemrix appeared to be a precipitating factor, particularly in genetically susceptible individuals.

Norway — Heier et al., 2013

Among Norwegian children aged 4–19, 58 vaccinated children developed confirmed narcolepsy during 2010–2011. Many developed symptoms within six months, and those tested had low CSF hypocretin. The incidence was significantly elevated in the first year following vaccination.

2018 systematic review/meta-analysis

This is particularly useful because it combines the epidemiological evidence. It concluded that the increased risk appeared to be specific to Pandemrix, with approximately a 5–14-fold increase in children/adolescents during the first year and 2–7-fold in adults. The estimated attributable risk in children/adolescents was approximately 1 case per 18,400 doses.

Why researchers think this wasn't simply coincidence

There are several converging observations:

Pandemrix → increased narcolepsy incidence → strongest in young people → strongest in genetically susceptible HLA-DQB1*06:02 carriers.

The Swedish research program specifically found a 3–4-fold increased risk in vaccinated children/adolescents and confirmed the HLA-DQB1*06:02 association.

There is also evidence against the explanation that it was simply H1N1 infection causing the cases. A Finnish study tested patients for antibodies indicating previous H1N1 infection and found evidence of prior infection in only 2 of 45 (4.4%) Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy cases, concluding that H1N1 infection was unlikely to explain the sudden Finnish increase.

There are studies showing that Pandemrix produces measurable inflammatory/cytokine responses, and there are separate studies showing pro-inflammatory cytokine responses in people who developed Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy.

1. The strongest direct evidence: Pandemrix → cytokines in humans

Sobolev et al., Nature Immunology (2016), “Adjuvanted influenza-H1N1 vaccination reveals lymphoid signatures…”

178 healthy adults received Pandemrix.

Blood was measured before vaccination and at multiple points afterward.

Within 24 hours, there were extensive changes in immune-cell gene expression and activation.

Serum IL-6, G-CSF, CCL2 and CCL4 increased.

IFN-γ showed the largest fold-change among the measured cytokines.

The response was largely transient, with most early changes returning toward baseline by day 7.

The paper specifically describes increased blood concentrations of IL-6 and G-CSF, along with chemokines CCL2/CCL4, and a particularly pronounced IFN-γ response.

So this gives airly direct evidence:

Pandemrix → rapid innate/lymphoid activation → measurable cytokine/chemokine increase

2. Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy patients show abnormal cytokine responses

Vuorela et al., Nature Communications (2021) examined children/adolescents who developed type-1 narcolepsy after Pandemrix and compared them with Pandemrix-vaccinated controls.

They found enhanced T-cell responses to particular H1N1 epitopes, with increased IFN-γ and IL-2 responses. They also found responses to a human self-protein, POMT1, with evidence of overlapping T-cell responses. The activated cells expressed IFN-γ, perforin and granzyme B, consistent with a cytotoxic T-cell/Th1-type inflammatory response.

3. Another study: inflammatory T-cell phenotype in narcolepsy

Hartmann et al., Journal of Experimental Medicine (2016) used high-dimensional single-cell analysis.

They found that narcolepsy patients had increased production of the pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF and IL-2 by CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Their cohort included 11 patients whose narcolepsy began after Pandemrix vaccination.

However, there is an important limitation: when they directly compared the Pandemrix-associated patients with non-Pandemrix narcolepsy patients, they didn't find a clear distinct immune phenotype attributable specifically to Pandemrix.

4. Swedish Pandemrix-narcolepsy study: IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and IL-17

Ambati et al., Journal of Internal Medicine (2015) studied 38 HLA-DQB1*06:02-positive Pandemrix-vaccinated narcolepsy cases and 76 matched controls.

They found significantly increased IFN-γ responses to certain Streptococcus pyogenes antigens in the narcolepsy cases. At the single-cell level, responding T cells produced:

IL-2

IFN-γ

TNF-α

IL-17

The authors proposed that streptococcal immune responses could contribute to an inflammatory/molecular-mimicry process in susceptible individuals.

5. What about IL-6 and TNF specifically?

There is also broader evidence that narcolepsy itself is associated with inflammatory cytokines.

A 2020 systematic review/meta-analysis covering 12 studies and 457 patients found significantly higher plasma IL-6 and TNF-α in narcolepsy compared with controls. However, the results were inconsistent depending on whether cytokines were measured in plasma, serum, or CSF.

What the literature does support is:

Pandemrix causes a strong but normally transient inflammatory immune response in humans

↓

Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy patients show unusual H1N1-reactive T-cell responses and increased IFN-γ/IL-2/cytotoxic signatures

↓

Narcolepsy as a disease is associated in some studies with elevated inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and TNF-α

↓

Genetic susceptibility, especially HLA-DQB1*06:02, appears to be important.

COVID VACCINES AND CYTOKINE STORMS

MY WARNING FROM 2009

WHY THE SAME INJUIES FROM COVID VACCINES?

1 THE SAME LIPID BASED ADJUVANTS

2 AN UPDATED LNP TECHNOLOGY FOR THE MRNA VACCINES

3 AN UPDATE D TECHNOLOGY, THE MRNA VACCINE

I and others, specifically Dr Rebecca carley and Patrick Jordan, 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 we characterized as a “cytokine storm.”

Our interpretation became known as the “One, Two, Three, Dead” argument.

There are actually potentially parallel pathways:

Pathway A:

mRNA/LNP ? immune activation ? cytokines ? cardiac inflammation ? myocarditis

Pathway B:

inflammation ? IL-6 ? acute-phase response/SAA ? fibrinogen alteration ? amyloid-like fibrin ? abnormal coagulation

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

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.

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.

We can draw a diagram like this

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.”

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

MRNA TECHNOLOGY AND CYTOKINE STORMS

To recap information on my blog included a biological sequence that I, and others in 2009, claimed was outlined in a 1972 WHO Memo and could be expressed as three stages:

Stage One: alteration or suppression of the initial immune response;

Stage Two: introduction of a biological antigenic stimulus;

Stage Three: subsequent immune activation producing severe inflammatory injury.

The crucial point is that the 3 stage model of 1972 WHO Memo also fits the mRNA covid vaccines with m1Ψ

The Parallel

There is evidence that m1Ψ “turns off” the immune system, and that covid vaccines were designed according to the 1972 documents, and that is why this sequence causes the predicted cytokine storms, heart attacks and white fibrous clots and other harms.

The mechanism is:

m1Ψ ? immune sensing is reduced ? unusually efficient translation ? prolonged/abnormal antigen exposure ? immune dysregulation ? cytokine surge ? SAA/IL-6 ? pathological fibrin ? fibrous clot.

THE 2009 FBI REPORT IN E 17 449

The FBI 2009 report which is a part of E 17 449 from 2017 touched on my warnings about the use of a three step approach to cause immune activation, viral antigens, cytokine-mediated injury, and severe inflammatory consequences described in a 1972 Memo by WHO in relation to the adjuvants used in the pandemic vaccines (bird flu, swine flu, covid) were a part of this three step approach.

In the 2009 FBI report I discuss the use of a adjuvant MF59 in Novartis bird flu vaccine in a trial in Poland in 2008 which resulted in the deaths of homeless people .

Novartis's proprietary prepandemic and pandemic influenza vaccines utilize MF59, an oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant formulated with squalene. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4634121/), (https://www.soci.org/chemistry-and-industry/cni-data/2008/14/polish-industry-not-dented-by-deaths), (https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/h5n1-vaccine-allegations_novartis-sued-by-bird-flu-guinea-pig/43329732), [4] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11257408/)

In 2007, local medical staff (three doctors and six nurses) in Grudziadz targeted roughly 200 low-income and homeless individuals. They misled the participants into believing they were receiving a routine, conventional seasonal flu shot, paying them a nominal fee (around £1–2 / $2). (https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bird-flu-homeless-poland-1.4587695), [2] (https://www.soci.org/chemistry-and-industry/cni-data/2008/14/polish-industry-not-dented-by-deaths), [3] (https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/h5n1-vaccine-allegations_novartis-sued-by-bird-flu-guinea-pig/43329732)

Local authorities launched an investigation after a homeless shelter director noticed a sharp spike in seasonal deaths at the center (21 deaths in 2007, compared to a typical average of about 8). [1] (https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/h5n1-vaccine-allegations_novartis-sued-by-bird-flu-guinea-pig/43329732)

The Polish health workers were later convicted, receiving suspended prison sentences and heavy fines for falsifying documents and failing to obtain informed consent. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bird-flu-homeless-poland-1.4587695)

The 2009 FBI report also contained my warning concerning the alleged contamination of vaccine materials by a simian virus or simian-virus-derived material.

2009 CYTOKINE STORM PREIDICTION COMES TRUE FROM 2021

The convergence.

The argument is therefore not that the 1972 authors literally described mRNA vaccines. But that mRNA vaccines converge and provide molecular equivalents of the three stages: modulate recognition ? introduce antigen ? provoke an inflammatory response.

I did not have to predict mRNA. I only had to identify the architecture. The technology came later.

The actual WHO memorandum doesn't establish a universal sequence in which immune modulation followed by antigen exposure inevitably ends in death. It explicitly discusses different outcomes depending on the virus, host, immune state, genetics, and mechanism.

The mechanism does not make death inevitable in every individual. It makes death a theoretically predictable endpoint under the right biological conditions.

The 1972 memorandum itself says that immune responses can cause cell injury and death under particular circumstances. For example, it describes lymphocytic choriomeningitis-virus models in which immune status changed whether widespread infection produced overt disease, and discusses immune-mediated tissue injury.

I and others recognized the architecture before the technology existed.

1972 imunopathology concept

? later reinterpretation by Burgermeister

? modern mRNA technology provides a hypothetical molecular implementation

? inflammatory/coagulation cascades provide hypothetical

The MRNA covid vaccine s molecular pathway is a modern, up to date version of WHO s 1972 three-stage framework as studies support.

I allege that this technology was deliberately selected and deployed with knowledge that it would cause immune activation and produce inflammatory and coagulation consequences described in the 1972 Memo.

The chain is something like this:

m1Ψ-modified mRNA

?

reduced innate immune recognition / enhanced translation

?

more efficient production of the encoded protein

?

persistent antigen expression

?

altered immune regulation

?

a later inflammatory trigger

?

IL-6 / IL-1ß / TNF-a surge

?

SAA and other acute-phase proteins rise

?

fibrinogen/fibrin undergoes abnormal structural changes

?

ß-sheet/amyloid-like fibrin

?

large abnormal fibrous clots

m1Ψ really does alter innate immune recognition and translation, and experimental research has demonstrated m1Ψ-associated frameshifting. Separately, IL-6 can promote coagulation pathways, and SAA can interact with fibrinogen.

