BOURLA AND PFIZER EXECS FACE LIFE IN PRISON
CORPORATION MAY HAVE TO PAY 100S OF BILLIONS TO COVID JAB VICTIMS WHEN IT CAN BE SHOWN BOURLA, PFIZER DELIBERATELY GAVE SV CONTAMINATED VACCINES AND JABS CAUSING CYTOKINE STORMS WHILE TRYING TO SILENCE TH REPORTER WHO WARNED ABOUT THESE FROM 2009
BOURLA AND PFIZER HAVE NOT DISCLOSED TO SHARE HOLDERS THE LEGAL JEOPARDY THEY ARE IN AS COVID INVESTIGATIONS EXPAND
PFIZER INTERNAL RECORDS WILL REVEAL WHO SIGNED WHAT ORDER TO REMOVE WHAT SAFEGUARD AND ALLOW SV MATERIAL IN PROCESS 2
KEY EMAIL TO BOURLA, GATES ON MAY 27TH 2022 PROVES THE ATTEMPT TO IMPRISON ME ILLEGALLY IN JUNE 2022 CLOSE TO THESSALONIKI, THE HOME TOWN OF BOURLA, HAPPENED AFTER BOURLA WAS INFORMED
GATES ARRIVED IN ATHENS 2 HOURS LATER ON THE INVITAION OF BOURLA
I ESCAPED AFTER A MONTH AND NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO RETURN ME BY POLICE RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAWFULNESS OF MY DETENTION
WHAT IS BOURLA, PFIZER SO AFRAID OF?
OF MY WARNINGS FROM 2009 THAT VACCINE MATERIAL COULD BE CONTAMINATED WITH THE SV VIRUS AND CAUSE CYTOKINE STORMS AS HAS HAPPENED FROM 2021
WHAT DO THEY FEAR WILL REVEAL THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND INTENTION TO MASS POISON AMERICANS? AN INVESTIGATIONOF PFZER LOGS?
.png)
DRAFT
MORE SOON
SUBJ Evidence Albert Bourla, Pfizer knowingly gave Americans contaminated covid vaccine material designed to cause cytokine storms
Dear Attorney Generals of the USA
As you investigate Dr Anthony Fauci, I ask you to expand your investigation to include police probes in Austria and Greece from 2009 and examine whether the criminal knowledge, intent, authorization, and participation to Pfizer CEO Albet Bourla can be established to show that he and Pfizer executives knew
the covid vaccines were contaminated with SV and were being used to cause cytokine storms and cause mass sickness and death
knew Americans were being injured and killed with it on an enormous scale from the covid vaccines
and nevertheless continued to supply the machinery of killing with covid vaccines, sanctioned, approved or supported the coercive mandates for the covid vaccines as well as the cover up
Summary here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ctbBU6RMJWya1dGiyhf3V9iro8lx-eB/view?usp=sharing
I present evidence that allows for the inference that Bourla and other responsible persons within Pfizer knew what the covid vaccine product was being used for and continued knowingly to facilitate its supply to the machinery of mass murder.
I offer evidence that Bourla and Pfizer exeutives were informed from 2022 that a reporter warning Americans about covid vaccines, warning that they were being used to cause cytokine storms mass deaths and injuries, was being subjected retaliation in Greece and that they continued with the retaliation.
If they received warnings and information identifying the scale and purpose of the covid vaccines as agents of mass deaths and injuries, and nevertheless continued to supply it, and cover up the harms, then the issue is no longer commercial manufacture. It becomes a question of knowing participation in a criminal enterprise.
The man who knows the purpose for which his product is being supplied and deliberately continues to furnish it cannot escape responsibility merely because another person injects the substance into an arm or signs the vaccine mandate orders.
His responsibility would rest not upon the product itself, but upon his knowledge of its criminal purpose and his intentional decision to help sustain its use.
I do not ask you to infer guilt merely from Bourla s position at Pfizer or association with Gates and Kushner or Ursula von der Leyen; I ask you to infer it from evidence of his efforts to imprison a reporter in June 2022 after being notified and to suppress the evidence that covid is a criminal scheme, and to examine whether that conduct as evidence of conscious knowledge and deliberate suppression.
What was so important for the billioniares to hide from the public since 2009. What was so important that they personally targeted a reporter as soon as that reporter began to expose the system and trigger investigations by Austrian prosecutors, specificially into Baxter for a bird flu contamination scandal?
The 2009 Baxter documents, the 2009 warnings, the June 2022 imprisonment of the reporter close to the Thessaloniki, and Bourla s subsequent conduct together establish a knowing participation in the criminal enterprise beyond a reasonable doubt, I will argue.
I invite consideration of the chronology below
2009 : I predict that a particular manufacturing change will create a particular contaminant with the Simian Virus (SV 40) for pandemic vaccine material.
And I predict cytokine storms and inflammatory injury from the pandemic vaccines
2016: Bourla s key government contact for negotiating the covid vaccine contracts from 2021, Jared Kushner, received my predictions, warnings after obtaining my FBI report from 2009 and other information via Russia journalists and an interview in Larisa in June 2016
2017 My post relaying the allegation of the Russian journalists that Kushner helped obtained the visa triggers criminal charges against Kushner and Trump after a lawyer Simos Samaras misuses a defamation ruling to try to put me in prison without due process for it, showing Kushner consciousness of guilt and that he did not want to be linked to the warnins of SV 40 and cytokine storms
2020, 2021: Pfizer adopts Process 2, a radically different one from the manufacturing process authorized for covid vaccines
2023: Kevin McKernan identifies the contaminant Simian Virus I had described in 2009
2021–onwards: Doctors begin documenting cytokine storms and the particular injury I predicted in 2009
2021 onwards: Epidemiologists discover that the injury is substantially more common among the very group I had predicted in 2009
2021 September Reporter faces two criminal trials for the same ten posts from Samaras E 17 378 and E 17 379 and is 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 violations of due process
Reporter is sentenced to one and a half years in prison for E 17 379 for defamation against Samaras, appeals 485 2021 in May 2022 and has the prison sentence suspended.
