CYTOKINE STORM: Explained In 90 Seconds By Dr Wodarg

Why A Cytokine Storm May Be Bad News For The Jabbed By Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg:

 Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg is a medical specialist in several fields, an epidemiologist and a long-time health politician. Until the Covid crisis, he was also on the board of Transparency International. In 2010, as Chair of the Council of Europe Health Committee, he exposed the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in the swine flu pandemic. At that time, he was granted the opportunity to express his opinion on public service broadcasting, but in times of Covid this is no longer possible.

‘I can’t do it anymore’, TruthPeep

From Dr Wodarg’s Website in English, German, Spanish, French, Turkish and Italian:

“These procedures have been used in humans in practice for the first time since December 2020. The experience prior to the emergency use market approvals given by the regulatory authorities was limited to a few months in 2020.”

No wonder they sell their own shares quickly! 

HERE a sobering scientific commentary in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on the euphoric announcement of  vaccine manufacturers:

To prevent only one case of Covid-19, 256 people need to be vaccinated with the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine. With MODERNA it would be 177, so the risky genetic “vaccinations” only help 0.35% and 0.56% of those vaccinated. This is an extremely poor benefit-risk ratio.

Because the other 255 or 176 people have no benefit, but are exposed to the unwanted side effects of the vaccines, whatever they may be and whenever we get to know them. A Pfizer top manager probably guessed that others could do better math than many governments and is said to have sold millions of his own shares that very same day.

The test presented today by Moderna with a big press has a similarly low protective effect against Covid-19, an infection that is nothing more than a part of the annual flu.


Important Drug Information           

Berlin, 23.8.2021 (in the context of the base camp planning game).

Injections for immunisation against COVID-19. All genetically engineered drugs with mRNA or vector technology from the companies: BioNtech / Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson&Johnson / Janzen-Cilag.

Description of the mode of action

All four drugs are based on procedures that target changes in cells of the human body. By introducing nucleic acid sequences by means of lipid nanoparticles (BioNtech/Pfizer, Moderna) or recombinant, i.e. genetically modified viruses, so-called vectors (AstraZeneca, Johnson&Johnson), the cells of the treated are stimulated to produce parts of SARS-CoV-2 viruses (spike proteins) and to present them to the passing blood, which are to be recognised and rejected by the immune system. This should result in antibody formation that protects against damage caused by infection with wild SARS-CoV-2 viruses.

Benefit Assessment

These procedures have been used in humans in practice for the first time since December 2020. The experience prior to the emergency use market approvals given by the regulatory authorities was limited to a few months in 2020.

Through comparisons with untreated control groups, the number of people to be treated per avoided case of infection was around 100 people (NNV approximately between 60 and 140). This corresponds to an absolute protective effect of around 1% [1].

Due to the small number of study participants and the short observation periods, however, these values of the applicant companies should be viewed with reservation. However, they seem to fit with the fact that the incidence of symptomatic cases previously observed in the population was also around 1% per season. This fits with a stable cross-immunity against coronaviruses found in several studies in more than 90% of the population [2].

A differential diagnostic differentiation of symptomatic cases from symptoms caused by other respiratory pathogens has hardly been done so far, or only in special cases. However, since corona infections always make up only a subset of influenza cases, the number of cases of corona infections cannot be greater than the total number of acute respiratory illnesses observed.

In addition to the known older corona variants, different beta corona viruses such as the SARS successors have been spreading worldwide for more than 15 years. For a few months at a time, individual new variants dominate, but still do not differ significantly in their pathogenicity epidemiologically [3].

The current injections – as can now be seen – hardly change anything about the possibility of becoming infected via the respiratory tract and transmitting the pathogens to others. Even in the case of possibly initially dangerous viruses, there is regularly a weakening of the pathogenicity, as this brings evolutionary advantages to the emerging variants. Resistance (as with bacteria to antibiotics) therefore plays no role in the risk assessment of viruses.

On epidemiological relevance

The numerous PCR screening tests for SARS-CoV-2 are not useful for determining and recording infections and contagiousness without further diagnostics. The numbers collected with them give a completely useless picture due to inevitably many false positive tests and non-standardised procedures in laboratory practice and are irrelevant in terms of infection epidemiology.

Summary benefit assessment:  

A significant protective effect for public health cannot be expected from the four medicinal products mentioned.