There is a parallel between Stage 1 and Stage 3 of the alleged 1972 WHO mechanism:

Stage 1: immune suppression/dampening

Stage 2: antigen/infectious stimulus

Stage 3: excessive immune reactivation ? cytokine storm

That general immunological concept—an initial alteration followed by an excessive inflammatory response—can also be seen in the mRNA vaccines.

To map the modern molecular concepts onto the 3 stage model

Stage 1 — “turn down” immunity m1Ψ-modified mRNA reduces innate immune sensing and permits efficient translation ? substantial spike production

m1Ψ was deliberately used to reduce innate immune activation and improve translation?

Stage 2 — introduce the trigger The mRNA causes spike production, which in the 1972 scenario becomes the persistent antigenic stimulus mRNA vaccines do produce spike antigen and a persistent pathological stimulus is not established (Dr Paul Cullen)

Stage 3 — “turn immunity back on” Immune activation ? IL-6/IL-1ß/TNF-a ? acute-phase response ? SAA ? IL-6 is an important inflammatory/acute-phase signaling molecule; SAA is an acute-phase protein.

Coagulation consequence SAA interacts with fibrinogen ? abnormal fibrin structure ? ß-sheet/amyloid-like fibrin ? abnormal clot This particular SAA?fibrin mechanism has experimental support. Page et al. found that SAA bound fibrinogen and increased amyloid-marker-positive fibrin and altered coagulation in vitro.

The chain is

m1Ψ-modified mRNA

?

reduced innate RNA sensing + efficient translation

?

spike production

?

immune/inflammatory activation

?

IL-6 / IL-1ß / TNF-a

?

hepatic acute-phase response

?

SAA ?

?

SAA–fibrinogen interaction

?

fibrin structural alteration / amyloid-like ß-sheet formation

?

abnormal fibrin clot

?

“white fibrous clot”

A 2019 experiment directly reported SAA binding to fibrinogen and increased amyloid formation in fibrin(ogen).

WHO s 1972 Memo and three-stage concept provides the architecture; modern mRNA biology provides the Stage-1/2 mechanism; IL-6/SAA biology provides a plausible inflammatory-to-coagulation bridge; and the SAA–fibrinogen research provides a real experimental precedent for amyloid-like fibrin.

? m1Ψ ? spike ? IL-6/SAA ? ß-sheet fibrin ? white-clot theory is consistent with burgermeister s 1, 2 to 3

Stage 1 — immune modulation

? m1Ψ-modified mRNA

? reduced innate recognition / enhanced translation

Stage 2 — antigenic trigger

? spike production

? continued immune stimulation

Stage 3 — immune activation

? IL-6 / IL-1ß / TNF-a

? acute-phase response ? SAA ?

? altered fibrinogen/fibrin

? ß-sheet/amyloid-like fibrin

? hypothetical white/fibrous clot

So, at the level of conceptual architecture,

m1Ψ ? spike ? inflammatory signaling ? SAA ? abnormal fibrin ? fibrous clot

can be made to correspond to Stage 1 ? Stage 2 ? Stage 3 of the 1972 Memo

Studies show

m1Ψ ? altered RNA biology/translation: established. m1Ψ reduces innate immune sensing and enhances translation; experimental work has also reported m1Ψ-associated +1 frameshifting.

Inflammation ? IL-6 ? coagulation: supported experimentally. Costa et al. found an IL-6-dependent platelet pathway that increased procoagulant activity in inflammatory arthritis.

IL-6 ? SAA: established acute-phase biology. IL-6 stimulates hepatic SAA production.

SAA ? fibrinogen/fibrin abnormalities: experimentally supported. SAA has been shown to bind fibrinogen and promote amyloid-marker-positive fibrin and altered coagulation.

ß-sheet/amyloid-like fibrin ? abnormal clot properties: supported in experimental models, including altered fibrin structure and resistance to breakdown.

This fits very well as a modern hypothetical interpretation of Stage 1 ? Stage 2 ? Stage 3.

Myocarditis and the 1972 WHO Memo

mRNA COVID-19 vaccines use N1-methylpseudouridine (m1Ψ) and produce spike antigen.

Myocarditis/pericarditis is a recognized adverse event, particularly in adolescent and young adult males, with the highest risk occurring after the second mRNA dose. Major health

authorities recognize this association.

Immune activation and inflammatory pathways are being investigated as mechanisms for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

IL-6 and other inflammatory mediators can participate in inflammatory and coagulation responses.

There is currently good evidence showing:

m1Ψ vaccination ? spike ? cytokine/SAA elevation ? cardiac inflammation

A 2025 review specifically describes acute vaccine-associated myocarditis as involving elevated cardiac biomarkers, inflammatory cytokines/chemokines, activated cytotoxic T cells and monocyte dysregulation, while emphasizing that the precise mechanism remains unresolved.

A reasonable representation is:

m1Ψ-modified mRNA vaccination

? spike production

? immune/inflammatory signaling

? IL-6 and potentially other cytokines ?

? cardiac inflammation/injury

. A 2025 study transfected human cardiomyocytes with IVT mRNA containing m1Ψ and observed increased IL-6, along with increased cardiomyocyte apoptosis and cardiac-injury markers. The authors proposed a molecular mechanism linking the mRNA to IL-6-mediated inflammation.

Another 2026 study in human cardiomyocytes found that both Pfizer's and Moderna's mRNA formulations produced spike-related protein products and that, particularly in cardiomyocytes, these were associated with pro-inflammatory responses and oxidative stress.

And clinical/review literature recognizes immune and cytokine dysregulation as a possible mechanism of mRNA-vaccine-associated myocarditis, although the precise mechanism remains unresolved.

Where SAA fits

SAA is the less-established part of this particular myocarditis chain.

IL-6 is a major driver of the acute-phase response, so:

IL-6 ? ? hepatic SAA ?

Supported/plausible:

m1Ψ mRNA ? spike/immune activation ? inflammatory cytokines including IL-6 ? cardiac inflammation

Additional hypothesis

IL-6 ? SAA ? altered fibrin/amyloid-like fibrin

A recent experimental study using m1Ψ-containing IVT mRNA in human cardiomyocytes reported increased IL-6 expression and proposed a pathway leading to myocardial inflammation.

Human cases of mRNA-vaccine-associated myocarditis show elevated inflammatory cytokines/chemokines, activated cytotoxic immune cells, and cardiac injury. One study described the findings as consistent with a cytokine-dependent pathology, although the precise mechanism remains unresolved.

Separately, SAA has been experimentally shown to bind fibrinogen and promote amyloid-like fibrin formation and atypical coagulation in vitro.

Other research has found gene-expression changes in patients with myocardial injury after mRNA vaccination that were associated with pathways involving inflammation, coagulopathy and myocardial dysfunction.

There are actually potentially parallel pathways:

Pathway A:

mRNA/LNP ? immune activation ? cytokines ? cardiac inflammation ? myocarditis

FPathway B:

inflammation ? IL-6 ? acute-phase response/SAA ? fibrinogen alteration ? amyloid-like fibrin ? abnormal coagulation

ASTRAZENECA S COVID VACCINE-

AZ s covid vaccine did not receive authorization for use in the USA, possibly because its developper Sir John Bell comments about sterilizing populations

In an August 2020 interview with Jon Snow of Channel 4, Bell said:

“These vaccines are unlikely to completely sterilise the population… [they're] very likely to have an effect which works in a percentage, say 60 or 70%.”

• The conspiracy interpretation takes “sterilise the population” to mean make 60–70% of people infertile/sterile.

• From there, the claim becomes that Bell accidentally revealed that the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was intended as a mass-sterilisation or depopulation program.

• Some versions add Bell's connections to government, pharmaceutical companies, the Gates/Wellcome ecosystem and Oxford, presenting these relationships as evidence of a coordinated agenda.

There is a meaningful difference between:

“A vaccine could provide sterilizing immunity in 60–70% of people.”

and

“These vaccines are unlikely to completely sterilise the population.”

I emailed the FDA in December 2022 to emphasize the risk of authorizing AZ s covid vaccine given this statement and added it to my D 15 218 charges because it connected with my earlier warnings of pandemic vaccines used to cause sterility.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw5g6affesx5jze/SirJohnBellProsecutor.pdf?dl=0

Merck STEP HIV vaccine

Merck's Ad5 HIV vaccine failed to protect and was associated with increased HIV acquisition in some analyses/subgroups. This was a real and important safety signal. The precise biological mechanism remains uncertain.

AstraZeneca COVID vaccine Scientists asked whether lessons from STEP meant adenovirus-vector COVID vaccines could potentially alter susceptibility to HIV. AstraZeneca used ChAdOx1, not Ad5.

Merck Ervebo Ebola vaccine Criticism has sometimes focused on its use of a viral vector and on safety/effectiveness questions.

The STEP trial tested Merck's MRKAd5 HIV vaccine. It failed its primary objective, and follow-up found an elevated risk of HIV acquisition among vaccine recipients: the overall adjusted hazard ratio was approximately 1.40. The excess appeared particularly pronounced among some uncircumcised and/or Ad5-seropositive men and diminished with time.

Scientists subsequently proposed several mechanisms—activation of HIV-susceptible CD4 cells, effects of pre-existing Ad5 immunity, immune-complex effects, etc.—but none has been definitively established as the explanation.

When COVID vaccines were being developed, several candidates used adenovirus vectors. Scientists who knew the STEP experience argued that regulators and developers should explicitly investigate whether adenoviral vaccination could affect HIV susceptibility.

Their concern was particularly strong regarding Ad5-based COVID vaccines, because STEP involved Ad5.

AstraZeneca's vaccine was:

ChAdOx1 = chimpanzee adenovirus

I warned in an Open Letter to UK MPs in February 2015 about experimental Ebola vaccines using adenovirus vectors, including Ad5 and chimpanzee adenoviruses, including the GSK ebola vaccine.

Ervebo is not an adenovirus vaccine.

There have Merck's Ervebo uses recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV) engineered to express the Ebola glycoprotein. It is therefore biologically different from both the STEP Ad5 vaccine and AstraZeneca's ChAdOx1 vaccine.

Merck's licensed Ervebo was found to cause Ebola according to a study in The Lancet published in July 2015.

TO SUM UP

The existence of two distinct predictions coming true, combined with evidence that Kushner specifically and covertly sought Burgermeister's 2009 report and other information in 2016 before the later events occurred, permits a stronger inference of knowledge and intent than either correspondence considered in isolation.

