Germany: 200 doctors call for a moratorium on mRNA vaccines

Inadequate monitoring of adverse effects

The Paul Ehrlich Institute, the federal authority responsible for vaccines, has recorded several hundred thousand reports of adverse effects since the start of the campaign. A significant proportion of these involve serious complications, particularly cardiac ones. The authors of the moratorium believe that this volume of reports, even without systematic proof of causality, warrants an independent and thorough investigation. They criticize the authorities for insufficient monitoring, which prevents them from drawing solid conclusions about the actual frequency and severity of these events.

Questions about biological mechanisms

Criticism also focuses on scientific uncertainties. According to the signatories, there are no published data that are sufficiently precise regarding the duration and location of spike protein production following injection, nor regarding the possible presence of polypeptides produced by frameshift mutations. Uncertainty also surrounds fertility, pregnancy, and long-term effects, which have not yet been comprehensively studied. These gaps are cited as an argument for a moratorium, pending answers from independent studies.

Methodological Errors

Another point of contention: the initial claim of 95% efficacy. The authors argue that this figure, widely cited in public campaigns, was based on short-term trials conducted in a context of low viral circulation and using incomplete criteria. Since then, actual efficacy—particularly against severe cases and mortality—has been measured primarily through retrospective analyses or modeling. According to the signatories, these contain significant methodological biases.

A major criticism concerns how vaccine efficacy was calculated. The signatories point out that many studies exclude the first 14 days following vaccination, a period during which infections or complications are not counted. This exclusion poses several problems: first, the days immediately following vaccination are precisely when adverse effects are most frequent and strongly correlated. Second, the calculation of overall efficacy should include this period, as the immune response to the vaccine causes a temporary disruption of the immune system, which may increase vulnerability to infections, including Covid itself. Finally, the comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups is biased: a significant portion of illnesses and infections are artificially removed from the vaccinated group and added to the control group, giving a falsely favorable picture of the vaccine.

Lack of transparency

Beyond the medical aspects, the statement calls into question scientific governance. The authors denounce a lack of transparency in the conduct of clinical trials, as well as the absence of regular and independent evaluations of pharmacovigilance data. They believe that this lack of oversight fuels public mistrust and undermines the credibility of institutions.

Precautionary Principle

The call for a moratorium is not based on definitive evidence of danger, but on the observation that significant uncertainties remain several years after authorization. The signatories consider it necessary to temporarily suspend the use of mRNA vaccines until the risk-benefit ratio has been clarified in an independent, transparent, and methodologically sound manner.

Science in Times of Crisis

The German initiative also highlights a broader issue: the tension between science produced under the urgency of a pandemic and traditional standards of scientific validation. This accelerated process has left fundamental questions unanswered, which are now fueling calls for reevaluation. The debate is therefore not limited to vaccine safety, but questions how public health policies align with the demands of scientific rigor during a crisis.

BAM detox

[1] Hundreds of scientists call for a halt to mRNA vaccines: How serious are the side effects?