Risk Assessment

In principle, injectable drugs for immunisation against respiratory pathogens are a risky and unpromising approach, since the defence against these viruses normally occurs first and predominantly successfully in the upper respiratory tract. In healthy individuals, sufficient local defence mechanisms of the innate and acquired immune system are located here. The intramuscular administration of antigens or even the genetic stimulation of antigen formation somewhere inside the body is an “attack through the back door” and involves considerable risks for a coordinated immune defence.

The antigens to be formed by the body itself are spike proteins, as they are also found on the envelope of coronaviruses. Spike proteins enter the blood extremely rarely during a respiratory infection with coronaviruses. But only then do they lead to “vascular disease. The spike proteins that are genetically produced in the body after the injection are also highly toxic and cause symptoms similar to those known from otherwise rare severe courses of corona.

The distribution of the injected nanoparticles or vectors in the body apparently changes from application to application and is also key to possible side effects. Sufficient studies on the targets, i.e. the cells and tissues that are genetically modified, are not available. In leaked animal studies from Japan, a worrying accumulation of nRNA-containing nano-particles was also found in the ovaries, for example [4](5). This could lead to infertility. Other findings and side effects suggest that the heart muscle, the veins of the brain (sinus venosus) and the digestive organs (mesenteric veins), among others, are also targets of these drugs. Health professionals have therefore now been asked to be alert to signs and symptoms of thromboembolism and/or thrombocytopenia (shortness of breath, chest pain, leg swelling, leg pain or persistent abdominal pain, severe or persistent headache, blurred vision, confusion, seizures, petechiae). Treated persons should be adequately informed and seek medical attention immediately if such symptoms occur.

 Immunological attacks on the vascular wall cells that have been altered by the injected RNA and then present spike proteins destroy them and trigger microthrombotic chain reactions that destroy the sections of tissue that are then less well supplied with blood. Particularly in the heart, brain, gonads and areas of the intestine, this can lead to irreversible failures with corresponding symptoms.

In the meantime, there are more and more systematic observations that show that up to half of those treated suffer from such intravascular microthromboses.  Indications for this are provided by the determination of coagulation parameters (increase in D-dimers and decrease in platelet count), which is now also increasingly carried out by doctors before and after injections. A corresponding systematic monitoring of such risks has not yet been published by the competent authorities.

In animal experiments, the unnatural contact of the immune system with spike antigens has repeatedly led to an erroneous reaction with increased viral reproduction (ADE) and an unchecked defence reaction (cytokine storm) when exposed to wild viruses. Such an infection, promoted and intensified by incompletely neutralising antibodies, is life-threatening. Other ingredients of the drugs, such as nanoparticles or polyethylene glycol (PEG), can also lead to severe side effects, which will not be discussed here.

The number of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has meanwhile reached alarming proportions and far exceeds any previously observed for vaccinations. As of 31 July 2021, over 20 000 deaths and approximately 2 million ADRs had been reported to the EMA alone. However, it is known that only a small proportion of ADRs are even recognised or reported. Experience shows that the number of unreported cases is many times higher. The number and severity of adverse drug reactions increase with each injection.

Summary risk assessment:

The side effects known so far and further expected harm to those treated clearly outweigh any recognisable benefit.


1.     the use of the above-mentioned medicinal products should be discontinued immediately.    

2.     the requirements for an emergency use marketing authorisation are not fulfilled.

3.     existing stocks should be confiscated by the medicines inspectorate and subjected to a systematic, batch-by-batch content analysis.

4.     the medical profession should be more widely informed about possible ADRs and motivated to participate in their timely detection and in the prevention of harm.

5.     sufficient specialised centres should be made available for the counselling and treatment of those affected.

6.     To protect against corona infections in the future: accurate diagnosis of symptomatic patients to indicate self-isolation at home for up to 14 days with all supportive treatments.

 Notes and sources:

[1] The companies’ reported protective effects (RRR) of over 60% to 95% is useless for benefit assessment. If, for example, one case of infection occurs in the control group of 20,000 untreated people and none in the prophylactically treated group, the relative risk reduction would be 100% even though 20,000 people had to be treated to prevent only one case. (The NNV would be 20000).

[2] An easy-to-understand summary of cross-immunity with numerous literature references can be found here:

[3] This also applies to the temporarily dominant “delta” variant.


(5)Alana F Ogata, Chi-An Cheng, Michaël Desjardins, Yasmeen Senussi, Amy C Sherman, Megan Powell, Lewis Novack, Salena Von, Xiaofang Li, Lindsey R Baden, David R Walt, Circulating Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2021; , ciab465, https: //doi. org/10.1093/cid/ciab465

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll Up