The relevant question is therefore not:

Could one prediction have been a coincidence?

The relevant question is:

What is the probability that Kushner secretly obtained the 2009 report containing two separate warnings, attempted to suppress the author after his involvement was exposed, subsequently obtained extraordinary influence over the relevant vaccine program, and then presided over events alleged to correspond with both warnings?

Each circumstance must be considered together with the others.

One parallel, one correspondence might be coincidence; two independent correspondences, preceded by the stealth acquisition of the source document and followed by an effort to silence its author, constitute circumstantial evidence from which intent may reasonably be inferred.

THE FIRST PREDICTIVE PARALLEL — SIMIAN-VIRUS MATERIAL

US scientist Kevin McKernan first noted and reported the presence of residual DNA sequences—specifically parts of an SV40 promoter-enhancer—in Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine vials in early 2023.

(https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article283840483.html),

THE SECOND PREDICTIVE PARALLEL — CYTOKINE STORMS

The second correspondence concerns simian-virus-related material in vaccine preparations.

My FBI 2009 report contained a separate and independently identifiable warning concerning simian virus contamination of vaccine material.

Approximately ten years later, during the national mRNA-vaccine program organized with the participation and influence of Kushner, covid vaccine material was found to contain the simian viru sequences an d other material corresponding in significant respects to the subject matter described in my report.

THE OVERLAP

EBOLA AND COVID

FROM EBOLA TO COVID

THE SAME NETWORK AT WORK

The scientists and institutions, grans involved in the Ebola gain-of-function overlap with the people, research networks and arguments that became central to the covid-origin controversy and at the centre of those two networks are Gates and Fauci.

The strongest version of the overlap

1. Gates funded parts of the Ebola network.

Gates funding went to Corgenix for the ReEBOV Ebola diagnostic and to the Broad Institute for Ebola genomic sequencing. The Foundation's grant database is the primary place to establish the recipients and stated purposes.

So:

Gates → Corgenix/Broad → Ebola research

2. Those projects intersected with the Garry/KGH/VHFC network

The Ebola work at Kenema wasn't an isolated diagnostic project. KGH had an established viral-hemorrhagic-fever research program, and Garry's group worked with KGH and the wider VHFC. Garry subsequently described having worked with KGH for nearly two decades.

Gates-funded Ebola projects ↔ Garry/VHFC ↔ KGH. The same KGH research infrastructure and cohorts subsequently entered coronavirus research

This is probably the most interesting direct overlap.

The pre-COVID Sierra Leone study explicitly says that researchers used blood samples collected before the COVID pandemic from Lassa fever and Ebola survivors and their contacts. It was conducted through the KGH/VHFC research setting.

And the author list includes Robert Garry and Kristian Andersen. Andersen's publication record identifies the study as a 2021 paper on cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2/MERS-CoV antibodies in pre-COVID Sierra Leone blood samples.

There is an actual biological/research continuity:

Ebola/Lassa survivor cohorts → stored pre-pandemic specimens → SARS-CoV-2 serological research.

Garry and Andersen then move directly into the COVID-origin debate

Garry's congressional testimony provides a particularly clear bridge. He says that after the first SARS-CoV-2 sequence was released, he participated with other scientists in the molecular/phylogenetic analysis that became The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2. He explicitly places that work in the context of his nearly 20 years of work with KGH.

The chain is approximately:

Gates-funded Ebola research

↓

KGH / VHFC

↓

Garry + Andersen + associated institutions

↓

Ebola/Lassa survivor cohorts and biological samples

↓

pre-COVID SARS-CoV-2 research in Sierra Leone

↓

Garry + Andersen

↓

Proximal Origin

A. Funding overlap — established

Gates funded significant Ebola research involving institutions and researchers in this network.

B. Scientific/personnel/sample overlap — established

KGH/VHFC's Ebola/Lassa infrastructure, cohorts and researchers subsequently participated in coronavirus research.

C Gates funded significant covid research through EcoHealth.

The same institutional and scientific ecosystem that received Gates support during the Ebola outbreak subsequently used Ebola/Lassa survivor material and the established KGH/VHFC research infrastructure for pre-pandemic coronavirus research, while key researchers from that ecosystem—particularly Garry and Andersen—went on to participate in the SARS-CoV-2 origin analysis that produced Proximal Origin.

The Covid track

Coronavirus research—particularly research on SARS, MERS, and bat coronaviruses—was already active in 2014.

What was happening in 2014?

Fauci s pardon extends back to 2014.

The original NIH award was to EcoHealth Alliance, which subcontracted part of the work to WIV. GAO later identified a WIV NIH subaward of about $598,000 over the relevant five-year period.

There was also USAID's PREDICT program, which had supported coronavirus surveillance involving WIV/EcoHealth before and during this period.

What was actually being experimented on?

This is where the story becomes important.

The researchers were looking for SARS-like coronaviruses in bats, particularly viruses related to the virus that caused the 2003 SARS outbreak.

A major earlier discovery was published in 2013 by Shi Zhengli, Xing-Yi Ge, Peter Daszak and colleagues: they identified a bat coronavirus called WIV1 that could use the human SARS coronavirus receptor ACE2.

That work established that some naturally occurring bat coronaviruses possessed characteristics that potentially allowed them to infect human cells.

The 2014 program expanded this kind of investigation.

2015 — the particularly controversial experiment

This is probably the experiment you've heard about.

In 2015, a team involving:

Ralph Baric — University of North Carolina

Vineet Menachery and other UNC researchers

Zhengli Shi

Xing-Yi Ge — WIV

published a paper in Nature Medicine called:

“A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.”

They took the spike protein from a bat coronavirus called SHC014 and put it onto a mouse-adapted SARS coronavirus backbone.

That created a chimeric virus.

They then tested it for characteristics including:

ability to use human ACE2;

replication in human airway cells;

replication in mice; and

susceptibility to existing SARS antibodies/vaccine approaches.

They also generated an infectious version of SHC014 itself using reverse genetics.

This was a genuine gain-of-function-type experiment, although terminology matters: scientists and policymakers have disagreed about exactly how this work should be classified under different definitions of “gain of function.”

The paper itself says the experiments involving the full-length and chimeric SHC014 viruses were initiated before the U.S. October 2014 funding pause and were subsequently reviewed and approved for continuation.

Funding

The 2015 paper acknowledges:

NIH/NIAID

NIH/National Institute on Aging

USAID PREDICT through EcoHealth Alliance

Chinese National Natural Science Foundation among its sources of support.

Why October 2014 matters

Claim Evidence

Coronavirus research existed at WIV before COVID Yes

WIV/EcoHealth studied bat SARS-related coronaviruses Yes

U.S. government money supported some of this research Yes

NIH money reached WIV indirectly through EcoHealth Yes

Researchers performed experiments altering SARS-related coronavirus genomes Yes

A 2015 experiment created a SARS-like chimeric virus Yes

Some experiments tested infection of human airway cells and mice Yes

There is an overlap between the Kenema, Ebola and the Wuhan coronavirus network

Kenema/VHFC

NIH/NIAID → Tulane/VHFC → KGH

Gates → various research/response projects

DTRA → USAMRIID/Metabiota-related work

CDC → outbreak diagnostics

Broad/Harvard/Scripps/UTMB → scientific collaboration

Wuhan/EcoHealth

NIH/NIAID → EcoHealth Alliance → WIV

USAID/PREDICT → EcoHealth and collaborators

Chinese government funding → Chinese research institutions

WIV ↔ UNC/Baric and other international collaborators

Robert Garry and Kristian Anderson and Ian Lipkin were 3 of the five authors The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 who were also involved in the Kenema ebola genomic research.

The Gates Foundation funds research in several areas that are legitimately considered dual-use from a biosecurity perspective, particularly pathogen genomics, sequencing, diagnostics, epidemiology, and One Health surveillance.

Examples from its current public grant database:

Pathogen genomic sequencing: In March 2026, the Foundation committed $25,000 for an economic study concerning procurement and delivery of pathogen genomic sequencing across African public-health programs.

Genomic analysis: In June 2026, it committed $749,667 to the Broad Institute to develop pathogen-genomic data-analysis pipelines for malaria and other pathogens of public-health importance in Africa.

One Health / animal-human-environment surveillance: In 2026, it committed $508,992 to Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory for a network integrating human, animal, and environmental data to predict, detect, and mitigate emerging infectious-disease threats in Asia-Pacific.

Diagnostics: It has funded multiple low-cost molecular and point-of-care diagnostic projects, including a $846,097 grant to DCN Diagnostics and $2.72 million to Rapidemic for molecular diagnosis of infectious diseases.

Sequencing for surveillance: It also funded the University of Birmingham to develop sequencing directly from cholera stool/wastewater samples to study transmission.

Animal/infectious-disease surveillance: The Foundation gave the International Livestock Research Institute $1.45 million in 2026 to use advanced analytical tools for early detection and monitoring of infectious diseases.

The Foundation itself explicitly describes genomic sequencing, wastewater/environmental surveillance, and data modeling as tools for improving outbreak detection and public-health decision-making.

The same capabilities can have different applications:

Capability Public-health purpose Why it can be dual-use

Pathogen sequencing Track outbreaks and variants Generates detailed pathogen genetic information

Genomic analysis Determine transmission/evolution Some information can have security implications

Animal-reservoir surveillance Identify spillover risks Maps pathogens and their natural hosts

Diagnostics Detect infections quickly Improves ability to recognize particular biological agents

Environmental surveillance Detect pathogens before clinical outbreaks Provides information about pathogen presence/distribution

The Gates Foundation funding of dual use ebola and coivid research

Examples from its current public grant database:

Pathogen genomic sequencing: In March 2026, the Foundation committed $25,000 for an economic study concerning procurement and delivery of pathogen genomic sequencing across African public-health programs.

Genomic analysis: In June 2026, it committed $749,667 to the Broad Institute to develop pathogen-genomic data-analysis pipelines for malaria and other pathogens of public-health importance in Africa.

One Health / animal-human-environment surveillance: In 2026, it committed $508,992 to Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory for a network integrating human, animal, and environmental data to predict, detect, and mitigate emerging infectious-disease threats in Asia-Pacific.

Diagnostics: It has funded multiple low-cost molecular and point-of-care diagnostic projects, including a $846,097 grant to DCN Diagnostics and $2.72 million to Rapidemic for molecular diagnosis of infectious diseases.

Sequencing for surveillance: It also funded the University of Birmingham to develop sequencing directly from cholera stool/wastewater samples to study transmission.

Animal/infectious-disease surveillance: The Foundation gave the International Livestock Research Institute $1.45 million in 2026 to use advanced analytical tools for early detection and monitoring of infectious diseases.