2021 November Bourla goes on TV and 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
2022 January Reporter sends Bourla and Mitsotakis an email warning
2022 May 2nd Reporter sends AG s evidence in the Greek prosecutor probes connecting Bill Gates to personal knowledge of the reporter and covid scheme
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 tampering concerning a Florida news paper article connecting Bill Gates, Foundation to the reporter which is evidence in D 15 218 against Gates which also disappeared from the official file opened in 2015 and identifying Theodekti as his instrument in D 15 218
The disappearance of the files allowed Theodekti to join Samaras in the defamation charges E 17 378 and E 17 379
2022 May 27th Reporter notifies Bourla, Gates in an email I have sent information 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 Thessaloniki illegally
2022 July 27th Reporter escapes, reaches Thessaloniki and sends out email warnings
2023 onwards Scientists find the contaminant SV in the Pfizer ovid vaccine I had warned about in 2009
2023 onwards More evidence emerges that the covid vaccine injuries are caused by the specific mechanism, cytokine storms, I warned about in 2009 and that covid had its origins in a lab and was deliberately released as I had warned in 2009
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 to the reporter and refuse to correct the violations while Larisa Municpality refuses emergency help and 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 waponization of the justice system and defamation charges by Gates, Soros, Trump and Kushner, and Bourla, to imprison a reporter for telling the truth.
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 of
the reporter identifies a particular hazard → the product containing the alleged hazard is later distributed → recipients develop the predicted type of injury
supports temporal and mechanistic coherence and the existence of a plan.
Three things that are otherwise separate can be connected. Advance warning, the specific mechanism of harm, and Bourla's subsequent conduct to suppress me in June 2022.
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
THE BLUEPRINT
The Baxter bird flu 2009 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 contamined, 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 WARNINGS
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 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 Baxter and other 2009 warnings establish that I specifically warned about the very safeguard changes that Bourla and Pfizer must have later been authorized.
Pfizer and Bourla must have stood down standard biosafety procedures for the covid vaccine material to be contaminated with an ingredient not contained in the filings and which animal studies show cause cancer in rodents.
My charges againt 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.
It matters for considering Pfizer s contamination with the SV material.
Safeguards specifically intended to prevent the 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 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.
Vaccine material cannot be contamianted 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.
It was found by scientists.
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
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 targetting the reporter.
PFIZER CONTAMINATION WITH THE SV VIRUS
PROCESS 2
This 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 comtaminated 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.
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
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.
One particularly revealing passage
Around 25:07–26:07, Maassen essentially combines all three arguments. He says the product supplied to governments allegedly did not correspond to what was purchased or licensed, and that if the delivered product falls outside the authorization, the pharmaceutical companies could potentially have civil and criminal liability.
SUMMARY OF THE COMMENTS OF LAWYER RALF LUDWIG ON PROCESS 2
to the Enquete-Kommission des Landtags Brandenburg on July 15th 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnJJm8cwTfM
Ludwig argues that the vaccine was allowed onto the market even though the regulatory dossier was not yet complete. He says this exceptional pathway should have triggered much greater caution.
Important data were still missing.
His central criticism is that regulators accepted gaps in the evidence rather than waiting for all the usual information to become available.
The pivotal clinical study was not yet fully finalized.
Ludwig points specifically to the fact that the final clinical study report was not available when the initial conditional authorization was granted.
There was limited evidence for certain population groups.
He highlights pregnant and breastfeeding women, immunocompromised people, and other special groups as populations for which direct evidence was limited or absent at the time.
Long-term effects could not yet be assessed.
Because the trials and follow-up period were necessarily short, Ludwig argues that important longer-term safety questions remained unresolved.
The duration of protection was not established.
He argues that the authorization did not yet answer how long protection would last, making some subsequent claims about vaccination more uncertain.
Transmission and protection of others had not been demonstrated.
Ludwig distinguishes protection of the vaccinated individual from preventing transmission to other people. He argues that the latter questions had not been conclusively answered at authorization.
Some evidence came from substitute/comparative data rather than directly from the exact product.
He criticizes the use of different or substitute material in parts of the evidence concerning distribution, breakdown and elimination in the body, arguing that this weakened the evidentiary basis.
He alleges that established regulatory procedures were departed from.
This is actually one of his broader legal criticisms: emergency conditions may explain why authorities acted quickly, but, in his view, they do not justify abandoning established safety procedures or checklists without a transparent justification.
The risk–benefit assessment therefore remained insufficiently secure, in his view.
Ludwig's conclusion is that when significant data gaps and procedural deviations exist, authorities and doctors cannot simply rely on the fact that EMA or STIKO has approved/recommended the vaccine. They must consider the unresolved risks themselves.
The core of his argument
Ludwig is essentially making a precautionary/legal-process argument:
A public-health emergency does not suspend the obligation to follow safety procedures.
His airplane analogy captures it: if the warning indicators are flashing, you don't simply say “it's an emergency, so we'll fly anyway.” You investigate the warnings first. His 2026 testimony explicitly frames the issue this way and argues that deviations from established procedures should have been documented and justified.
PFIZER S COVID VACCINE CAUSE CYTOKINE STORMS
PFIZER COVID VACCINE CAUSE CYTOKINE STORMS
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.
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.
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.