The Foundation itself explicitly describes genomic sequencing, wastewater/environmental surveillance, and data modeling as tools for improving outbreak detection and public-health decision-making.

Where the "dual-use" issue comes in

The same capabilities can have different applications:

Capability Public-health purpose Why it can be dual-use

Pathogen sequencing Track outbreaks and variants Generates detailed pathogen genetic information

Genomic analysis Determine transmission/evolution Some information can have security implications

Animal-reservoir surveillance Identify spillover risks Maps pathogens and their natural hosts

Diagnostics Detect infections quickly Improves ability to recognize particular biological agents

Environmental surveillance Detect pathogens before clinical outbreaks Provides information about pathogen presence/distribution

The Gates Foundation says its committed-grants database covers grants since 1994 and is dynamically updated; it also makes its funded research publicly accessible.

1. Pathogen genomic sequencing and analysis

One clear category is funding for pathogen genomic sequencing and genomic-data analysis.

The Foundation has funded work involving sequencing and analysis of pathogen genomes for public-health surveillance. It also funds infrastructure intended to make genomic information useful to public-health programs.

Why this is dual-use:

Genomic sequencing is fundamentally a surveillance technology. It can establish which pathogen or lineage is present, reveal relationships between cases, and identify evolutionary changes. Those capabilities are beneficial for outbreak response but also create information that has potential security sensitivity.

The dual-use concern therefore comes primarily from the information and analytical capability, rather than from sequencing itself. There is nothing inherently military about sequencing a pathogen.

2. One Health / human-animal-environment surveillance

A particularly relevant category is the Foundation's support for One Health surveillance, where information from humans, animals, and the environment is combined.

For example, the Foundation's grants database includes funding for the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). A September 2025 grant was $1.88 million for work serving Africa and Asia, while earlier grants supported WOAH's animal-health activities globally and in Africa.

Why this is dual-use:

Animal surveillance can identify:

pathogens circulating in animal populations;

geographic areas where spillover may occur;

relationships between animal and human infections;

changes in disease prevalence over time.

That information is extremely valuable for preventing zoonotic outbreaks. From a biosecurity perspective, however, systematic knowledge of which pathogens occur where, in which hosts, and under what ecological conditions can also be regarded as sensitive biological intelligence.

3. Emerging-disease surveillance

The broader Gates portfolio supports technologies intended to detect emerging infectious diseases earlier—including genomic surveillance, diagnostics, epidemiological modeling, and environmental surveillance.

The Foundation describes its grantmaking as focused on global health and explicitly maintains a public database of funded projects.

Why this is dual-use:

An effective emerging-disease surveillance system effectively creates a map of:

pathogen → host → location → transmission → genetic characteristics → detection method

That's exactly the kind of information that public-health authorities need to recognize an emerging outbreak quickly. But because the same information describes biological threats in considerable detail, it has an obvious biosecurity intelligence dimension.

4. Environmental surveillance

The Foundation has also supported approaches that detect pathogens in environmental samples—for example, sequencing approaches applied to wastewater or other samples.

Why this is dual-use:

Environmental surveillance can detect circulation of a pathogen without testing every individual. From a public-health standpoint, that's extremely useful because it can provide an early warning.

The security-sensitive aspect is that it potentially allows systematic monitoring of where a biological agent is circulating and how its genetic characteristics change.

The important distinction

Finding What it establishes

Gates funds sequencing Yes

Gates funds animal/One Health surveillance Yes

These capabilities have recognized dual-use potential Yes

Gates is funding research that could have biosecurity implications Yes

Ebola

1. Ebola genomic sequencing — Broad Institute, 2015

The Foundation gave the Broad Institute $850,055 to obtain and make current Ebola-virus genetic sequences available, explicitly to support development/deployment of diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines during the West African epidemic.

Dual-use relevance:

Sequencing provides knowledge about the genetic composition and evolution of a pathogen and can establish relationships among infections. That's extremely valuable for outbreak control. The same capability is therefore dual-use in principle: pathogen genomic information can have both defensive/public-health and security significance.

2. Ebola diagnostics and response

In 2014 the Foundation committed $50 million to Ebola response, including work on diagnostics, vaccines, therapies, emergency operations, and health-system capacity.

And in 2026, during the Bundibugyo Ebola outbreak in DRC/Uganda, it announced another $15 million, including funding for cross-border surveillance and diagnostics.

Dual-use relevance:

Diagnostic capability gives an organization the ability to detect a particular pathogen rapidly. Surveillance similarly provides information about where transmission is occurring. Those capabilities are obviously useful for defense against biological threats, but they don't constitute biological-weapons development.

COVID

COVID provides an even stronger example because the Foundation explicitly helped build genomic-surveillance capacity.

3. COVID genomic surveillance

The Foundation says that during COVID it helped build genomic sequencing capacity in lower-income countries and supported countries in detecting variants. It now describes genomic sequencing as a ool for identifying strains, tracking transmission, detecting variants, and informing public-health responses.

It also funded a specific $1.50 million Wits Health Consortium project to conduct genomic surveillance and variant detection of COVID-19 from human and animal sources in South Africa.

This combines:

human surveillance + animal sources + sequencing + variant detection.

Dual-use relevance:

That combination creates substantial epidemiological knowledge about a pathogen's distribution, genetic variation, and relationship between animal and human infections.

4. COVID diagnostics

The Foundation funded the expansion of COVID diagnostic capacity across Africa, including PCR testing and rapid antigen testing.

One example is an $8.78 million Wits Health Consortium grant to implement and validate a high-throughput PCR platform for COVID testing and surveillance, as well as other pathogens.

Another was $4.9 million to Global Access Health for high-volume manufacturing processes and future COVID diagnostic platforms intended to prepare for future pandemics.

Dual-use relevance:

The technology becomes broader than COVID itself when the platform is designed for multiple pathogens. A diagnostic platform capable of detecting numerous infectious agents is inherently relevant to biological-threat detection.

Again, that is primarily a defensive capability but when the tests are faulty it can spread a disases

Capability Ebola COVID-19 Dual-use concern

Genomic sequencing Yes Yes Pathogen genetic information

Genomic surveillance Yes Yes Tracking evolution/transmission

Animal-source surveillance Less prominent in these grants Yes Human–animal pathogen interface

Diagnostics Yes Extensive Detection capability

Epidemiological surveillance Yes Extensive Mapping transmission

Vaccine/therapeutic R&D Yes Yes Countermeasure development

THE CASE AGAINST ALBERT BOURLA

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

THE CASE AGAINST JARED KUSHNER

According to media, Lt Col Theresa Long has been examining claims that more than 2,500 members of the US militry died after receiving covid vaccines. In a deposition, she reportedly said she believed 28 deaths were caused by vaccination, while also acknowledging difficulties with the underlying data.

https://www.bankingnews.gr/diethni/articles/897372/huge-us-investigation-launched-2-500-military-personnel-dead-following-covid-19-vaccinations-what-really-happened

Relevant to this investigation are the Greek prosecutor probes E 17 449 and D 15 218, which show that thos responsible for the covid vaccines and for the mandates for the milirary did not merely commit a medical error with the covid vaccine.

Those responsible, specificially Trump s covid czar Jared Kushner and Albert Bourla, who spoke personally in January 2021 about the Pfizer covid vaccine contracts for the USA according to Bourla, concealed the true nature and dangers of the covid vaccine from the soldiers who received them.

They falsified or suppressed information concerning adverse effects, deaths, and experimental objectives, thereby permitting the program to continue. And to achieve this, they committed crime after crime against a reporter, myself.

But the paper trial left by these crimes and prosecutions, and corruption of due process crystallizes their intention, shows that deaths and injuries were not an unforeseeable consequence of an honest medical undertaking, but the foreseeable consequence of a programme and the fact that continued their conduct after its lethal character had become apparent underlines their cruelty and treachery.

Please see the email chain below and attachments.

The Greek prosecctor probe E 17 449 shows that Jared Kusner, who was a key advocate of Operation Warp Speed, and Bill Gates, Geroge Soros, and co conspirators Albert Bourla did knowingly and willfully agree with one another and with other persons known and unknown to obtain financial and official benefits by causing experimental covid vaccines to be administered to members of the military while concealing material information concerning their alleged dangers, specifically about cytokine storms, the especial risks to young and healthy people and contamination with the SV.

Please see a summary of the probe here

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/frci8gkqajfy8jfwj6cs9/2017-Grk-prosecutor-probes-convict-Kushner-of-covid-treason-Iran.pdf?rlkey=tz6jztrrgfjorigb8p1vzwfj1&st=60q3gz5g&dl=0

Other summaries here

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yfreupvzbwqrkc2p05quv/GatesCrimesInTheNetherlandsAndD15218.pdf?rlkey=5w6htfz5320qv7pxdkhlmi7kt&st=zpewgcji&dl=0

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ctbBU6RMJWya1dGiyhf3V9iro8lx-eB/view?usp=sharing

In 2016, I gave information I had compiled in 2009 for the FBI concerning the dangers of the special class of vaccines to which covid belongs to Russian journalists and publicly warned that the vaccines presented serious medical dangers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m3rx9mn7cjtk4h4/FBI%20Swine%20Flu%20Report%202009.pdf?dl=0

The email chain with the Russian TV to set up the interview mentioning the report (Bureacu)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/j08prckw6j535ox/ChristinaFadeevaEmailsJune2016%20comp_.pdf?dl=0

My report from 2009 specifically identified the possibility of severe inflammatory reactions, cytokine storms, and raised concerns concerning contamination by the Simian virus. When I linked Kushner to this specific 2009 report and these warnings through allegations of the Russian journalist in a blog post on February 15th 2017 that Kushner had helped them obtain a visa to interview me in June 2016 in Larisa, Greece, Kushner became aware of these warnings, understood their significance for his "covid" enrichment scheme and, rather than permit their independent investigation, undertook a deliberate campaign to discredit and silence me and started it immediately.

Kushner caused false or knowingly unsupported accusations of defamation to be brought against me for that specific post on February 15h 2017, employing the attorney Simos Samaras for that purpose. When this elaborate scheme failed and Appeals prosecutors examined Samaras, Kushner and Trump opening a criminal file E 17 449, in which I am the Politiki Enagon and witness

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0t7lkw7f7l05gu8/PolicemagistratetestimonyE17449.pdf?dl=0

Kushner, Gates used their influence to file two criminal defamatoin charrges againt me for the same ten posts E 17 379 (plus the 15th February 2017 in E 17 379 ).

Prior to the trial in September 2021, Kushner met with Nat Rothschild on his yacht off Greece.

When that scheme failed to put me in prison due to inconistent innocent,guilty verdichts (484 2021 and 485 2021, the co conspirators of Kushner, Trump, Gates and Bourla organized for me be seized and imprisoned close to Thessaloniki in June 2022 and I escaped in July 2022.

The records show that acts were undertaken because I possessed documentary evidence concerning thei knowledge of the covid vaccine program and its long before those harms appeared.

As Trump s covid czar, Kushner worked closely with Bourla, exercising his governmental authority to facilitate the purchase and administration of the covid vaccines, which were mandated for the military.

Trump has no protection for private and unofficial acts in office and certainly none for persecuting a reporter, an attack on the First Amendment.

They knew that the vaccine swere experimental and presented serious risks, yet continued the program for their respective benefits.

Beginning in or about 2021 , VAERS, medical and military records documented severe injuries and deaths among recipients corresponding to dangers previously identified in my warnings, especially myocarditis. These later records are evidence of the consequences of the programme , together with the earlier warnings from 2009 and documentary evidence bearing upon Kushner s and Bourla s knowledge and intent.

I allege that Kushner and Bourla participated in a continuing criminal enterprise involving conspiracy, bribery, obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, unlawful administration of dangerous substances, and homicide offenses arising from deaths caused by their conduct, to the extent each offense is established by the evidence.

Their persecution of me is particularly significant because it occurred years before the later injuries became apparent: I warned; Kushner sought to silence me; Bourla facilitated the program; and the alleged harms subsequently appeared.

I ask you to determine whether this chronology, together with the prosecutor probes E 17 449 and D 15 218 and other correspondence, authorization documents, medical records, and testimony o, establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Kushner and Bourla knowingly chose profit and official advantage over the safety of the soldiers placed in their care.

The question is not whether these men possessed supernatural knowledge of the future. It is whether they possessed sufficient knowledge of a serious danger that a reasonable official would have stopped the program or investigated it—and whether they deliberately chose otherwise. If the documents establish that they knew the risk, concealed it, and continued for profit or other advantage, then the subsequent injuries are evidence of consequence, while the earlier documents are evidence of knowledge and intent.

That is why the Greek prosecutor probe paper trail is the key to this case. The later deaths tell us what happened. The earlier documents tell us what Kushner and Gates and Bourla knew before it happened. And their persecution of me tells us how badly they wanted that knowledge kept from the the US military personnel and American public whose lives depended upon it.

That persecution continues today because the cover up continues today.

THE CASE AGAINST KYRIAKOS MITSOTAKIS

Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis is the government relationship in Greece that Bourla and Gates need to carry out their criminal scheme.

He was leader of the opposition from 2015 and PM from 2019.

THE GREEK GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP

KYRIAKOS MITSOTAKIS

The support of Kyriakos Mitsotakis hs been essentaial in advancing crimes against a reporter and so against Florida and Americans

The evidence of Mitsotakis prior knowledge is in the form of emails dating back to early 2016 when he was informed of the massive violations of due process in D 15 218 to hide the police reports capturing the personal knowledge of his predecessor Alexis Tsipras, Werner Faymann, Bill Gates, Foundation and George Soros, Foundation.

RECAP OF EMAILS SENT TO MISOTAKIS AND, OR BOURLA, GATES, KUSHNER

MITSOTAKIS NOTIFIED FROM 2016

An email dated 11th March 2016 shows Mitsotakis was informed of the corruption of due process in D 15 218 which includes a Florida newspaper article linking Bill Gates, Foundation and George Soros, Foundation to knowledge of my reports as crucial evidence which was illegally suppressed along wit the personal knowledge of Tsipras and Faymann as discussed below.

The email header has the Greek letters for Areio Pago (Supreme Court)

A key email is dated January 20th 2022 and sent to both Mitsotakis and Bourla and headed "No trial identifier number for Merck s Molnupiravir in GR and other issues." clearly refer to the files D 15 218 and E 17 449 and I add key documents as attachments.

The date of January 2022 is important in establishing the knowledge of Mitsotakis and Bourla prior to more retaliation against the reporter in May, June 2022 as discussed in submissions, which targeted the reporters communications with US state AGs including Florida on these matters.

Another email not sent to Mitsotakis but to Bourla and Gates s "Proofs of your role in a smear and murder plot of a reporter"

sent on 27 May 2022 at 17:15

To: bill.gates@gatesfoundation.org, media@opensocietyfoundations.org, albert.bourla@pfizer.com, pfizercentreone@pfizer.com

I invite Albert Bourla as well as Bill Gates and George Soros to read my submission to US state attorney generals reported to be considering criminal charges over your role in the engineered covid pandemic.

I give the link of a since suspended blog for a copy of my submission to US Ags on D 15 218 with the Florida newspaper as key evidence

https://thefourthempire.blogspot.com/2022/05/27-th-may-2022-dear-attorneygenerals-of.html

I also ask them both to stop threatening me by their refusal to correct and their retaliation.

That same day, 27th May 2022. media record Bill Gates arriving in Greece at the invitation of Albert Bourla and there followed the seizure of tools identified with them in D 15 218 in June 2022 when I was imprisoned close to Thessaloniki, the hometown of Bourla, and escaped by making a run for it with no attempt made by police to return me raising questions of the lawfulness of my detention.

Please also see attached an email string "End your crimes against a reporter today as the law requires" sent to Mitsotakis at his email address as Prime Minister as well as Albert Bourla on July 10th 2026. for an example, where I give specific details and links.

Please note these are just a few emails of the many sent since 2016 to Mitsotakis and Bourla over the period in question in relation to the reporters request for the correction of violations, the escalating retaliation and her current destitute state despite being a politiki enagon with the rights to protection from such retaliation.

My records show I addressed Bourla or cc d in to in about 100 emails with many more to Mitsotakis.

These emails to Mitsotakis and Bourla establish that they were informed at their official emails of this matter, the very email channels they themselves publish as being the channels to inform them, communicate with them. To not receive emails and warnings is different from wilfully ignoring them

Albert Bourla is a Greek-born American business executive who became Pfizer's CEO in January 2019 and chairman in January 2020. Pfizer identifies him as having been born in Thessaloniki, Greece.

The submission therefore asks investigators to determine—not presume—whether any personal, political, professional, financial, or communications relationship existed between Bourla and Mitsotakis and whether either person's conduct was connected to the alleged suppression of information concerning covid vaccines or to decisions affecting Florida residents.

The central allegation is that an English speaking journalist, myself, who happened to be in Greece communicated warnings concerning covid vaccines and other matters of public concern; that portions of those warnings had been published by a Florida newspaper and therefore reached a Florida audience; that the journalist subsequently alleges intimidation or interference designed to prevent further communication with persons in the United States; and that relevant investigative material concerning those events exist in Greek prosecutor

The submission further asks investigators to determine whether the following persons or entities had any connection to those events:

Kyriakos Mitsotakis;

Albert Bourla;

Pfizer or relevant Pfizer personnel;

persons within the Greek Government;

persons involved in Greek COVID-19 procurement or vaccination policy; and

any persons identified in the reporter's evidence.

knowingly attempted to prevent the reporter from communicating with Florida persons or institutions and whether such conduct constituted a Florida or federal offense.

knowingly continue in the above attempt

Greek prosecutorial records D 15 218 d E17 449

Investigators should determine whether Greek prosecutorial files contain:

the reporter's complaints;

evidence concerning alleged attacks or threats;

the Florida newspaper article;

evidence concerning alleged suppression of the investigation; and

evidence concerning Mitsotakis, Bourla, or their associates;

evidence concerning vaccine procurement;

For each identified Florida resident who allegedly suffered serious injury or death following vaccination, investigators should obtain independent medical and forensic evidence addressing:

vaccination → adverse event → medical causation → death or injury.

Temporal proximity alone is a part of s proof of causation.

Pfizer-related evidence

Because Albert Bourla was Pfizer's CEO during the COVID-19 vaccine period and Pfizer's chairman beginning in January 2020, investigators should determine whether any communications involving him or Pfizer concerned the reporter, Greek officials, Greek vaccine procurement, alleged safety warnings, or suppression of information. Pfizer's own corporate records establish Bourla's positions during this period.

Florida's territorial-jurisdiction statute addresses offenses committed wholly or partly within Florida and certain conspiracies involving acts in furtherance occurring in the state. §910.005, Fla. Stat.

Because Mitsotakis is a foreign head of government, investigators should separately determine the applicability of foreign-official immunity and any federal foreign-relations implications before attempting criminal process against him.

I respectfully request that Florida authorities determine whether the evidence supports:

a Florida criminal investigation;

referral to the appropriate state or federal authority;

preservation and acquisition of relevant evidence located outside the United States;

identification of Florida victims and witnesses;

investigation of any Florida-based acts in furtherance of the alleged conduct; and

further proceedings if probable cause and jurisdiction can legally be established.

This request should not be construed as asserting that Mitsotakis, Bourla, Pfizer, or any other identified person has committed a crime. The requested purpose is to determine whether the available evidence establishes such conduct and, if so, which authority possesses jurisdiction.

The Greek prosecutor probes D 15 218 and E 17 449, E 17 378 and E 17 379 and related shows what a public official, Kyriakos Mitsotakis does when a reporter threatens to expose what he believes could destroy his political power and financial interests.

And what Albert Bourla, a Greek American CEO of Pfizer, does when he is informed.

The evidence establishes that my warning was not confined to Greece. My allegations were published by a Florida newspaper, the Tampa Bay Times, Punditfact, and entered the information stream of Florida residents in August 2014. The warning therefore had a concrete Florida connection.

Particular billionaires and their Foundations knew of the publication, knew that the reporter was communicating information concerning matters of public health and governmental conduct to an American audience, commented on a paragraph from her blog cited verbatim in the TBT in 2014 and nevertheless participated in a scheme to suppress the underlying evidence and silence the source.

The fact that substantial portions of the alleged conduct occurred in Greece does not eliminate Florida jurisdiction. Florida law provides jurisdiction where an offense is committed wholly or partly in Florida, and specifically provides that an offense occurs partly in Florida when conduct constituting an element, or a result constituting an element, occurs here. It also provides jurisdiction over an out-of-state conspiracy when an act in furtherance occurs in Florida.

The Greek prosecutor probes document the following events

Reporter makes warning → Florida newspaper republishes it → identified billionaires Bill Gates and George Soros and their Foundation learn of publication → reporter is targeted → Greek prosecutors receive evidence → prosecutor files contain corroborating material → defendants learn of the investigation? → investigative material is suppressed → defendants continue publicly denying the allegations → financial/governmental interests potentially benefiting from suppression remain protected

The Greek prosecutor's suppressed file contained the Florida article and the reporter's underlying evidence, and so that file itself is a critical evidentiary bridge.

In 2016, Mitsotakis was given credible evidence that a reporter exposing a scheme to release viruses deliberately, to frighten people and give them toxic experimental jabs was being subjected to crimes in Greece and there wre massive violations of due process which included suppressing the evidence related to the Florida newspaper in a July 2015 police report.

Please see email attached.

I have also emailed Albert Bourla, the Greek American CEO of Pfizer, the evidence of crimes againt a reporter and a cover up raising questions about what he knew about the risks of Pfizer s covid vaccines before the covid vaccine campaign.

Rather than investigate those warnings, the cover up of the July 2015 police file with the Florida newspaper article , Mitstoakis participated in continuing the cover up and escalated efforts to silence her, conceal what had happened, and ultimately repeat the underlying misconduct.

Covid then supplied the perfect environment for the alleged enterprise to expand.

MITSOTAKIS AS THE GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP WHICH ENABLED BOURLA, GATES

Mitsotakis was not a passive observer. As Prime Minister Mitsotakis was deeply involved in Greece's pandemic policy. He promoted mask use, advocated mass vaccination, discussed vaccine procurement publicly, and supported mandatory vaccination measures. His government participated in the European vaccine-procurement system.

He also publicly attacked what he regarded as dangerous misinformation. In November 2020 he used the term ψεκασμένοι in discussing people he regarded as conspiracy-minded.

However, the significance of those statements would not be that criticism of vaccines was itself criminal. It would be evidence of the political environment in which the suppression against the reporter occurred.

The government simultaneously had enormous economic responsibilities: masks, protective equipment, testing, pharmaceuticals and vaccines. Greece's Court of Audit later reported that it had reviewed 246 COVID-related public contracts worth approximately €441.7 million, including PPE and medical products.

The State therefore possessed both enormous purchasing power and enormous control over the public narrative.

In Mitsotakis these powers became intertwined.

I allege that Mitsotakis has misused his power as Prime Minister for the continuation of a disease enterprise which includes the accused Bill Gates and George Soros, Jared Kushner and Donald Trump and which is documented in D 15 218 and E 17 449 years before covid.

If the reporter's warnings were discredited, the crimes against me could be repeated, the participants could preserve their positions. If evidence was concealed, they could avoid accountability. If government relationships produced economic opportunities, those relationships could continue. And if anyone inside the enterprise possessed material nonpublic information about pharmaceutical purchases or other covid-related economic events, the financial consequences could extend into securities markets with insider style trading in pharmaceutical shares.

And that is exactly what happened.

The crimes and cover ups in D 15 218 etc and my emails to Mitsotakis shed light on who knew what? When did they know it? Who corrupted justice in 2016? What governmental decision followed? Who benefited? What happened to the reporter immediately afterward I commnunicated evidence to US AGs in May 2022? (Imprisoned in Exozee when the crime in D 15 218 could be repeated by the same people for the same motive precisely because of the cover up? What records disappeared from the decisions trials E 17 378 and E 379 concerning the cover up of D 15 218, specifically 484 2021 and 485 2021 to hide inconsistent decisions? Did stock market trades occurred? And did the people making those trades possess material nonpublic information?

A government official's knowledge of vaccine policy to be adopted in advance does not, standing alone, constitute insider trading unless trades can be documented.

A government official's knowledge of a mask police to be adopted in advance does not, standing alone, constitute corruption unless a company linked directly to Mitsotkis and his family can be documented to have benefitted immediately on the declaration of covid as is the case with the Larisa Face Company discussed below.

Likewise, the fact that Mr. Mitsotakis promoted vaccination does not establish that vaccines were toxic, would cause heart attacks, cancers, excess deathsm and that contracts were corrupt, or that deaths resulted from those contracts.

However, Mitsotakis knew the reporter was making these allegations and that crimes were being committed against me for that reason. It is all documented in detail in the authentic police files from 2015, 2016.

Mitsotakis knew the files vanished, the probes were being corrupted and he has done nothing to correct the corruption since 2016.

The question is not whether Mitsotakis used political power, personal relationships and governmental machinery as components of a continuing enterprise to silence a reporter, conceal crimes, obtain or preserve financial benefits, and prevent the truth from emerging.

The Greek prosecutor probes establish those elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

As PM, Mitsotakis has a constitutional duty to ensure corrupt justice officials face correction and due process is followed.

The covid pandemic was not the beginning of the enterprise of Mitsotakis. The beginning was years before when the reporter was silenced. Covid was the opportunity through which the enterprise expanded, generating 100s of millions of government contracts related to covid in Greece alone which Mitsotakis assigned, also to the LFC>

The reporter repeatedly sent communications with Greek prosecutor probe records identifying specific crimes, identifying participants, identifying documents, and giving Mitsotakis opportunity to correct the record. Mitsotakis did not merely disagree with her conclusions. He declined to confront the underlying documents at all.

An innocent official confronted with a demonstrably false accusation has many lawful options: deny it, produce contrary documents, request an investigation, refer the matter to an independent authority, or explain why the evidence is wrong.

But imagine instead that the official's strategy is: don't answer the evidence; don't investigate the warning; don't correct the record; allow the existing institutional narrative to continue.

That is the tactic the prosecution would compare, cautiously, to the lesson of the Horizon scandal.

The Horizon evidence demonstrates why simply repeating an institutional position can become profoundly consequential when the institution possesses information capable of testing that position. The Inquiry has examined allegations and evidence concerning Horizon's integrity, Fujitsu's assistance to the Post Office, disclosure, prosecution support, whistleblowing and the handling of challenges to the system.

The lesson is not that silence equals guilt. The lesson is that a refusal to engage with specific contradictory evidence can become evidence of consciousness of the problem when combined with affirmative acts to suppress, conceal, mislead or obstruct.

What exactly did the reporter send?

And when?

From 2016, I sent Mitsotakis the evidence of the cover up of D 15 218 and of crimes against a reporter specifically because of my warnings viruses like covid were a scheme and the matching vaccines toxic.

Did Mitsotakis actually receive it? I rang his office and spoke to his staff and they confirmed receipt of the emails?

Wilful blindness is not the same as ignorance. The police records are authentic. He could verify them.

Who instructed officials not to respond?

Did the defendant subsequently repeat a statement that the documents contradicted?

Were records withheld, destroyed or altered?

Did anyone retaliate against the reporter?

And did Mitsotakis benefit from maintaining the false narrative?

Those questions transform silence from a rhetorical accusation into an evidentiary inquiry.

The alleged tactic is not simply ‘ignore the reporter.’ It is "ignore the evidence while preserving the official version of events.’

And since the evidence subsequently showed that the same people who maintained that narrative were also involved in the underlying conduct, benefited financially from it, or took steps to prevent the reporter's evidence from being investigated, then it can be argued that the silence was one component of a broader concealment scheme.

Silence alone is not the crime. The crime is the underlying conduct and whatever affirmative acts of obstruction, concealment, retaliation, fraud or corruption the evidence proves.

The chain demonstrated is:

reporter's warning → documentary evidence → alleged refusal to address it → alleged preservation of official narrative → alleged continuation/concealment

And there is an important legal limitation: a public official generally has no obligation to personally answer every accusation sent by a private citizen. The key thing is he and his office received credible evidence, understood its significance, deliberately participated in suppressing or concealing it, and took affirmative steps to perpetuate the alleged wrongdoing or its cover-up.

Article 25 of the Greek Constitution says that fundamental rights and the principle of the social state governed by law are under the State's guarantee, and that all state organs are obliged to ensure their unhindered and effective exercise.

That is particularly relevant when the allegation concerns crimes against a journalist. Freedom of expression and the press are not merely private interests; they are constitutionally and conventionally protected.

The European Court of Human Rights says that effective freedom of expression can require positive measures of protection, including in relations between private individuals. More specifically, when crimes are committed against journalists, authorities should examine whether there is a connection between the crime and the journalist's professional activity.

So, if a Prime Minister receives credible evidence that a journalist is being threatened, attacked or criminally targeted because of her journalism and his justice officials are joining in the cover up to allow a repeat, the constitutional framework strongly favors ensuring that competent authorities can investigate effectively and independently.

The Prime Minister received credible evidence of a potentially serious crime and then used his governmental position to prevent the competent authorities from investigating it.

The ECHR describes journalists as public watchdogs and recognizes information-gathering as an essential and protected part of journalism.

The Court's journalist-protection guidance specifically says that, when crimes are committed against journalists, authorities must examine the possibility that the crime is connected to their professional activity.

The police files D 15 218 contain the statements of the perpetrators in writing that I was targeted because she was investigating pandemics and corruption.

It is not the case that Mitsotakis has a duty to answer an email. He does not.

But after receiving credible evidence, we can infer he interfered with the machinery that is supposed to respond to it. We can infer this from the fact the violations have not been corrected since 2016.

A Prime Minister who:

orders police not to investigate;

pressures prosecutors to close a case;

directs officials to destroy or conceal evidence;

retaliates against the journalist;

knowingly provides false information to investigators;

prevents witnesses from being interviewed;

uses government resources to intimidate the journalist;

rewards officials for suppressing the investigation; or

personally participates in a subsequent cover-up and crimes

engages in conduct with criminal or constitutional liability.

Upon receipt of credible and sufficiently particularized information alleging criminal conduct against a journalist and possible interference with the administration of justice, Mitsotakis was not expected to personally prosecute the allegations.

His constitutional responsibility would instead include respecting and protecting the rule of law, the effective exercise of fundamental rights, and the institutional independence of the competent investigative and judicial authorities.

Where the allegations concern crimes directed against a journalist because of my professional activity, the State's obligations are heightened by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which can require positive protective and investigative measures. The Prime Minister therefore could not lawfully transform executive authority into an instrument for suppressing, obstructing or retaliating against a legitimate investigation.

A failure to respond personally to correspondence would not, standing alone, establish criminal liability. Evidence that the Prime Minister knowingly received credible evidence and thereafter affirmatively interfered with, obstructed, concealed or caused the suppression of an investigation would present an entirely different question.

Upon receipt of credible and sufficiently particularized information alleging criminal conduct against a journalist and possible interference with the administration of justice, the Prime Minister would not ordinarily possess a personal prosecutorial duty to adjudicate the allegations. His constitutional responsibility would instead include respecting and protecting the rule of law, the effective exercise of fundamental rights, and the institutional independence of the competent investigative and judicial authorities.

Let us put COVID events into the chronology:

Knowledge

→ Mitsotakis allegedly receives credible evidence of crimes against the reporter for exposing pandemics as schemes in 2016 and of the cover up of the investigation to continue the crimes and the scheme culminating in covid

Authority

→ He possesses governmental authority capable of affecting executive agencies and the political environment surrounding the investigation. Even as leader of the opposition in 2016, he had the power to highlight the corruption (press conferences, issue statements)

Affirmative interference

→ The refusal to correct shows he or people acting at his direction took concrete steps to suppress, derail, conceal or retaliate against the investigation and are continuing right now

Motive

→ Exposure allegedly threatened political power and relationships with people receiving government benefits from covid, with one potential example being the Larisa Face Company.

Benefit

→ Specific contracts/grants are identified and traced to particular beneficiaries.

Intent

→ Communications, timing, instructions, concealment and subsequent conduct allegedly demonstrate that the purpose was to prevent exposure rather than merely to make ordinary policy decisions.

Cover-up

→ Subsequent acts allegedly preserve the original concealment.

The contracts are not themselves the crime; they are potential evidence of motive, relationship, benefit, or the purpose of the crimes against the reporter and interference.

The timing of the LFC mask contracts dentifies the precise period in which investigators should look for communications, instructions, procurement decisions and financial relationships connecting the Prime Minister's office to subsequent LFC benefits.

On 26 March 2020, Larisa Face Cover says it was established as a new company for production of surgical masks.

Less than one month later, on 25 April 2020, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis personally participated in a government videoconference concerning Lariplast's mask-production operation in Larissa. The Prime Minister's Office records that Mitsotakis praised the initiative and specifically thanked the Ministries of Development and Health for coordinating government support to advance the investment. Lariplast CEO Giannis Tserepas participated, as did Achilleas Davelis, CEO of the Animus group.

Mitsotakis did not merely observe the project. According to his own office's account, he said the government had to coordinate ministries to provide the necessary support for the investment. Tserepas, for his part, publicly described the cooperation with the state, the Region, the Development Ministry, the Health Ministry and the Prime Minister as exceptionally effective.

That establishes proximity and governmental involvement.

The next question is what happened afterward.

Did the newly established LFC obtain government contracts? Yes. Did it subsequently obtain substantial investment support? Yes. Did entities associated with the people involved in the mask initiative receive public money? That is documented and should be reconstructed transaction by transaction.

LFC became a multimillion-euro-revenue company during the COVID period and received substantial public contracts and investment subsidies, but the available financial statements do not show multimillion-euro profit

The investigative question is therefore not whether the Prime Minister's April 2020 meeting itself was unlawful. The question is whether someone used the relationships and governmental machinery visible in April 2020 to influence later decisions from which particular businesses benefited.

LFC was founded on March 26, 2020—just eight days before the CDC's public masking recommendation which Fauci amplified ensuring that masks would be adopted and there would be a huge market and profit for companies like LFC.

The vaccine allegations are far more serious.

Mitsotakis received in 2016 specific warnings a reporter warning of the safety of the special class of pandemic vaccines to which bird flu, covid, ebola belong was being targetted to silence me and there was a cover up of the crimes.

He and then participated in suppressing those warnings and allowed the cover up to continue rather than allowing competent authorities to investigate them and the cover up of the crimes against a reporter.

To recap

The reporter warned that vaccination with pandemic vaccines like covid, swine flu could produce serious adverse outcomes, including cytokine storms leading to events like heart attacks, and warned that widespread vaccination could contribute to excess mortality.

These warnings have been substantiated.

Subsequent evidence did, in fact, establish that myocarditis and pericarditis were adverse effects associated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and cytokine storms are involved.

The vaccines were given to reduce excess mortality. But Greece subsequently experienced substantial excess mortality—approximately 8,500 deaths above baseline in 2020, 19,000 in 2021 and 16,000 in 2022—and excess mortality is an all-cause measure taken together with other data, studies now establishes that vaccination caused those deaths.

Claims the covid vaccine campaign saved millions of lives rely on a flawed statistical, mathematical model.

Therefore, the alleged offense is not that the reporter possessed a crystal ball and correctly predicted every subsequent medical finding.

The alleged offense is that Mitsotakis was presented with warnings that could be investigated, including a warning about a serious adverse event linked to covid vaccines that regulators ultimately recognized, and allegedly chose suppression rather than investigation.

The question is. What did Mitsotakis know? When did he receive the warning? Did he understand the warning? Did he transmit it to health authorities? Did he order anyone to investigate it? Did he instead cause the reporter's warnings to be ignored, discredited or concealed?

Mitsotakis subsequently learned that myocarditis was a genuine vaccine-associated risk, investigators would examine whether the earlier warning had been investigated or suppressed, whether the public received accurate information about the emerging risk, and whether anyone deliberately prevented corrective action.

He received warnings of potential contamination with the Simian Virus and other contaminates through the allegations of the reporter.

These warnings have also been largely substantiated through the discovery thatPfizer used a second manufacturing process to make the covid vaccines for the public and contamination has been found in that material.

The key questions would be:

What did Greece actually pay, rather than what the EU contracted for?

Which Greek governmental entities authorized payments?

Who negotiated Greece's allocations?

Were there Greek side agreements with Pfizer, Moderna, etc.?

What quantities were ultimately delivered?

How many doses expired or were destroyed?

What was the total Greek expenditure?

Did any Greek official or politically connected person have a financial interest in the manufacturers?

Did Mitsotakis or anyone in his government possess material nonpublic information concerning vaccine procurement, efficacy, safety, adverse events, or government purchasing decisions?

Did anyone connected with the government trade pharmaceutical securities while possessing such information?

That last question is where an insider-trading allegation becomes testable. The existence of large vaccine contracts or a politician's public advocacy for vaccination is not itself evidence of insider trading.

The evidence chain is

Reporter sends warning

→ Mitsotakis receives it

→ Mitsotakis understands its significance

→ he possesses governmental means to ensure it reaches competent investigators

→ instead, he affirmatively causes or participates in suppression

→ vaccination campaign continues

→ myocarditis signal subsequently confirmed

→ government communications continue

→ evidence of the original warning is concealed or the reporter is retaliated against

Mitsotakis silence is not being offered as proof of guilt. It is being offered as evidence of a deliberate strategy when considered together with the surrounding conduct.

The motive for Misotakis for refusing the correction and the return of the reporter s money is to silence her for

Protection from exposure: preventing the reporter's allegations from becoming public.

Political survival: avoiding reputational and electoral consequences.

Protection of associates: preserving relationships with people allegedly involved in the underlying conduct.

Economic benefit: preserving government contracts, subsidies or business opportunities.

Potential securities benefit: only if investigators could actually establish specific trades based on material nonpublic information.

Continuation of the cover-up: once someone has allegedly participated in a serious offense, the fictional prosecutor could argue that subsequent concealment creates an incentive to repeat or expand the misconduct.

Wht Florida has jurisdiction

Greek conduct

→ alleged suppression of reporter

→ reporter's warnings transmitted electronically into the United States also in May 2022 and now

→ Florida residents actually received or were targeted by the communications

→ an element/result of a Florida offense occurred in Florida

→ Florida statute supplies jurisdiction.

There is also Florida precedent recognizing that §910.005 can reach conduct performed in another country when part of the offense occurs in Florida. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal expressly held that “outside the state” can include another country in the relevant circumstances. .

Florida appellate authority has also recognized that the statute can reach conduct occurring in another country where part of the offense occurs in Florida.

To recap

Greece

Mitsotakis/others allegedly receive reporter's warnings

↓

Greece

alleged suppression/retaliation/investigative interference

↓

Florida

newspaper publishes warning

↓

Florida readers receive information

↓

Greece

alleged suppression/retaliation/investigative interference of reporter continues

↓

Florida readers do not receive information

Florida's Medical Consent Law, §766.103, says that informed consent involves providing a reasonable person with a general understanding of the proposed treatment, medically acceptable alternatives, and the substantial risks and hazards recognized by comparable practitioners.

The Florida Supreme Court has described informed consent as grounded in patient autonomy and the patient's right to make an informed choice.

The issue is not simply whether Floridians were vaccinated. The issue is whether they were denied material information necessary to make an autonomous medical decision as part of a criminal scheme and whether Mitsotakis was at the core of it.

The causal chain

Reporter possesses warning

→ warning reaches Florida newspaper/audience

→ Greek officials allegedly suppress the underlying evidence

→ information concerns a material, medically recognized risk

→ defendants deliberately prevent that information from reaching the relevant decision-makers

→ Florida provider/patient proceeds without the material information

→ patient suffers injury

→ evidence establishes the required medical causation

→ evidence establishes the defendant's legally cognizable participation and intent.

Mitsotakis misconduct was not merely the promotion of a vaccine. It was his suppression of material safety information from people whose bodily autonomy depended upon receiving accurate information before making a medical decision and the fact they were in Florida was known to him from the reporter s audience and the Florida newspaper in D 15 218.

I specifcically warned about cytokine storms, recognized by Fauci as an adverse effect associated with the mRNA COVID vaccines in January 2021

Since, I warned about cytokine storms in 2009 before regulators formally recognized the signal, investigators could ask whether the warning was investigated and whether emerging evidence was properly communicated.

But during covid Mitsotakis joined in an attempt to thwart and impede my investigation and communicaiton with US authorities also with a "rigged trial" in September 2021 (E 17 378, and E 17 379) and my seizure in June 2022 and imprisonment in Exozee after my communications with US State AGs concerning evidence tampering in relation to the Florida newspaper article.

This, shortly after Bill Gates came to Greece and my imprisonment in the George Papanikolau hospital

Mitsotakis visited this hospital on 4th September 2026.

George Papanikolaou General Hospital is Leoforos Papanikolaou, Exochi (Pylaia-Chortiatis), 57010 Thessaloniki,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9EjyrO3FxQ

Kyriakos Mitsotakis, acting while Prime Minister of Greece, knowingly participated with Bill Gates, George Soros, Albert Bourla, Jared Kushner and Donald Trump, other persons in a continuing scheme to suppress information concerning covid virus origins and vaccine risks.

The information was not merely communicated privately in Greece. The reporter's warnings were published by a Florida newspaper and thereby entered Florida's information stream. Mitsotakis knew that the warnings concerned material medical risks and that Florida residents were among the intended audience.

Rather than permitting the allegations of crimes against reporter in 2015 and the significance of the Florida article to be investigated, Mitsotakis participated in efforts to suppress the reporter's warnings and investigative evidence, including evidence of the Florida newspaper contained in Greek prosecutorial files.

Some Florida residents subsequently suffered adverse medical events following covid vaccination. There is a temporal association. Qualified medical evidence establishes causation in particular cases and the Greek prosecutor probes show Mitsotakis possessed relevant information concerning the alleged risks given by the reporter before the relevant conduct and covid vaccine campaign in Greece and Florida occurred.

Florida's jurisdictional statute provides that a person may be prosecuted for conduct occurring inside or outside Florida when the offense is committed wholly or partly in Florida, and specifically provides that an offense is partly within Florida when conduct constituting an element or a result constituting an element occurs here. It also addresses conspiracies involving an act in furtherance occurring in Florida. §910.005, Fla. Stat. (2026).

Accordingly, the State alleges that the foreign location of certain defendants' conduct does not by itself defeat Florida jurisdiction.

In addition, Mitsotakis agreed to prevent competent authorities from investigating the reporter's warnings and that acts in furtherance of that agreement occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Florida and/or produced legally cognizable consequences there.

The causal chain

Known information related to Florida, TBT→ deliberate suppression → particular patient makes particular medical decision → particular undisclosed risk materializes → competent medical evidence establishes causation → Mitsotakis conduct satisfies every element of a specified offense.

Mitsotakis knowingly suppressed specific information related to Florida, had a legally relevant duty or criminal objective, acted with the required intent, and caused a legally cognizable result in Florida.

For a death, the prosecution would have to establish the applicable homicide offense and causation. Florida's jurisdiction statute specifically recognizes the location of the death or causal physical contact when determining territorial jurisdiction for homicide.

Mitsotakis is knowingly continuing a campaign of harassment and intimidation against the reporter in Greece, knowing that she intends to communicate evidence to persons and institutions in Florida.

The purpose of the refusal to correct the violations to leave the reporter destitute in florida is not merely to punish speech already made. It is to prevent further transmission of evidence into Florida and thereby frustrate an investigation concerning information already published to a Florida audience.

Mitsotakis is involved in ongoing course of conduct extending across national borders: suppression of the source in Greece, prevention of communication with Florida, and concealment of evidence relevant to persons in Florida.

Florida residents actually died as a result of the covid vaccine, lured to their own destruction by false claims enabled by the crimes against the reporter.

The consequences occurred within Florida. Mitsotakis conduct was designed to prevent Florida residents from receiving material safety information, that the information was intentionally suppressed, and that identified Florida residents subsequently suffered fatal vaccine-associated injuries, including due to cytokine storms and myocarditis.

Mitsotakis conduct was designed to prevent Florida residents from receiving material safety information that the covid vaccines were especially risk for young people with strong autoimmune systems.

In 2022, Florida's Surgeon General reported an analysis finding an 84% increased relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18–39 within 28 days of mRNA vaccination.

To conclude.

1 Knowledge: Mitsotakis possessed credible information about the particular risk of cytokine storms, risks to young people and vaccine contamination before the vaccinations.

2. Suppression: he y participated in an affirmative effort to prevent that information from reaching Florida or the relevant decision-makers.

3. Jurisdiction: a statutory element or legally cognizable result occurred in Florida in the form of many cardiac, cytokine events in young men in Florida

4. Causation: competent medical evidence establishes that the vaccine caused the particular deaths.

5. Mens rea: Mitsotakis acted with the mental state required by the specific Florida offense.

6. Legal duty/offense: his conduct of witness tamperng, obstruction of justice falls within a Florida criminal statute;

7. Immunity: the court must separately determine whether his status as a foreign head of government prevents the prosecution.

I therefore alleges a direct territorial connection between the foreign conduct of Mitsotakis in Greece and the Florida and other states in American results.

Mitsotakis status as a sitting foreign head of government raises questions of personal and status-based immunity.

BOURLA AND URSULA VON DER LEYEN

To aovid making this submission too long, I refer you to the main summary.

The crimes in D 15 218 and E 17 449, in E 17 378 and E 17379 and in December 2022 all have Albert Bourla at their epicenter.

Jared Kushner, and Ursula von der Leyen as well as Kyriakos Mitsotakis were key figures in his inner circle who shaped government covid and vaccine policies.

For Bourla to claim total ignorance of a criminal conspiracy while sitting at the epicenter of command strains belief given the accumulation of evidence.

THE CASE AGAINT ASTRA ZENECA AND MODERNA

CONCLUSION

To sum up

My prediction from 2009 becomes evidence of intent

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.

Albert Bourla s signature on any Pfizer logs ordering a stand down of standard biosafety procedures in Pfizer to allow material to be contaminated with the SV virus would directly connect him to the authorization of the scheme to change out the original Pfizer vaccine material authorized for distribution with another material completely different as part of so called Process 2.

And this evidence almost certainly exists.

It was this contaminated material which was given to Americans because the vaccine made for the public was made according to Process 2.

The 2009 Baxter case shows that contamination cannot happen by accident. It must be the result of a deliberate decision to stand down a series of safeguards and that decision will be recorded in the logs.

Bourla s knowledge of my reports of Baxter and blueprint, followed by his alleged effort to suppress it, would provide powerful evidence of his awareness.

The 2009 blueprint therefore does more than prove that crimes occurred—it potentially maps the chain from planning to implementation and identifies the individuals who knowingly made it possible. It helps investigators identify where investigators need to look to find the evidence of intention, specifically in the Pfizer logs.

The prosecutor probes in Austria and in Greece are decisive evidentiary link because they complete the chain the documents alone cannot establish: the blueprint proves the plan; its later use proves implementation; I exposed the blueprint and identified what it meant in 2009; the probes show that when confronted with the evidence, with investigations, the Gates circle understood then significance, and then took deliberate action to prevent its exposure by targeting the reporter.

THE CASE AGAINST ALBERT BOURLA AND PFIZER

The evidence against Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, and Pfizer executives is in the form of an emails I sent to him in January and May 2022 and what subsequently happened to me, the reporter.

When I found the evidence sent to US AGs was tampered with, and notified Gates and Bourla in an email, shortly after Gates came to Greece at the invitation of Bourla and we may infer they worked together to arrange my imprisonment close to Bourla s home town and Pfizer s regional HQ in Thessaloniki.

After I informed Bourla of the contents, Bourla responded by arranging my imprisonment as discussed below, revealing consciousness of guil.

That sequence provides a direct evidentiary progression from plan → execution → disclosure → actual notice → deliberate suppression. Without the Austrian and Greek prosecutor probes, the prosecution could establish the scheme yet leave personal knowledge unresolved. With those probes, it can be argued that when Bourla and Gates were confronted with the evidence, they understood its significance, and then took deliberate action to prevent its exposure.

That is evidence that would show both prior knowledge and a deliberate effort to conceal what they had had authorized.

THE MATERIAL ASSOCIATD WITH THE IMPRISONMENT IS IN APPENDIX TWO

ALBERT BOURLA WORKS WITH JARED KUSHNER AND URSULA VON DER LEYEN TO OBTAIN THE COVID VACCINE CONTRACTS AND IMMUNITY

ALBERT BOURLA WORKS WITH KYRIAKOS MITSOTAKIS TO SUPPRESS THE REPORTER AND CARRY OUT THE COVID VACCINE FRAUD

The prosecutor probes in conjunction with the Baxter case in 2009 lay the ground work for claiming that Bourla knowingly contaminated the covid vaccine material with the SV virus, and knowingly supplied vaccines to the American public which would cause cytokine storms and for arguing that that he was not simply aware of the crimes—he was helping them happen.

In Bourla s case, the decisive question is whether the evidence establishes that, after acquiring knowledge of the criminal scheme , he intentionally provided or authorized substantial assistance to them. If the evidence shows that he knowingly supplied contaminated and toxic vaccine material to Americans, could foresee that they would get sick and die, then his responsibility rests upon his own acts—not upon the acts of Pfizer the abstract.

I offers evidence of notification followed by conduct designed to suppress proof of that notification and personal evidence. If the evidence of notice, suppression is established, then the question is no longer did these Bourla know what was being done, and did they deliberately contribute to its doing? If Bourla after receiving the warning, knowingly furnished substantial assistance while attempting to suppress the evidence, his responsibility is likewise personal. His own acts made them participants in the crimes.

The same logic applies to Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

personal knowledge and covid vaccine mass deaths and injuries.

The criminal probes from Austria and Greece show that covid was not a random act of nature but the culmination of a plan which had to be kept secret from the public at all costs, resulting in crimes against a reporter, myself. The crimes against a reporter since 2009 and continuing to today are the consistent, logical result of the above mentioned billionaires who want to keep their preparation and executions for a plan to engineer viruses and release them and give the public deadly vaccines for profit hidden from the world. The probes provide the crucial evidence of personal knowledge, and intention.

Rather than treating the crimes against me as isolated cases of malfeasance, they were and are core components of a conspiracy to crush a public debate and science about a criminal enterprise that has operated since 2009 and which has required many people to perform different jobs.

The above mentioned billioniares occupied different positions within a coordinated system: planning, supplying, conducting, concealing, and facilitating the killing of millions of Americans while enriching themselves. They divided up key functions.

I allege the Gates and Soros Foundation knowingly authorized and contributed funds to the criminal conduct of developing a dual use biological warfare programme hidden inside global infectious disease programmes . Dr Anthony Fauci knowingly and intentionally provided substantial assistance to it by funding bird flu, ebola and covid gain of function research and helping to release the viruses and start pandemics (Baxter, bird flu). The same group knowingly authorized and contributed funds to experimental vaccine designed to cause cytokine storms. Gates, Foundation knowingly funded and approved a WHO response to pandemics which put those same vaccines at the centerpiece of the global response to a pandemic. Jared Kushner, Donald Trump and Ursula von der Leyen provided the government relationships which ensured that governments paid top dollar for billions of doses of the covid vaccine while giving immunity to actors for harms and while using government power for coercive mandates.

Finally, pharmaceutical executives like the ones in charge of Baxter in Orth an der Donau n 2009 and like Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, knowingly approved the removal of safeguards to contaminate covid vaccine material with the SV virus and to give vaccines, mRNA covid vaccines, to Americans knowing they were designed to cause cytokone storms and kill and that they knowingly approved the removal of the clinical trials and unblinding to obscure the deadly effects.

There is one function they all performed.

That was the function of fradulently misrepresenting the material as safe and effetive to the American and global public.

There is one goal that united them.

Secrecy.

And in the case of one reporter, myself, they were caught in ordinary sense criminal probes.

The criminal probes provide the decisive evidentiary link of personal knowledge and intention.

JURISDICTION OF THE STATES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA