Here the article in Greek.



Piperopoulou & Matrozou 2–14575 Stamata – Dionysos Municipality

Tel.-Fax: 210 6210248 – Mob.: 6971540626 – Email:















All rights reserved





Dr. Athanasios Kalogeridis, Molecular BiologistGeneticist B. Sc M. Sc. Ph. D – D. Sc Department of Biology, Faculty of Genetics, Development and Molecular Biology – Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Dr. Ioannis Gianniou, Professor of Genetic Medicine and Health, Chairman of the Hellenic and International Society of Genomics Molecular Medicine and Research, Chairman of the Postgraduate Department of Genomic Medicine-University of South Wales.

Marianna Evangelou, Biochemist M. Sc Biochemistry.

Eleni Koroxenidou, B.Sc., M. Phil Molecular Toxicologist, Karolinska Institute, Sweden.

Aikaterini Rouptsiou, Biologist MSc Biochemistry Ph. D Candidate Researcher, Department of Chemical Engineering – Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.



Panagiotis Papagiannakis, Doctor – Gastroenterologist.

Maria Trachana, Doctor – Professor of Pediatrics.

Georgios Aidonidis, Doctor – Cardiologist.

Georgios Syrpis, Doctor – Psychiatrist.

Aikaterini Tsakmaki, General Practitioner.

 Panagiotis Papapreponis, Technologist of Medical Laboratories.



Dimitrios Pontikas, Biotechnology Laboratory Owner.





Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Prime Minister, resident of Athens, 19,Irodou Attikou st – Maximou Mansion.


Vasilios Kikilias, Minister of Health, individually and on behalf of the Committee for the Response to Public Health Emergencies caused by Infectious Agents, resident of Athens, 17, Aristotelous st – Ministry of Health.


Maria Theodoridou, Chairman of the National Vaccination Committee, resident of Athens, 17, Aristotelous st. – Ministry of Health.


Panagiotis Prezerakos, Chairman of the National Committee for the protection of Public Health against the coronavirus COVID-19, resident of Athens, 17, Aristotelous st. – Ministry of Health.


Efi Vagena, Chairman of the National Committee of Bioethics and Techno ethics, resident of Athens, 19, Neophytou Vamba st.





Panagiotis Stathis, Commander of the 1st Sanitary District of Attica, resident of Ampelokipi-Attica, 3,Zakharof st.


Christos Roilos, Commander of the 2nd Sanitary District of Piraeus and the Aegean Sea, resident of Agios Rentis- Attica, 198, Thivon Avenue.


Panagiotis Bogiatzidis, Commander of the 3rd Sanitary District of Macedonia, resident of Thessaloniki, 16, Aristotelous st.


Dimitrios Tsalikakis, Commander of the 4th Sanitary District of Macedonia and Thrace, resident of Thessaloniki, 16,Aristotelous st.


Fotios Seretis, Commander of the 5th Sanitary District of Thessaly and Central Greece, resident of Mezourlos, Larissa.


Ioannis Karvelis, Commander of the 6th Sanitary District of Peloponnese, the Ionian Islands, Epirus and Western Greece, resident of Patras, 1, Ypatis st. & New National Road of Patras – Athens.


Heleni Borboudaki, Commander of the 7th Sanitary District of Crete, resident of Crete, 3rd kilometer of Heraklion – Mires Highway.


Athanasios Exadaktylos, Chairman of the Panhellenic Medical Association, resident of Athens, 3,Plutarchou st.


The present extrajudicial document presents complete and indisputable scientific data, evidence and studies, with a multitude of relevant references, which on one hand, prove that the four vaccines used against the respiratory virus SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19 disease, do not serve the purpose for which  they are supposed to be manufactured and used by the population, on the other hand, they expose citizens to a very serious risk for their health and life, as it has already been proven in multiple cases, despite the obvious effort made by the government and its collaborating scientists, concealing the serious side effects and deaths caused after the vaccination of a great number of citizens. 


We witness a truly unprecedented obsession of the government and its collaborating scientists, co-assisted by the systemic Mass Media (MM), and with the cover of the legal system, to vaccinate the population, while, on one hand, all the vaccines circulating right now in our country are essentially in an experimental stage, with serious deficiencies in terms of clinical trials, and on the other hand the serious side effects and deaths of even the young people after the vaccination are concealed, at the same time that the necessary and indispensable autopsy in cases of death after vaccination is systematically avoided.


The government’s attempt to vaccinate the population was evident from the first moment, and even before the declaration of the pandemic by the World Health Organization (W.H.O), omitting at the same time to act towards the direction of obtaining medicine treatments to treat the disease in the early stages of its symptoms. At first, there was a population reassurance, through reaffirming the citizens that vaccinations would not be mandatory, even though the government itself had adopted the Legislative Act of the 25th of February 2020, before the declaration of the pandemic by W.H.O on 11th March 2020, whereby among other obligations, they included vaccination. Next, there was a tremendous “brainwash” of the citizens by the systemic media, for vaccination, amidst the outbreaking of the virus, which is scientifically unacceptable, and since the persuasion obviously did not work, an essentially blackmailing practice against employees was added in a wide workplace range, followed by an indirect blackmail practice, by dividing society into two citizen categories, the vaccinated patricians and the unvaccinated plebeians, providing a number of “privileges” to the first, and finally, all the above efforts and practices, were followed by the implementation of the “final solution”, i.e. the application of mandatory vaccination, which was previously strongly denied by the representatives of the government, the competent Minister of  Health and the Prime Minister not excluded.


Through this out of court petition-complaint-request-call-statement, we simply request the contradiction and reversal of the scientific analysis, data, evidence, studies and conclusions stated in it, if possible, so that you might include …us as well to those who will contribute to the vaccination campaign.


Otherwise, and if no effective scientific contradiction to the following is provided, we demand that the vaccination program be discontinued immediately, since the failure to contest this report will constitute a tacit acceptance of its content and a declaration that its conclusions are undisputedly correct.


To this end, after all, we are setting a two-working day deadline to the recipients of this document, in order for them to respond and overturn the above content. It is self-evident that this reversal is not meant to be absurd and general, but must be accompanied by a scientifically substantiated rebuttal of the exposed scientific analysis, data, evidence, studies and conclusions, with corresponding scientific data, evidence, studies and conclusions.


Serious consideration must be given to the fact that, after the date of service, thousands of citizens from all workplaces will be drawn up with “the essence” of this document. It is perhaps one of the few cases in the history of the country, if not the only one, where the mass of the reaction is combined with the ESSENCE, given that in this case the reaction of the people that will be drawn up with the essence of the present document will not only be directed towards obligatory vaccination, but it will aim to the heart of the problem, which is no different from the vaccines themselves and their effects.


The present text includes scientific analyses, data, evidence, studies, conclusions and references of the three groups above.


After service, the English translation of the present document, with the relevant certificates of service, will be sent abroad to directorates relevant to its content in Europe and the USA.




Science is always wrong. It never solves a problem without creating ten more.”

George Bernard Shaw


“Scientific honesty knows not wise lies”

Joseph-Ernest Renan


The herein memorandum was composed by a team of Health Scientists and in particular Doctors, Molecular Biologists, Geneticists, Biotechnologists and Biochemists. Its main purpose is to convey the scientific truth and to set for the first time, even at this late time, the basis for assessing Covid-19 vaccines at their true dimensions.


It is time to end the scientific disunity, in essence the exclusion of opposing scientific thesis and knowledge, since the main purpose of science is, presumably, the interest and only the interest of our fellow human beings. No scientific team can claim that only they pose the scientific truth, if this truth does not go through the scrutiny of assessment of many groups of scientists. The truth distortion by a portion of scientists, driven by purposes unlike those we ought to serve, and especially when it evolves private sensitive data, such as the integrity of a person’s molecular identity, could even lead to the very threat to human existence as a species!!


When scientific truth is transformed into scientific misinformation, disregarding, disdaining, and excluding the research of the opposing scientific findings (rather than opinions), then unfortunately the seed of hubris spreads roots and sprouts.

Hubris is committed both towards humans and towards nature.

A hubris of  enormous size with unprecedented and peculiar characteristics.

Molecular Biology and Genetics are relatively new sciences with a life span of approximately 50 years or perhaps less. Within this span, we have made a lot of exponentially evolutionary leaps and have learned a lot, but unfortunately not most. Molecular Biology is a science constantly evolving and surprising us, as it has been proven that one plus one does not always equal two.

The applications of novel achievements of Molecular Biology and Genetics should, therefore, be very well planned and, of course, follow with strict fidelity all security protocols – particularly those regarding novel therapeutic approaches in the department of Health since the final recipient of these applications is a human being. Otherwise, the hubris of violating the laws and regulations of the pattern of life, as it is defined by our genetic material (DNA), and the individual molecular mechanisms which define and control the normal function of all the trillions of cells that comprise us, will be followed by Nemesis.

All genetic codes are based and grounded according to the measure and proportion of nature. These laws, since the beginning of human existence, determine the homeostasis, i.e. the normal development and function of our entire organism. Any disruption of the balance of these laws, as these are expressed through basic molecular mechanisms, which are specialized among the individuals of a population, could open up Pandora’s box with immeasurable consequences. 

A Professor of Genetics once said at an amphitheater that the line between morality and immorality in the science of Genetics is as fine as a thread, and that it is our duty as scientists to always keep it visible and never cross it for any reason, because the damage we may cause could be greater than the intended good. 

Today, we are dangerously close to crossing it, and we feel the duty as scientists, who submit and sign this memorandum, to reveal the scientific truth in every way, on the basis that human dignity, respect and freedom are not only the cornerstones of the human hypostasis, but also of its rights, which build the prosperity of the human species.

In this effort, we, the Scientists and Health professionals, request the support of the reflective mechanisms of society, which is the legal system and those who represent it.

Thus, for this purpose, another reflective mechanism has been created, Bioethics, i.e. the ethical rules which regulate not just the Medical Science, but also all Sciences that apply or intend to apply their scientific discoveries, to the improvement or protection of our fellow human beings’ health. These ethical rules are intended to prevent sick mindsets from any form of intervention in the human body without the explicit consent of every human being. In this way, bioethics ensures that no therapeutic or preventive approaches shall be used on humans under pressure, blackmail, fraud or without each person’s consent based on sufficient data. To achieve this sufficient information there should be knowledge of all the parameters of such an approach. If there are points in such an approach which are either not well clarified or not well researched, then the rules of bioethics, with all their expansions, explicitly prohibit its use.

It is for this purpose that the contemporary rules of bioethics, which are clearly and without any room for misinterpretation recorded in the Greek Constitution, and in a plethora of international regulations, as they were formulated after the end of the World War II (Universal Declaration of Human Rights by U.N., 1949, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950, Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights by UNESCO, 1950 etc.) constitute the expression of society’s repugnance towards any intervention, direct or indirect, that will be attempted on the human species as an experiment, under any pretext and without complete scientific documentation.

Nowadays, the entire world is under an unprecedented and asymmetric threat characterized as “the COVID-19 pandemic”, attributable to an RNA-virus, i.e. SARS-CoV-2, which however, is evolving inversely of its true dimensions, with unpredictable scientific, social, and moral consequences. We observe in agony and with skepticism that a different not scientifically justified picture, of the virus’s evolution is increasingly being used, with the objective to abolish, in a concerted effort, the entire legal framework that humanity itself has set up, to avoid unilateral and scientifically incomplete substantiated actions, which would serve to impose experimental therapeutic or preventive approaches on the human species.

To our surprise, we also observe that the specific actions are vigorously supported by a portion of our colleagues, who repeatedly refer to studies, but they refuse to submit their references when they are interdisciplinary requested to.

Quite the contrary, they reject all prospects of a discussion with those scientists who disagree on core scientific issues regarding the SARS CoV-2 infection and the lack of proofing that would render any therapeutic act safer to carry out.

Scientific seclusion and segregation in “good” and bad” (or even more degrading characterizations) scientists, with the sole criterion of whether they applaud or not some specific approaches, points to other dark ages of the “I decide and command” notion and it certainly does not send the right messages to society, while it also reasonably raises doubts regarding the sober and proper treatment of the disease and divides, since it inevitably has to take a stance in favor of either one or the other scientific group.

We, the scientists of many different specialties, therefore, as a part of the broader scientific community, who work on the front line of the health domain, either in the research or the diagnostic sector, with the experience we possess, and in full awareness of the weight and the responsibility that our scientific status carries to each and every one of us, we are called to immediately take a stance, by posing certain scientifically crucial questions, which emerge through factual studies at all levels (molecular, immune, biochemical and clinical), regarding the management of the pandemic, in all its expansions (medication, vaccines, side effects, obligatoriness, etc.)

First of all, and this is the main basis of our concerns, there should be an understanding of the dynamics and complexities of the interactions of our genetic material, which should be taken into serious consideration during the application of any therapeutic or preventive approach, which requires the introduction of any artificial modifying or stimulating factor that influences the functionality of the cellular machinery (biological agents, molecule-targeting drugs, DNA or RNA vaccines) in each of the 220 different types of cells that comprise the human organism.

In this regard, we mention that the starting point of our increasingly sophisticated knowledge on Molecular Biology and Genetics is the dawn of the 3rd millennium, which started with a huge achievement, perhaps greater than the discovery of the wheel, which yielded an incredible amount of genetic information, thanks to a concerted effort and this is the most important of all, for thousands of scientists around the world.

The challenge of decoding the human genome (HUMAN GENOME PROJECT) offered the greatest impetus to the evolution of Genetics into modern Molecular Genetics, which was and is intended to decode all those molecular mechanisms that control the human genome, for the purpose of preventing, diagnosing, and treating several diseases that plague humanity, like cancer, autoimmune diseases, etc. [1]

Decoding the human genome (HUMAN GENOME PROJECT) in 2003, revealed to us that, even if 99% of our human genome is similar amongst all human beings, the 1%, which translates to approximately 32Χ106 letters, makes us unique and irreplaceable. At present, we are aware of merely 2% of the human genome (i.e. only a few centimeters) functionally. The remaining is the 97% to 98% of the DNA, which up until 15 years ago was considered Junk DNA; in other words a remnant of the evolution of human species.

Nonetheless, following the completion of the ENCODE program (Encyclopedia of  DNA Elements) in September of 2012, which aimed to identify and examine all functional elements on the human genome, a lot of important information [2] was revealed to us.

Specifically, it was revealed that the role of Junk DNA is not only significant on all cell types, but also determinant, as it actively participates in controlling and regulating important molecular mechanisms that are involved in the development, evolution, and differentiation of the human genome’s response to various stimuli from the external environment, such as the microbial or viral infections.

Towards that direction, many research projects have been carried out and are still being carried out, so that the functions of specific molecular mechanisms are deciphered, some of which are a) genetic regulation, the action of transcription factors, and other elements involved in this mechanism, b) epigenetic changes, c) DNA reparation, d) mutations, e) regulation of translation, f) the regulation of the decomposition of the surplus mRNA, g) the regulation of the decomposition of the various proteins, but also the time period of activation of this decomposition, h) the post-translational modifications, to which most proteins are subjected, etc.

The results of these research projects, according to the international literature, seem to be perplexed even more, however, by the findings of the ENCODE, which showed that the largest part (around 80,4%) of the human genome has an additional and key regulatory role, both on the interaction of the known genes, which belong to 2% of the genome, and on the proper functioning of the above molecular mechanisms, in all 220 cell types, and consequently to the cells that are involved in the process of the immune response as well [3].

Specifically, through the program ENCODE around 4Χ10^6 switches were recorded in the entire genome, which included transcription factors, enhancers, binding sites, histone modifiers, small mRNA molecules, with unknown by now function. Of these switches, 4Χ105 molecules seem to enhance or inhibit the function of other genes, altering cell function accordingly. Among these, 7Χ104 molecules act as activators of other genes. Further to this, from the 80,4% of the invisible genome studied, it was found that 50% of the DNA is comprised of repeated sequences, some of which have the ability to jump to different parts of the genome (transferable elements) jumping genes, and actively participate in gene regulation. These transferable elements were found to be at around a 40% percentage of them, remnants of ancient viruses that infected and were incorporated into our genetic material.  These sequences, in turn, are controlled by other genes, which control repressively, through the encoding of specific proteins, the mobility, time and place they will land in the genome, with consequences that are sometimes beneficial and sometimes unpleasant.

As these “extraordinary genes” allow for the creation of the necessary genetic diversity, as shown in corresponding studies performed in various hosts, after the initiation of the immune response to some microbes, e.g. Haemophilus influenzae and Neisseria meningitides, the same can occur in the corresponding extraordinary genes present in the invisible human genome. Thus, at a certain time, specific key molecules are synthesized, which act, either indirectly through pathways leading to the secretion of proteins (cytokines, chemokines, etc.), or directly to the application of a response pathway to the stimulation of a receptor by an antigen, as a response to the stimulation of a receptor to select the appropriate biological immune response towards a changing antigenic environment, such as infectious agents.

Yet, the most astonishing finding, in all this new holistic approach to the human genome, is the diversity of the genetic material, which seems to influence this endogenous capacity of DNA to interact, both at the genetic level and at other levels, such as the transcribe level (mRNAs) and the proteome (structure and action of proteins at each stage of cell differentiation), etc. during the cellular response to any external stimulus [4].

It is becoming more obvious, we believe, through the descriptions of all these interactions, that the investigation of all this very important information which has been collected and is still being collected, sets a new field of research especially in Immunogenetics, regarding the way with which molecular mechanisms are differentiated in the immune response to infections in particular, but also in the way of action of specific preventive or therapeutic responses, like the penetration of vaccines, especially among individuals of a population [5][6].

With the program (Human Immunology Project Consortium), which was created in 2010 and renewed in terms of its approaches in 2015, we know by now that more than 5000 genes, registered in a special gene-dedicated database (i.e. Immunology Database), are related to the functioning of the immune system, representing 7% of the human genome. These genes include genes associated with receptors of type B and T lemphocells, signaling molecules, cytokines, etc.

It has been proven that the immune profile observed amongst individuals of a population differs. This occurs because it consists of a series of functional interactions between genes or proteins. A series of complex and not yet fully understood networks define the immune response, depending on the stimulus (external or internal). These networks have been recently attempted to be charted [7][8][9], to capture the way in which the various molecular mechanisms, with all their individual variables, connect the genetic information of decision centers of the cell’s core with the hubs (hot spots), which are found dispersed along the pathways of intracellular signaling (ImmuNET), in the cytoplasm, in every different type of cell that participates in the immune response [10].

Since most of the forms of functional interactions between genes – proteins on the paths, involved and evolved during our immune response are largely, either completely unknown, or under investigation and tentatively known, it is understandable that they create an important pool of key questions. These scientific questions need to be answered in depth, since on one hand, they decode the capacity of immune systems to recognize and attack foreign intruders, like germs, viruses, cancerous cells fungi, etc., but also various external means, such as biologically active substances, toxic substances etc.; and on the other hand they constitute the portal for the safe development of novel therapeutic approaches and protocols, like DNA and RNΑ vaccines.

Thus, the question that inevitably arises, through the state of the insufficiently documented knowledge base regarding the complexity of the interactions happening at the molecular level, not only of our immune system but generally of the whole human genome, is whether we should be allowed to develop whatever we may have the capacity to develop!!

The ongoing COVID-19 “pandemic,” as it was characterized, has, perhaps for the first time, brought the Biosciences, and especially Molecular Biology and Molecular Epidemiology, in direct confrontation with their demons, since it has split the scientific community to a major degree. However, the biology of the virus, but also the phenotype of the infection, revealed to us how little knowledge we have, not only on evolutionary molecular virology, but also on the correct scientific decision-making regarding prevention and treatment.

At the same time, an attempt by a portion of scientists, was observed for the first time, for a reckless use of specific molecular technologies, such as mRNA vaccines designed for different applications, leaving aside other approaches, such as pharmaceutical, monoclonal antibodies, cell therapies, like the one developed at the Papanicolaou Hospital by Dr. Anagnostopoulos and his research team, which clearly were promising more directly results regarding treatment, particularly of the seriously ill patients!!

And all these while it is known that the use of new technologies for therapy, and particularly of vaccines, on such a large portion of apparently healthy individuals clashes with the lack of knowledge regarding the specialization that is present in specific groups of the general population which have a specific immune profile, when it comes to the structure, organization, but also the reaction of their immune system against any external event, and particularly when this event is the transportation of specific molecules (mRNAs)  in the cellular machinery. Therefore, the use of mass vaccination under this scientific scope is unacceptable and a scientific blunder of unknown ramifications.

Yet, how does this tangle of scientific blunder unfold, which is the result of underestimating the complexity of the interactions of the molecular mechanisms, controlled by our genome, with any external event, which in this case is the invasion of a virus or the application of a vaccine, and how are these two events separated, both between them and amongst  individuals of a population??

COVID-19 infection is attributed to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which is the seventh coronavirus, following SARS-CoV (νόσος SARS), MERSCoV (νόσος MERS), HKU1, NL63, OC43 and 229E, which can infect humans. As it is known, it appeared towards the end of 2019 in China, in the city of Wuhan. It is an RNA virus, which is comprised of 29,811 nucleotides (GenBank Accession MG772933, RefSeq Accession NC 045512), whose origins seem to be another area of controversy among scientists [11].

Since the origin of the virus has not yet been clarified, and a potential host is still being searched for, some special genetic characteristics that are traced in the RNA of the SARS-CoV-2 virus do not exclude the possibility that this specific virus emerged from experiments of the «Gain of function research» type, which includes modification of naturally occurring viruses with the aim of rendering them more contagious, in order to explore the possible consequences on humans, and get better prepared for a pandemic.

Regardless of its origin, this virus seems to infect not only the cells of the respiratory track, but also of a series of other organs [12]. But the biology of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is an important challenge, as it appears that each of the proteins encoded by the genes (more than 15), and found on the RNA, probably play a distinct molecular role, particularly in inducing the mechanism of the immune response.

However, the main cause of the contagiousness of the virus in simple words, is traced to a specific external glycoprotein, which is called protein S (Spike). This specific protein is responsible for binding the virus to the cells, through a special receptor for the angiotensin ACE2 converting enzyme, so that the RNA of the virus enters the specific cells [13] [14]. From there on, additional viral agents, as mentioned, are the non-structural proteins Nsp1, Nsp3 και ORF7a, which seem to interact with specific molecular mechanisms with the immune system, in order to find a way for the so-called viral immune evasion [15].

On the other hand, the ACE2 receptor is a trans membranous, of glycoprotein quality , type 1 receptor, which degrades angiotensin 1-7 compensatory to the action of angiotensin ΙΙ, thus maintaining the balance of the renin-angiotensin system, so as to ensure the homeostasis of the vascular function. The role of ACE2 in atherosclerosis, heart failure, chronic kidney damage and lung dysfunction, has been very well documented [16].

More specifically, ACE2 in the lungs regulates the equilibrium of circulating levels of angiotensinΙΙ / angiotensin 1-7. Thus, increased angiotensin II levels cause pulmonary vasoconstriction and enhance vascular permeability, facilitating edema [17]. Relatively recently, it has been shown that SARS-CoV-2 infects several different cell types, such as endothelial cells and macrophages, through ACE2 receptors. [18]. ACE2 is expressed as a receptor in very many organs. The ACE2 expression rate appears to be high in lung epithelial cells, in the enterocytes of the small intestine, whereas in smaller quantities it has been found in the endothelial cells of the arteries and veins, in the muscle cells, in the nasopharyngeal cavity, in the stomach, intestine, skin, lymph nodes, thymus, bone marrow, spleen, liver, kidneys and the brain [16].

The entry of the virus into the body also marks the beginning of the infection. Then the individual is recorded as “a case”. As some specific researchers report, when SARS-CoV-2 enters, it directly activates the molecular mechanisms of inflammation, through a series of intracellular signaling pathways, which are activated due to the binding of the protein of Spike protein to the ACE2 receptor. Thus, there is release from the cells of specific cytokines – chymokines, expression of specific antiviral agents, lymphopenia, dysfunction of the renin-angiotensin system resulting in the ACE2 receptor dysfunction and apoptosis, i.e. programmed cell death at the site of infection.
Immediately after, the second part of the reaction is activated by the infection, which is a second wave of inflammatory response that is coordinated with the onset of the acquired immune response. The end result is the production of antibodies and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity reactions [19]. If the initial innate immunity succeeds in eradicating the infection within 6 to 96 hours after the invasion, then this human may show some very mild symptoms and return to a healthy condition. Therefore, in this sense, THERE IS NO ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENT, unless there is some other mechanism that we are unaware of, in which case we would like of you to report it to us!!

If this innate immunity fails, then acquired immunity takes the reins, which acts through the humoral and cell-mediated immune response.

In both cases, the recognition process leads to both the binding of macrophage MHCII receptors to the antigen and the presentation of the recognition complex through the T-cell receptor (TCR)ab of the CD4+ TΗ cells, and also to the formation of another MHCI complex, with the antigen again, and its presentation for recognition by the CD8 +  TC cells. As the production of the TH virus-specific cells requires the identification of the MHCII/antigen complex, it is understandable that if this recognition is not possible, then all those molecular mechanisms of the immune response cannot be activated against the virus [20]. The activation and creation of CD4+ TΗ cells will lead to the stimulation of the B lymphocytes and their differentiation into plasma cells, which will produce the specific antibodies.

Nevertheless, it was shown in the case of SARS-CoV-2, according to some studies, that the production of antibodies was not always protective, since the anti-S antibodies, in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, appeared to cause serious lung damage. Also, another observation was that the individuals who produced a  high titer of antibodies faster, had a higher likelihood to die [21].

Still, all the aggressive-defensive mechanisms used by the virus against the immune response molecular mechanisms of the host, are in turn subject to the filter of evolution and natural selection.  Nowadays we know that all RNA viruses mutate during human infection as then the immune response mechanisms are activated, which genetically forcefully affect the attempt of the virus to survive.

As of today, there have been recorded more than 12.000 mutations. This number is small, and this is because the specific virus has a system for correcting errors during its multiplication, and therefore creates fewer mutations than the influenza virus. Therefore, the mutagenesis is a normal evolutionary process for all viruses, which, most of the times, as the virus becomes endemic, is harmful, not to the human host, but to the virus itself.

So some mutations are characterized as neutral, i.e. they have no effect on the way proteins are encoded, and ultimately have little benefit for the virus, and, in fact, if not all, most of them simply increase the infectivity of the virus – in brief, it creates more cases – but not the mortality, which may even be evolutionarily reduced. 

In contrast, mutations in a virus increase statistically, when it receives intense pressure. For example, an incomplete eradication system (e.g. a non-strictly specific vaccine, which has low penetration), can lead to mutations!!

The same happens evolutionarily when we apply vaccinations in times of a disease outbreak!!

In the ongoing study process of SARS-CoV-2, much data has been collected on its epidemiology and its clinical phenotype, while the opportunity was given, thanks to the sequencing technology, to analyze many sequences of this particular RVA virus.

All this information, of course, should have as a common direction, firstly to understand the epidemiological course of the virus, and to reassure the public, as it was shown that this particular virus weakens in terms of its aggression against the host, and secondly, to start the process of developing medication for the treatment of serious cases leading to ICUs, and possibly vaccines, which should, based on international criteria of vaccine production, on one hand offer protection to the vaccinated person for a certain period of time and, on the other hand and at the same time, prevent the horizontal transmission of the virus from the vaccinated person to the unvaccinated, who is not always one who, for his own reasons, does not want to take the vaccine, but may be patients who are not allowed to have this vaccine due to side effects!!

So an unconditional sine qua non requirement is that these side effects must be known!!

The above requirements apply for the so-called usual vaccines, which are produced either by inactivated pathogen organisms or their toxins, either by living tenuous viruses, or by parts of pathogens conjugated to polysaccharides. All of these, act directly on the body as antigens, and cause the production of antibodies based on the molecular mechanism already described above.

Thus, the so-called “artificial immunity” is achieved. These are vaccines that have completed years ago the required phase I, II and II clinical trials, so that they can be made available to the general population, and any potential side-effects they may have been known, as are the general population groups that are excluded from taking these vaccines due to their clinical history. [22]. 

In general, the process of making a vaccine is quite a time-consuming process, which typically lasts at least ten (10) years until its final approval by the FDA. The reason for this delay is that many investigations are required about the ingredients of a vaccine, to safely elicit a satisfactory, in terms of a titer of antibodies, immune response. Also, all those variables that are not always obvious in an organism must also be considered, since, as we described above, the interactions of molecular mechanisms within each cell are different in each group of the general population based on age, gender, but also genetic profile.  The protocol that is mainly followed, with a few exceptions (and those at a technical and not a substantive level) is as follows:


  • Laboratory investigations (2-4 years)
    1. Exploratory stage, where basic research is carried out.
    2. Detection of natural or synthetic antigens, e.g. particles that look like viruses (but are attenuated).


  • Preclinical phase (1-2 years)
    1. Studies in tissue cultures / cell cultures
    2. Animal testing (mice, apes), to assess the safety of the vaccine, but also the potency of immune response.
    3. Animals are vaccinated and then infected with the pathogen.
    4. Many candidate vaccines DO NOT go through to the next phase, because they DO NOT produce the desired levels of immune response.


  • Clinical trials to humans
    1. Phase 1
      1. Small group of 20-80 individuals.
      2. The goal is to assess the safety of the vaccine, but also the extent of the immune response.
  • Provocation. After the vaccination, participants are infected with the pathogen (attenuated/modified), and they are carefully monitored under controlled conditions.



  1. Phase 2
    1. Larger groups, 50-300 participants, where some belong to population groups at risk to be infected by the disease.
    2. Clinical trials are randomized and well-controlled (They include placebo).
  • The goal is to investigate the safety, the immunogenicity of the candidate vaccine, the optimal dosage, the vaccination program, and the delivery method.



  1. Phase 3
    1. The candidate vaccines that are successful after Phase 2 trials are allowed to proceed to larger-sample trials, and recruit thousands (up to 10.000) of persons.
    2. The trials are randomized and doubly-blind and should compare the experimental vaccine against a placebo (saline solution, vaccine for another disease or some other substance).
  • The goal is to evaluate the safety of the vaccine for a large group of persons, because some rarely occurring undesirable side effects may only present themselves at an occurrence ratio of 1 in 10.000 persons. To detect a low-frequency event, the test should involve 60,000 people, half of them being with a control or without a vaccine. (Plotkin, S.A. et al., Vaccines, 5thedition, Philadelphia: Saunders, 2008).
  1. The vaccine efficacy is evaluated:
    1. Does the candidate vaccine prevent the disease?
    2. Does it reduce the risk of infection?
    3. Does it lead to the production of antibodies or other types of immune response that are associated with the pathogen?


  • License and approval
    1. After a successful Phase 3 trial the vaccine developer applies for a license to the FDA. Then FDA shall inspect the factory where the vaccine shall be produced and may approve the labeling of the vaccine.
    2. After the approval, the FDA will continue to monitor the production of the vaccine, including the inspection of the facilities and the examination of the manufacturer’s trials for multiple vaccines, for efficacy, safety, and purity.


  • Monitoring of the vaccines after the license
    1. A variety of systems monitors vaccines after their approval. They include Phase 4 trials, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).
    2. Phase 4 trials are the voluntary investigations that the pharmaceutical companies may carry out after a vaccine has been released.


The manufacturing company can continue to test the vaccine on matters of safety, efficacy, and other potential uses   [22].

Two (2) types of vaccines belong to the classical vaccines:

Α) Live, attenuated vaccines: These are vaccines that use live attenuated virus, which continues to grow and multiply but does not cause disease. Such vaccines have been developed for the yellow fever and attenuated bacterial strains, like the BCG (turbeculosis).

Β) Inactivated vaccines: These are the most wide spread and safe in their class, as they contain viruses whose genetic material has been damaged by heat, chemicals, or radiation, and thus they have lost their virulence, i.e. their ability to cause disease and retain only their ability to stimulate the immune response. The vaccine for the common flu (Influenza) and the Sinovac (Chinese) for SARS-CoV-2 are such vaccines.

And while the specific methodologies and options for creating safe vaccines for SARS-CoV-2, could have been used without problems, presumably  because of the state of emergency brought by the pandemic, suddenly a group of scientists and specific pharmaceutical companies launched a different technology of producing vaccines, the so-called mRNA and cDNA vaccines respectively.

These specific vaccines, though, are based on an entirely different philosophy than that of the classical vaccines, as their purpose was to be used in specific applications, as for example the transportation of medicines to specific molecular targets, whether with the assistance of inactivated viruses, or with the assistance of special nanocapsules. Furthermore, they could be used for the transportation of mRNAs of specific human genes, modified to interfere with the translation into specific proteins, in specific hot spots of cellular signaling pathways, so that either the specific pathway is corrected, and the normal cell function is restored, or conversely, the cell is lead to apoptosis, i.e. death.

These technologies have been tested for years for the cure of specific multifactorial diseases, such as malignancies (melanomas, cancers of lung, colon, ovaries, breast, and other compact organs) [23][24][25][26], but also of severe neurological conditions, like Parkinson’s disease,  Alzheimer’s disease, Multiple Sclerosis, etc.

In other words, these technologies are applications of Genetic Engineering, and biotechnology, and an advanced continuation of gene therapy efforts initiated towards the end of the 1990 decade. Clearly, we must emphasize that these approaches are the spearhead of Molecular Biology and Genetics for the treatment of the above diseases that plague humanity in combination with immunotherapy, but until today they have never been successfully tested for the treatment and cure of infectious diseases, let alone on such a large scale in humans !!

Furthermore, trials conducted in laboratory animals for the influenza virus, the RSV virus and the ZIKA virus were not successful!!

So, it makes sense for us, scientists, to wonder,

About the reason why the classic vaccines’ approaches were not preferred for the protection of population from SARS-CoV_2, which guarantee the basic criteria where the vaccines should adhere to, so as to be safely available to the collective population,

and, the use of a different approach has been selected instead in such a hard pandemic situation, according to the assumptions of the government and a portion of scientists,

        an approach which ,

on one hand, it has been established that it DOES NOT support the basic criteria of a classic vaccine, since the vaccinated individuals continue to get infected by the virus (!!), but also to transmit it to others in case of infection (!!),

on the other hand, there are NOT multi-year clinical studies, so that possible short-term, medium-term, and long-term side effects due to their use, could be studied on different groups of the general population !!


       Besides, it is not by coincidence and it is of a great concern for us,


the fact that the four vaccines, all of which are being distributed at this very moment throughout Europe, which are also using (as we are about to see in greater analysis) two different approaches,


which is to say they are,




  1. b) DNA vaccines which use viral vectors COVID-19 VACCINE JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) and  COVID-19 VACCINE ASTRAZENECA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19),


have a  “CMA”  (“Conditional Marketing Authorization”) ,


and this means that it is a temporary license of use FOR A NON-APPROVED vaccine from the European Council, after positive proposal from EMA (European Medicine Agency – European Organism for Medicines) [28].


Note well that in the USA, FDA has approved usage of the first three vaccines as we can see them below, as «EUA» («Emergency Use Authorization»), which means use in case of emergency.


  The fact that our worries are COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED, can be seen from the hesitant as well as numbed way on which the disposal of these products is being treated, not only from the FDA but also from the EMA. More specifically, all the four temporary marketing authorizations being issued, are the so called “under conditions” marketing authorizations.


 They are temporary.

They are valid for no more than a year because they have been obtained based on “incomplete data”   !!




For them to obtain a conventional 5-year marketing authorization, the forementioned laboratories are obliged to provide files that are complemented with studies “in progress” as well as studies “that have been programmed to take place in the next years !!


The so called “conditional” Marketing Authorization “is being reevaluated every year” with the contribution and the analysis of the additional data on which it is also based on, data given and collected during a whole year’s time.        

All the same, however, as it has already been mentioned, the scheduled clinical trials are still in progress and are distributed in a period ranging from 2021 until at least 2024 !!       

Specifically, the BioNTech / Pfizer vaccine has received this European temporary Marketing Authorization under conditions on December 21st, 2020. Also, the deadline for submitting the “confirmation” of this vaccine’s efficacy, safety, and tolerance, is December 2023. !!

The Moderna vaccine received temporary conditional marketing authorization on January 6th, 2021. The deadline for submitting the “confirmation” of this vaccine’s efficacy, safety, and tolerance, is December 2023, the earliest !!


The Astra Zeneca vaccine received temporary conditional marketing authorization on January 29th, 2021. The deadline for submitting the “confirmation” of this vaccine’s efficacy, safety, and tolerance, is March 2024 !!


The Janssen vaccine received European temporary conditional marketing authorization on March 11th, 2021. The deadline for submitting the “confirmation” of this vaccine’s efficacy, efficacy, safety, and tolerance, is December 2023 !!


What does this mean??


Practically, it means that at least until the middle of 2024 we cannot have scientifically documented results for the duration and safety of the protection provided to the already vaccinated people !!!


However, what is going to happen in case these specific vaccines, create very serious and widespread side effects, not only short term but also long-term ones, since the vaccination is being extended to a large part of the population, which the more it grows, the more UNMANAGEABLE the situation becomes??


Who will be responsible for such a deviation on a clinical level for a part of, in other respects, the general population??


We are already in front of significant developments, which, as we are scientists, particularly worry us, according to the side effects of the aforementioned vaccines, that are being written down on the EudraVigilance. It is about the European data base [29], where the complications from drugs, as well as the complications due to the injections of the experimental vaccines against COVID-19 are registered. In the EudraVigilance, 13.867 deaths and 1.354.336 complications, out of which 683.688 cases (which is approximately 50%) have been characterized as serious [29] have been officially recorded due to injections from the 4 experimental vaccines in the E.U. member nations, up until June 5th, 2021.


  In the relevant tables there is discordance between the total side effects’ amount and the number coming from the side effects and deaths apposition, based on the human organs (heart, lungs etc.) or the human systems (circulatory, neurological etc.). This is due to the fact that many vaccinated individuals have more than one side effects that are recorded for the respective organs or systems for the purpose of studying the side effects, but they are not included in the total side effects number (for example, if someone develops 3 side effects, those are written down in three different fields of the side effects table but they are not counted 3 times in the total number of the side effects). The same occurs with the deaths number, due to synergy of many causes which affect several organs (multi-organic) that are not counted in the total deaths number [30].



The question posed, however, unreservedly is whether these vaccines have the potential to become so dangerous, and if they are capable of causing in some cases non-reversible organic failures, in the point of even human lives being threatened due to vaccination.



       The answer lies in the molecular level of their mechanism of action, whose philosophy is completely different from the equivalent followed in the classic vaccines that have been used so far for protection from different infections.


In particular:

  1. A) COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE PFIZER–BIONTECH Authorization on Dec 21, 2020




  1. B) COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE MODERNA (CX-024414) Authorization on Jan 6, 2021

In both vaccines alike, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-Biontech) / mRNA-1273 (Moderna), the mRNA synthesis takes place in a chemical way and through some specific modifications, to fortify its stability and at the same time reduce the system’s ability to perceive it as something foreign.

These are modifications that have not been made known to the scientific community !!


In effect, we have the creation of synthetic artificial copies of part from the mRNA in the SARS-CoV -2 virus encoding the S (Spike) protein, which are engulfed into lipid nanoparticles (four of them) having the ability of self-assemblage with the synthetic mRNA.


This specific technology has been used in biotechnology for the transportation of pharmaceutical   substances into cells.


When it gets into cells (muscle dendritic or fibroblasts) it is translated in multiple ways from ribosomes into active protein S, which, according to the companies protocol, is split afterwards into smaller pieces in the proteasome and these small protein S parts are transferred to the cell membrane where, then, the antigen presentation starts and the immune response is activated as it happens in the normal intrusion of the virus, as well [31] [32].


  1. C) COVID-19 VACCINE JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) Authorization on March 11, 2021




  1. D) COVID-19 VACCINE ASTRAZENECA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) Authorization on February 1, 2021 (has never received authorization in the USA)

In the AstraZeneca company vaccine AZD1222 a modified adenovirus is used which is not multiplied and causes naturally the flu in the chimpanzee [33].

In the Jansen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine Ad26.COV2 an inactivated adenovirus is also used [34].

In both cases, an ullage is caused in the genetic material of this virus, which is a double stranded DNA, so as to incorporate the SARS-CoV-2 gene responsible for the encoding of the protein S (spike). After the vaccination, the adenovirus is hooked on certain receptors, mostly on muscle cells, and the modified DNA enters the cells in the cytoplasm specifically, and later the nucleus where it will meet the human DNA.


The first and foremost issue arising here is what the type of the interaction of that specific DNA with the human DNA is.


       The viral gene of S protein is transcribed into mRNA, comes out in the cytoplasm where it is translated by the ribosomes in any cell having been infected and afterwards the same procedure described for the mRNA vaccines category is followed.


From this point on, certain problems in the clinical level begin which seem to increase, overpassing the simple anxiety as they concern not just simple symptoms, but they threaten even the life of our fellow human beings not only in the near but also in the  distant future !!!


The above-mentioned description according to the certain vaccines action seems innocent.


However ,


due to our deficient knowledge ,

on one hand, concerning the level of the interactions as a whole of our genome with the basic molecular mechanisms which govern the physiological function of cells,


 on the other hand, concerning the collateral reactions of other more specific molecular mechanisms related to immune response opposite, either on certain untested ingredients existing inside vaccines, or on the foreign viral proteins which are forcibly bio-composed into the cells of healthy individuals,

a scientific revolution and triumph, in other respects, seems to evolve into a scientific DEVASTATION !!!


       The demand on the scientific truth is, moreover, IMPERATIVE in such a degree that the use of the specific formulations has to and is imposed to stop immediately !!!


This is a warning that must be taken into consideration immediately, at least until certain parameters have been studied and specific scientific responses have been given, because in a different situation, and this one WE DENOUNCE IN EVERY ASPECT, the consequences will be CATASTROPHIC for the health condition of the populations !!!


Top scientists from all around the planet (among which the now retired and former Professor in the University of Mainz, Director of the Institute of Medicine Microbiology and Hygiene Sucharit Bhakdi, Michael Yeadon, former in charge of the scientific investigative department of Pfizer in the vaccines sector), signing as Doctors for Covid Ethics, have already addressed three open letters to the European Medicine Association (EMA) in relation to the dangers from the vaccines for COVID-19. In those letters they cite documentary evidence, according to which the dangers from thrombosis (blood clotting) hemorrhage and platelets abnormalities have been ruled out on purpose from the legal clinical trials of the vaccines before their use on human beings [35] [36].


New scientific data are constantly coming to light showing that the scientific community IS NOT AWARE OF the future consequences those vaccines will have on humans [37]. The confirmation came immediately, as a little after vaccination in the largest part of the Israeli population, there is an increase, statistically significant, in heart diseases ( myocarditis and pericarditis), especially amongst young people [38] [39].

The fact that has started being comprehensible is that all these clinical phenotypes concerning more and more organs, but also more and more vaccinated people are due to a series of DRAMATICALLY UNORTHODOX facts which it was logical that they wouldn’t have been noticed, since this new technology of all  the four vaccines  has been used ultimately bypassing the clinical phase III .


Normally, the clinical studies on vaccines concerning  the side effects should have a duration of three up to ten years (look at the protocol for the construction and distribution of vaccines in the general population), regardless of the number of individuals used in the study, as not only the short term side effects but also the medium and long term ones are studied, and not as in the case of the clinical trials for the vaccines concerning COVID-19, which have a duration of only few months !!


       This procedure is NECESSARY, particularly when it is about using a new technology for the production of a vaccine, since the demand for safety in vaccines is even higher than it is in the medicines production, as they are addressed in large populations of healthy individuals with heterogenous immune system.

So, because these instructions will have to be followed STRICTLY, the provoking of harm from side effects must not be acceptable, firstly because it concerns a great amount of people and secondly because the individual suffering will only have cost and no profit.


So, hereto the situation, without extensive time studies, it is perceivable that there is no possibility to provide timely and thorough information to Health professionals, and those who follow procedure and vaccinate.


Even if the yellow cards system were implemented correctly which, unfortunately, troubles us particularly in the way that it is not applied under the responsibility suited for the application of such a vaccine, only the short-term side effects could be recorded and NOT the long term ones which are those possibly appearing in the immediate timespan or in the distant future.


In what way will the correlation of these side effects take place and how will they be evaluated, without the existence of a control group??


The consequences of these tragic attitudes, which unfortunately have already started appearing and should normally alert the entire scientific community, appear instead to go unnoticed or not being given the necessary serious attention, whereas health measures should be taken, immediately, to suspend the use of the specific vaccines, as laid down in the relevant safety protocols, until the causes are investigated !!!


       IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE   !!! 


As it appears from the statements of eminent scientists and from the works published [40], these tragic “errors”, though having already been pointed out, a part of the scientific community does not seem to react.


One of the grave “errors”, which are connected with a lot of side effects, was that the molecular properties of virus SARS-CoV-2 S protein had not been taken into account. The Protein S, which the virus uses as an opener of the ACE2 receptor in order to enter and infect human cells, was simply treated as a large target antigen.

However,  the specific protein produced by these mRNA vaccines is not inactivated in some ways, so it has only its antigenic power AND NOT THE INFECTIVE one, as it is done e.g. with the respective surface antigen protein in the influenza virus in the classic vaccines.

It was thus shown that the specific protein, as a direct product of the mRNA vaccine, from the moment of its biosynthesis, has a pathogenic effect irrespective of SARS-CoV-2. It means that by vaccinating people, we essentially administer them the genetic order (mRNA) for a toxin to be encoded [40]  !!


      experiments and studies already conducted, confirm the specific activity  !!


Specifically, researchers have constructed a pseudovirus, consisting of the nucleocapsid containing all the viral proteins, including S protein, however, noninfective as it didn’t have inside it the normal virus SARS-CoV-2 mRNA [41][42]. The vascular endothelium comprises the main target tissue of infection and destruction for the SARS-CoV-2 virus[43]. Based on these data, the exposure of a certain animal model (hamster mice) in vivo to the structured pseudovirus had had serious damages as a result, not only in the arteries endothelium cells but also in the lungs, a fact which became evident out of the fattening in the alveolar diaphragm, as well as the increased filtration in the mononuclear cells.

This inflammatory Processing of this has been a result of sub-regulation in the ACE2 receptor and of the simultaneous reduction in its expression [42].


And here, however, the receptor’s expression is a result of cellular signaling pathways.


Moreover, the same pathological changes were observed in vitro as well, following culture of pulmonary arterial endothelial cells, after being infected with the pseudovirus carrying S protein.


The above findings show, at the molecular level, that S protein is not only entirely responsible for the extensive damage created in the cardiovascular system, but can also cause the same pathological clinical phenotype, even when alone on her own, without SARS-CoV-2 [42] !!!

This discovery means that the toxin, since it circulates freely through the body liquids in several organs, can cause serious inflammations where ACE2 receptors are present !!!

Another negative effect of protein S, at the molecular level, which further justifies the forementioned damages, concerns the normal function of mitochondria, which consist the   “energy factories” of our cells.


It was therefore concluded from the relevant experiments that the binding alone of the S protein onto the endothelium cells ACE2 receptors, resulted in molecular instability of the receptor, resulting in deregulation of the intracellular signaling as well as a decrease of the basic mitochondria respiration and ATP production, leading to a change in mitochondrial potential and an increased fragmentation rate,


       resulting finally in cell death of the endothelial cells,


      and the creation of extensive damages!!!!!!


The paradox in all  these studies is that when S protein enters with the normal SARS-CoV-2 virus and connects to the ACE2 receptors in the endothelial cells, it provokes molecular instability of these cells and a decrease in their expression rate, resulting essentially in an infectivity decrease of SARS-CoV-2, protecting the endothelium.

On the contrary, when S protein is alone then its toxic action duplicates (!!!) since there is no virus and it causes malfunction of the system renin angiotensin due to the reduction in the ACE2 receptors, leading to endothilitis and extensive damages   !!!


The only way for S protein to exist in pure form inside the system, is through the specific vaccines, since IT IS NOT INACTIVATED, and even in MUCH LARGER QUANTITIES than through host infection by some virus   !!!


So why, while we know the pathogenic effect of the specific S protein even without the virus, do we CONTINUE MANUFACTURE VACCINES, using this protein as a target antigen  ??????


Furthermore, other studies also seem to support the fact that, when S protein connects to the ACE2 receptor, particularly without the existence of SARS-CoV-2 virus, it interferes on a specific way in the cellular signaling, which leads to activation of a series of different biological sequences with clinical consequences.


Specifically, experiments with the effect of recombinant full S protein or a subunit S1 of it in the SARS-CoV-2, in cultures of human smooth muscle cells or human endothelial cells from lung arteries have shown that this effect was capable of activating the intracellular system for the signaling transduction, without the simultaneous need of existence for the rest of the virus ingredients [44].


Based on the above findings, the authors of the article suggest that it is highly probable that the disorder of certain molecular mechanisms created due to activation of specific paths in the cellular signaling in the cells of the smooth muscular fibers, as well as the endothelium cells, results in the creation of pathological situations such as remodeling of the lungs vessels, the pneumonic arteria hypertension, and other cardiovascular complications [44][45].

The cell signaling paths which seem to be activated are the MEK, ERK paths as well as a very well-known mechanism for the transduction of signals according to the cellular development [46].

The ERK cell signaling path, however, together with all the proteins being activated as a cascade aiming the transfer of the message from the cell membrane to the nucleus, is part of the central MAPK path which plays a role in the regulation of different cellular functions such as multiplication, differentiation, survival, whereas, in some situations, according to the stimulation, plays a role in the apoptosis also, that is to say in the programmed cell death   !!!


The fact alone that even only one path defines so many and different cellular functions, proves the complexity in the interaction of the molecular mechanisms. Since in some people there are certain mutations in the genes encoding the proteins participating in the cascade of these paths, the improper implementation of that path may lead to the carcinogenesis [47] !!!


However, an UNBELIEVABLE BIOLOGICAL EVENT takes place, which seems to be triggered by the attachment of S protein in the ACE2 receptor:

Normally, ACE2 is a receptor having a carboxypeptidase role with the function of  blood regulation [48], and not a membrane receptor that takes part in the transduction of intercellular signaling. So, what happens, and it suddenly obtains a role he has never had, altering its function???


       Studies that have been conducted, with SARS-CoV as well as SARS-CoV-2, show that the S protein can modify significantly the normal function of ACE2, from an enzyme having a peptidase activity to a membrane receptor for the signaling transduction with ligand the S protein which is the one triggering the stimulation.


So, the activation of the above paths, apart from the carcinogenesis probability after the connection of S protein, drives signals to the nucleus of the cells, where certain transcription factors, such as NF-κΒ and API, transcribe specific genes that produce mitogenic protein kinases as well as other inflammation cytokines such as interleukin -6 [47] !!!


These experiments emphatically raise concerns οf the pontential even intercellular activity of S protein, which can be activated through mRNA or DNA vaccines.


Something like this, of course, has not been studied and this consists a significant problem, as the pathological situations that might be activated due to the disorder in the cellular signaling, are many and already become apparent as short term cases of cardiovascular diseases, such as the coronary heart disease, systemic hypertension and myocardial infraction, pericarditis, myocarditis whereas the long term side effects are not possible to be predicted, as nobody knows based on each one’s genetic profile the way in which the probable disorders in the cellular signaling paths are going to act [47] !!!


So, as the aspect of protein S pathogenic activity is fortified, new studies come up to confirm our WORST NIGHTMARES.


So far, based on the description for the mechanism of action of all the four vaccines, the companies have been assuring us that S protein, which is encoded by mRNA or  DNA found inside vaccines, DOES NOT come out of cells and simply the protein itself or pieces of it reach the cell membrane of the cells they infect and are target of the cells taking part in the immune response. Of course, we saw above that even intercellular S protein can activate paths in the cell signaling.


Unfortunately, independent studies according to the bio distribution of mRNA vaccines have started to show that spleen constitutes the main center of action for the immune response. Since there are not concrete studies about the bio distribution of these specific vaccines for SARS-CoV-2, we count on studies done from other similar experimental mRNA vaccines for Influenza virus.


So, since SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has been designed so that the modified, as we have seen, mRNA is contained into a system of lipid nanoparticles, it has an expected distribution with a concentration initially high at the injection site, while it immediately (some hours later) drops at the injection site, showing a rise in the lymph nodes !!

Amongst organs, the highest levels seem to appear in the spleen, as it was initially mentioned and, in the liver, as well as in other glands such as adrenal glands and ovaries.


It is finally understood, the “invisible” from the immune system, due to nanoparticles, mRNAs reach the most remote organs through our lymphatic system, almost getting into the general circulation [49]   !!!


Moreover, it is clear that the content of the vaccines may pass through the blood-brain barrier and reach the brain since SARS-CoV-2 virus mRNA has been isolated from cerebrospinal fluid [51] !!!


Encephalitis symptoms have also been mentioned in COVID-19 patients and based on the above these might be either a result of the vaccine or the S protein from SARS-CoV-2.

All the above studies show exactly that, since the content of mRNA vaccine does not remain only on the injection site but is diffused in all the organs, it is therefore starting to become understood that the intercellular and the extracellular molecular effects of S protein can potentially modify the ACE2 receptors activity in cells and tissues in several organs, leading to polyorganic pathological situations   !!!


Moreover, another parameter is the deficient studies on the creation and use of lipid nanoparticles for the safe transport of mRNAs [52]. These nanoparticles, also known as liposomes, consist of cationic lipids, phospholipids, cholesterol, and polyethylene glycole (PEG). The inflammatory processing due to these nanoparticles, as they are transferred to several parts of the body as well, is a significant parameter and reason for the creation of considerable damages [53].


The understanding of life complexity is one of the core values of Molecular Biology and Genetics. And this complexity which goes from the genome to the infrastructure of a multicellular organism must be taken into account very seriously, every time man tries to make use of his knowledge aiming at the therapeutic or preventive approach against any external or internal event.


The questions and the discovery of the scientific truth comprise the main aim for every scientist. The concealment of the scientific truth, especially in matters of molecular biology, can only lead to devastation.


The very microcosm from which we are made of, teaches us. In each of the trillions of cells that constitute the human organism only 20% of the genes we have known so far is functioning due to cell differentiation. However, the survival of an organism in the literally speaking hostile environment surrounding us, rests on the ability of each cell separately and all together, to be able not only to detect the several changes happening in their external and internal surrounding alike, but also to react to them. For this reason, thousands of “radars” widespread either in the cell membrane or in the cytoplasm in the form of differential receptors, detect and are constantly found, in a molecular dialogue with the stimuli they receive from the external as well the internal environment.

The stimuli can be either chemical or several molecules (ligands), which activate simultaneously most of the times, many different paths from and to the nucleus, creating a complicated but at the same time amazingly synchronized communication network which, in turn, controls a series of important cell functions such as increase, differentiation, motion, adhesion, metabolism and cell death (apoptosis) when it is necessary.


Thanks to this complicated network when something changes in the micro or macro environment, then it has the ability to react immediately transforming its form, behavior and so on. The activation and interaction of the different paths leads to a series of events which can, in turn, lead to the activation or suppression of important molecular mechanisms having as a result the respective activation or suppression in the activity of some genes or their overexpression.


The accuracy of communication inside all this complicated network is achieved through a continuous check in the message being transferred as well as in the way of its transportation. This control is accomplished in specific internal stations which are widespread throughout the network and are called “check points”. The role of these stations is decisive since from these points it is essentially is a matter of whether a message arrives correctly at the processing center and whether the cell’s response is correct.


The procedure of immune recognition and response is a result of the harmonic cooperation of all the functioning molecules (receptors, cytokines, etc.) aiming at the homeostasis in the network for the transduction of signaling to all the immune cells.


Therefore, natural selection and evolution teach us that homeostasis whether it is about a cell or a society, or the scientific community, is based on cooperation, otherwise those parts that have been damaged or corrupted are condemned to enter sooner or later the apoptosis procedure or be discarded.


We therefore expect clear and well-documented scientific responses in order to provide later on, a full update to all the social institutions, organizations and generally all the citizens of our country.


It is our right and obligation, with fair scientific reason, to protect this thin line between ethics and immorality with the aim of protecting health and life, now, but mainly life of the next generations.




  1. Thomas D. Gelehrter FSC, David Ginsburg et al. – Human Genome Project. In: Edition S, ed. 2003.
  2. Gibbs Wayt W. The Unseen Genome Beyond DNA ATHENS: Katoptro 2004.
  3. Strachan T. RA. Human Molecular Genetics. London and New York: Garland publishing 2004.
  4. Kiriakidis A.D. Genome function: From genes to protein structure and their function. In: Seminar P, ed. Deciphering the genome, then what? 2000
  5. Trowsdale J. aPP. Defense strategies and immunity-related genes. Eur J Immunol. 2004;34:7-17
  6. Conor JM. F-SM. Essential Medical Genetics. fourth ed. London: Blackwell Scientific Publications 1997
  7. Ogata, H., Goto, S., Sato, K., Fujibuchi, W., Bono, H., and Kanehisa, M. (1999). KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 29–34
  8. Harris, M.A., Clark, J., Ireland, A., Lomax, J., Ashburner, M., Foulger, R., Eilbeck, K., Lewis, S., Marshall, B., Mungall, C., et al.; Gene Ontology Consortium (2004). The Gene Ontology (GO) database and informatics resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D258–D261
  9. Croft, D., O’Kelly, G., Wu, G., Haw, R., Gillespie, M., Matthews, L., Caudy, M., Garapati, P., Gopinath, G., Jassal, B., et al. (2011). Reactome: a database of reactions, pathways, and biological processes. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D691– D697
  10. Gorenshteyn D, Zaslavsky E, Fribourg M, Kleinstein SH, Troyanskaya OG, Sealfon SC. Interactive Big Data Resource to Elucidate Human Immune Pathways and Diseases. Immunity. 2015;43:605-614. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2015.08.014
  11. Segreto R, Deigin Y, Mccairn K, et al. An Open Debate on SARS-CoV-2’s Proximal Origin Is Long Overdue.
  12. Puelles, V.G., M. Lütgehetmann, M.T. Lindenmeyer, J.P. Sperhake, M.N. Wong, L. Allweiss, S. Chilla, A. Heinemann, N. Wanner, S. Liu, F. Braun, S. Lu, S. Pfefferle, A.S. Schröder, C. Edler, O. Gross, M. Glatzel, D. Wichmann, T. Wiech, S. Kluge, K. Pueschel, M. Aepfelbacher, and T.B. Huber. 2020. Multiorgan and Renal Tropism of SARS-CoV-2. N Engl J Med. 383:590-592. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2011400.
  13. Zhou, P., X.L. Yang, X.G. Wang, B. Hu, L. Zhang, W. Zhang, H.R. Si, Y. Zhu, B. Li, C.L.Huang, H.D. Chen, J. Chen, Y. Luo, H. Guo, R.D. Jiang, M.Q. Liu, Y. Chen, X.R. Shen, X.Wang, X.S. Zheng, K. Zhao, Q.J. Chen, F. Deng, L.L. Liu, B. Yan, F.X. Zhan, Y.Y. Wang, G.F.Xiao, and Z.L. Shi. 2020. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 579:270-273. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7
  14. Yan R, Zhang Y, Li Y, Xia L, Guo Y, and Zhou Q, (2020) Structural basis for the recognition of SARS-CoV-2 by fulllength human ACE2. Science 367: 1444–1448.
  15. Wu C, Liu Y, Yang Y, Zhang P, Zhong W, Wang Y, Wnag Q, Xu Y, Li M, Li X, Zheng M, Chen L, Li H, (2020). Analysis of therapeutic targets for SARS-CoV-2 and discovery of potential drugs by computational methods. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B. doi:1016/j.apsb.2020.02.008.
  16. Zhu M, (2004) SARS Immunity and Vaccination. Cell Mol Immunol, 1:193-198.
  17. Imai Y, Kuba K, Rao S, Huan Y, Guo F, Guan B, Yang P, Sarao R, Wada T, Leong-Poi H, Crackower MA, Fukamizu A, Hui CC, Hein L, Uhlig S, Slutsky AS, Jiang C and Penninger JM., (2005) Angiotensinconverting enzyme 2 protects from severe acute lung failure. Nature, 436 (7047): 112–116.
  18. Hamming I, Timens W, Bulthuis ML, Lely AT, Navis G, and van Goor H, (2004). Tissue distribution of ACE2 protein,the functional receptor for SARS coronavirus. A first step in understanding SARS pathogenesis. J Pathol, 203: 631- 637.
  19. Fu Y, Cheng Y and Wu Y, (2020) Understanding SARS-CoV-2- Mediated Inflammatory Responses: From Mechanisms to Potential Therapeutic Tools. Virol Sin. doi:1007/s12250-020-00207-4. [Epub ahead of print]
  20. Ng MH, Cheng SH, Lau KM, Leung GM, Khoo US, Zee BC and Sung JJ, (2010) Immunogenetics in SARS: a casecontrol study. Hong Kong Med J, 16 (Suppl 4): S29-33.
  21. Liu L, Wei Q, Lin Q. Fang J, Wang H, Kwok H, Tang H, Nishiura K, Peng J, Tan Z, Wu T, Cheung KW, Chan KH, Alvarez X, Qin C, Lackner A, Perlman S, Yuen KY and Chen Z, (2019) Anti-spike IgG causes severe acute lung injury by skewing macrophage responses during acute SARS-CoV infection. JCI Insight,
  22. Pollard, A. J., & Bijker, E. M. (2021). A guide to vaccinology: from basic principles to new developments. Nature Reviews Immunology, 21(2), 83–100.
  23. Lei MiaoYu ZhangLeaf Huang Molecular Cancer 2021mRNA vaccine for cancer immunotherapy volume 20, Article number: 41  Published: 25 February
  24. , Megan A. McNamara,1Smita K. Nair,2,3 and Eda K. Hol RNA-Based Vaccines in Cancer Immunotherapy Review Article Volume 2015  Article ID 794528 |
  25. Yu ZhangShuibin LinXiang-Yang WangGuizhi Zhu First published: 06 June 2019 (Nanoscience & Nanotechnology) Nano vaccines for cancer immunotherapy
  26. Messenger RNA Vaccines: Beckoning of a New Era in Cancer Immunotherapy Mehmet Copur, Oncology (Williston Park)2021 Apr 21;35(4):190-198. doi: 10.46883/ONC.2021.3504.0198
  27. Pardi N., Hogan M., Porter Fr. and D. Weissman (2018) mRNA vaccines-a new era in vaccinology, Nature Reviews Volume 17 April 2018.
  29., %2FPHV%20DAP%2F_portal%2FDAP&Action=Navigate&P0=1&P1=eq&P2= %22Line%20Listing%20Objects%22.%22Substance%20High%20Level%20Code %22&P3=1+42325700 (Pfizer-Biontech, Tozinameran) %2FPHV%20DAP%2F_portal%2FDAP&Action=Navigate&P0=1&P1=eq&P2= %22Line%20Listing%20Objects%22.%22(AstraZeneca) (Janssen) for USA see VAERS,
  30. και fbclid=IwAR3pNFRv_HLIvWaduedCzZNlIFAY2CCZqQqU3EECF2r-HADIN9F_C6_a4Sc
  31. Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Vaccine Candidate Against COVID-19 Achieved Success in First Interim Analysis from Phase 3 Study. Available online: (accessed on 9 November 2020).
  32. Jackson, L.A.; Anderson, E.J.; Rouphael, N.G.; Roberts, P.C.; Makhene, M.; Coler, R.N.; McCullough, M.P.; Chappell, J.D.; Denison, M.R.; Stevens, L.J.; et al. An mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2—Preliminary report. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 1920–1931.[CrossRef]
  33. Folegatti, P.M.; Ewer, K.J.; Aley, P.K.; Angus, B.; Becker, S.; Belij-Rammerstorfer, S.; Bellamy, D.; Bibi, S.; Bittaye, M.; Clutterbuck, E.A.; et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: A preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2020, 396, 467–478. [CrossRef]
  34. Mercado, N.B.; Zahn, R.; Wegmann, F.; Loos, C.; Chandrashekar, A.; Yu, J.; Liu, J.; Peter, L.; McMahan, K.; Tostanoski, L.H.; et al. Single-shot Ad26 vaccine protects against SARS-CoV-2 in rhesus macaques. Nature 2020, 586, 583–588. [CrossRef]
  36. concerning-covid-19-vaccines_en.pdf
  38. myocarditis-in-young-men-says-israel-s-health-ministry
  39. andres-16-30/? fbclid=IwAR3TgdaCoHEzrRteLvL4oYXszAHb7u677Nvqc-G9Iz9bfl2qrc4RbgcV2wU
  41. Kuba K, Imai Y, Rao S, et al. A crucial role of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in SARS coronavirus-induced lung injury. Nat Med. 2005;11(8):875-879. doi:10.1038/nm1267
  42. Lei Y, Zhang J, Schiavon CR, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE2. doi:10.1101/2020.12.04.409144
  43. Teuwen L-A, Geldhof V, Pasut A and Carmeliet P. COVID-19: the vasculature unleashed. Nat Rev Immunol. 2020;20:389-391
  44. Suzuki, Y.J.; Nikolaienko, S.I.; Dibrova, V.A.; Dibrova, Y.V.; Vasylyk, V.M.; Novikov, M.Y.; Shults, N.V.; Gychka, S.G. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-mediated cell signaling in lung vascular cells. Vascul. Pharmacol. 2020, 106823, (Online ahead of Print).
  45. Suzuki, Y.J. The viral protein fragment theory of COVID-19 pathogenesis. Med. Hypotheses 2020, 144, 110267.
  46. Zhang, W.; Liu, H.T. MAPK signal pathways in the regulation of cell proliferation in mammalian cells. Cell Res. 2002, 12, 9–18
  47. Suzuki YJ, Gychka SG. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Elicits Cell Signaling in Human Host Cells: Implications for Possible Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccines. doi:10.3390/vaccines9010036
  48. Gheblawi, M.; Wang, K.; Viveiros, A.; Nguyen, Q.; Zhong, J.; Turner, A.J.; Raizada, M.K.; Grant, M.B.; Oudit, G.Y. Angiotensin- converting enzyme 2: SARS-CoV-2 receptor and regulator of the renin-angiotensin system: Celebrating the 20th anniversary of the discovery of ACE. Circ. Res. 2020, 126, 1456–1474.
  49. Seneff S, Nigh G. Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines against COVID-19. Int J Vaccine Theory, Pract Res. 2021;2(1):38-79.
  50. Rhea EM, Logsdon AF, Hansen KM, et al. The S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood–brain barrier in mice. Nat Neurosci. 2021;24(3):368-378. doi:10.1038/s41593-020-00771-8
  51. Moriguchi, T. et al. A first case of meningitis/encephalitis associated with SARS-Coronavirus-2. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 94, 55–58 (2020).
  52. Wadhwa, A., Aljabbari, A., Lokras, A., Foged, C. & Thakur, A. (2020). Opportunities and Challenges in the Delivery of mRNA-based Vaccines. Pharmaceutics 12(2): 102.























“A possession for all time”


“Intellectual treasure for eternity”


History of Thucydides.


Between December of 2020 and March of  2021, the European Medicines Agency (E.M.A) approved 4 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) included the vaccine ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (AstraZeneca) [1].


Nevertheless, around the end of February 2021, a significant number of Venous Thromboses (VTE) in unusual sites of the venous network, like the Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis [CVST] and the Splanchnic Veins Thrombosis [SVT], in combination with thrombocytopenia, was observed in people who received the Astra-Zeneca vaccine.


That resulted in the temporary discontinuation of the vaccination program  on 15 March 2021 by European Medicines Agency (E.M.A), in Austria, Germany, France, U.K and Norway [2].


Specifically, between January – April of 2021 (4 months), 169 incidents of CVST and 53 incidents of SVT in 34 million individuals that were vaccinated in the European Union were observed [2].


Greinacher et al [3], described the clinical laboratory data of 11 patients from Germany and Austria to whom Idiopathic Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura was developed after the administration of ChAdOx1 nCov-19.


In total 9 out of 11 patients developed Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST), 3 of them developed Splanchnic Veins Thrombosis (SVT) and 4 of them Pulmonary Embolism.


6 of them finally died.


All the patients mentioned above, developed Thrombocytopenia and none of them had received Heparin before the beginning of the symptoms.


In addition, 28 patients were added in the study and all of them were tested positive for Antibodies against Factor IV of the Platelets- Heparin (PF4).


The researchers observed that the Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Syndromes had remarkable similarities with the syndrome of Thrombocytopenia induced by Heparin (HIT), which is responsible for the thrombotic incidents.



The patients participating in the study had not received Heparin!


The team of  Greinacher suggested to name this Syndrome caused by the vaccine “Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (Vaccine- induced Thrombocytic Thrombocytopenia, VITT)”.


Schultz et al [4], from the University Hospital of Oslo, described 5 incidents of healthcare professionals in total of 130.000 vaccinated individuals, who developed Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST) and Thrombocytopenia, 7-10 days after the administration of ChadOx1 nCov-19. All the patients presented with high levels of antibodies against Factor IV of platelets and heparin, without previous exposure to heparin.


The team of the Norwegian scientists concluded that Vaccine- induced Thrombocytic Thrombocytopenia (VITT) was potentially more frequent than expected, considering the fact that  in the past it was considered to be a rare but potentially serious event in young adults [4].


Moreover, more mechanisms have been proposed in which the platelets are aggregated developing thrombi. As for the vaccines that use an Adenovirus vector, it is proven that Adenoviruses can bind to platelets, using the coxsackie-adenovirus receptor (CAR) that is the primary entry step of the virus into  platelets [5].


It is proven that the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 use the coxsackie adenovirus receptor (CAR)[6].


The vaccines Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson / Janseen), use a recombinant edition (with inadequacy of replication) of human Adenovirus without the presence of CAR, although, the binding receptor in platelets is the sialic acid.


It is well known that the human platelets content of sialic acid differs, which has been implicated with conjugation, aggregation and can play a crucial role in  disorders of platelets like Thrombocytopenia [7].


Therefore, the interactions of ChAdOx1 and Ad26.COV2.S vectors with platelets are reasonable, considering the fact that  every intramuscular injection of this kind of vaccine is consisted of 5×1010 viral particles [8].


Additionally, as it has been proven with the use of human Adenovirus type V and human Adenovirus type III, the binding of adenovirus particles in circulated platelets can activate the latter and can lead to their aggregation [8].


It is also important to know, if the complex of Adenovirus and platelets can cause an autoimmune response by itself, specifically in the presence of previously produced antibodies against PF4.


Moreover, past studies in rodents, rabbits, and primates, excluding humans, showed that intravenous use of Adenovirus vectors can cause acute thrombocytopenia and blood coagulation within 24 hours after administration.


The two vaccines AZD1222and Ad26.COV2.S that are administrated intramuscularly, according to the study of biodistribution in mice BALB / c, show the highest count of viral replicants in skeletal muscle at the site of injection, with low levels being observed sporadically in other tissues- heart, liver, lymph nodes, ovaries and testes(study 0841MV38.001) [8].


Furthermore, it is potentially believed that there is a cross reaction of the antibodies with PF4 against spike protein. The cross reaction is observed, when one antibody successfully recognizes epitopes of other kind of antigens against a specific antigen. There is potentially cross reaction between antibodies against the spike protein and other kind of proteins, like the basic myelin protein, the transglutaminases 2 and 3, the mitochondria, the nuclear antigen, a-myosin, hyperoxidase of thyroid gland and the collagen [8].


One more potential mechanism, which is under study, is the cross-reactivity of antibodies of the human recombinant Adenovirus with the factor 4 of the platelets [8].


There is an unmistakable interaction between spike protein and the receptor of the angiotensin converting enzyme -2 (ACE2) on the surface of the platelets, enough to intensify the prothrombotic function!


Therefore, this finding leads us to the critical question, whether the spike protein  produced after vaccination with vector vaccines, or the mRNA can (and how often) be excreted in free form, appear in blood and potentially interact with platelets in a similar manner.


After the vaccination (vector and mRNA) and production of spike proteins, the proteins in turn are further degraded in antigenic peptides and appear in cytotoxic T lymphocytes through the primary pathway of Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) I, but can also be released, and taken from the dendritic cells and further presented in T helper lymphocytes and B cells through the pathway of MHC II !!


So, we cannot exclude the possibility that  sporadical protein escape can occur during their transport [8] !!


On  June 9th of 2021. A physician named Tess Lawrie from UK, published the results of yellow cards for the COVID-19 vaccines during the period of 8.12.2020 and 6.5.2021;


During the 5 months period 24 million individuals received both doses in UK. The physician (Lawrie), is alerting everyone, given the fact that during this period of 5 months 1253 deaths  and 888196 adverse reactions were recorded that were relative to COVID-19 vaccines!!!


The physician (Lawrie) divided the adverse events in 6 clinical categories [9].


The first clinical category is consisted of, bleeding, thromboses and ischemic incidents.


This specific category was named as mortality category, given the (dramatic)  fact that a lot of sudden deaths occurred.

438 to be exact!!


The most probable cause (according to the clinical findings and the clinical laboratory tests that took place), could be the hemorrhagic, thromboembolic- ischemic incidents in brain tissue. There were already governmental reviews, for strokes incidents, with underlying cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (24 deaths, 226 adverse events). Although the analysis of data reached to the conclusion that the thromboembolic adverse events potentially concern all the veins and arteries, including the major vessels, like aorta, cerebral vessels, heart, liver, spleen, kidneys, ovaries and could be life-threatening or could diminish quality of life of the vaccinated individual [9]!!!


-The second clinical category there are adverse reactions associated with the immune system.

Reactivations of latent viruses, like herpes zoster and rabies occurred !!


A fact that implies, immune deficiency, caused by the vaccines!!


Moreover, disorder of the immune system  that was related to the vaccines occurred, so autoimmune diseases like syndrome Guillain-Barre (280 cases, 6 deaths) and Multiple Sclerosis (MS) (113 cases), Crohn colitis and Ulcerative Colitis (231 cases, 2 deaths) appeared !!


Ιn addition, many allergic reactions occurred (25,070) of which 4 were lethal and 1001 vaccinated individuals suffered acute anaphylactic shock[9] !!


-In the 3rd clinical category adverse reactions related to pain, like arthralgia (24.902 incidents), myalgias (31.168 incidents), fibromyalgia (270 incidents) and headaches (90.000 incidents) occurred [9].


-The 4th clinical category is consisted of neurological adverse reactions. To be specific, it includes the 21% of the total adverse events that have  occurred (185.474 incidents). A wide variety of neurological adverse reactions were observed, with the more frequent being epileptic seizures (1,992 incidents), some types of paralysis (2,357 incidents), Bell’s palsy (626 incidents) and more rare cases, like encephalopathy, dementia, ataxia, parkinsonism [9]!!


-The 5th clinical category is consisted of adverse reactions that are related to visual loss, hearing, and olfactory loss, even speech disorders [9].


-The 6th clinical category is consisted of adverse reactions during pregnancy. The pregnant women were only a minor percent of the vaccinated individuals in UK. Nevertheless, it appears to be a large number of adverse reactions (307), including a pregnant woman’s death, an infant’s death after premature delivery  and 150 spontaneous abortions [9}.

The physician’s (Lawrie) opinion is that the adverse events can occur in any of the COVID-19 vaccines [9].


*On page 4 of the EMA Marketing authorization of Pfizer Biontech , it is indicated that the vaccine is exempted from studies for interaction with other medicines.


On the same page, it is also mentioned that there are limited data for its use in pregnancy, and that studies have only took place in animals.


In addition, it is mentioned that the duration of immunity by the vaccine is unknown, as the vaccine is still in clinical trials !!!

It is also remarkable that in page 11, it is explicitly stated that the specific vaccine is exempted from clinical trials of genotoxicity and carcinogenesis!!!




Finally, on page 21 it is declared that the end of the clinical trials for Pfizer Biontech is on 12th of 2023. The type of study is a blind randomized controlled trial with the use of placebo [10].


*A similar image is observed for the Moderna vaccine. On page 4 of the EMA marketing authorization, it is stated that the vaccine is also exempted from clinical trials for interactions with other medicines. Moreover, it is stated that the duration of immunity by the vaccine is unknown !! (Due to the vaccine being still under clinical trials).


On  paragraph 5.3, on page 9 it is stated that the vaccine of Moderna is also excepted from clinical trials of genotoxicity and carcinogenesis.




Finally on page 15, section E, it is mentioned that the clinical trials of this specific vaccine will end on 12th of 2022.


As with Pfizer Biontech vaccine, the Moderna’s vaccine clinical trial is a (blind) randomized controlled clinical trial with the use of a placebo [10].


*The Astra Zeneca vaccine EMA marketing authorization, on page 5, subsection 4.5, also explicitly states that the vaccine is excluded from clinical trials for reactions with other drugs.


On page 4, it is also mentioned that the duration of immunity by the vaccine is unknown, due to the fact that the vaccine is still under clinical trials.


On page 10, subsection 5.3, it is stated that the specific vaccine (Astra Zeneca) has not been tested for genotoxicity and carcinogenesis.



Finally, on page 17, it is stated that the end of clinical trials for Astra Zeneca vaccine is on 31st of March in 2024, with the type of clinical trials being randomized-controlled [10].


*As for the vaccine of Johnson & Johnson, in the EMA marketing authorization, on page 4, it is stated that the healthcare scientists should be alerted for symptoms and signs of thromboembolism or/and thrombocytopenia !!!


On the same page, similarly with the previously mentioned vaccines, it is stated that the duration of the immunity by the vaccine is unknown, due to the fact that the vaccine is still under clinical trials.

On page 5, it is stated that the vaccine is exempted from clinical trials for interactions with other medicines.


On page 11, subsection 5.3, it is also stated that the vaccine of Jansen, has not been evaluated for potential carcinogenic or genotoxic side effects.




So many “whys”…


Finally, on page 20, section E, it is stated that the clinical trials are blind randomized controlled with placebo and that they end on 31st December of 2023 [10].


Remarkable is the fact that, FDA, regarding the Pfizer Biontech vaccine, states that the scientific has no evidence whether the vaccine can stop or reduces human-to-human transmission from the virus [11].


A new study, by the professors Harald Walach, Reiner Klement, and the Dutch  (analysis data scientist) Wouter Aukema, was published (fully evaluated) at MDPI on 24th June of 2021. The real data concerning the number of vaccinations required for the prevention of one death originate from a major  Israeli field clinical trial. According to the field, the number of vaccinations (NNTV- Numbers Needed to Vaccinate) required to prevent one death was calculated. The adverse reactions (ADR) originated from the  database of the European Medicines Agency and the Dutch national database ( since 28 May of 2021, to extract the number of cases with serious adverse reactions and also the number of fatal cases.


The terrifying result of the study is:


For every 3 deaths that are prevented by vaccination, we have to accept two deaths that are caused by the vaccine!!!


The writers reached to a critical conclusion, that the significant lack of benefit should prompt governments to reconsider their vaccination policies!!


The reported lack of data  is very characteristic. The European mean value is 127 individual security reports (ICSR), meaning, incidents with reports of adverse reactions per 100.000 vaccinations.




The Dutch authorities have recorded 701 reports per 100.000 vaccinations and at the same time Poland, only 15 ISCR per 100.000 vaccinations.


Assuming that this difference is not due to different “national sensitivity” in the adverse events of the vaccines, but due to different national reporting standards, the writers decided to use the data from the Dutch national database ( ,accessed on 29 May of 2021), in order to count the number of serious or fatal adverse reactions per 100.000 vaccinated. The data were compared with NNTV, for the prevention of one clinical case and one death from COVID-19 [12].


The UK Public Health Agency’s technical briefing report No 17, named “SARS – CoV – 2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England”, published on 25 of June [13], provides a detailed update on the various mutations of SARS- CoV -2, that caused a sensation in the UK.


On the table 4 of the same report, statistical data for the cases of the Delta mutation (Delta variant), the hospital admissions and the deaths from the specific strain of the virus are presented.


The number of deaths, in 28 days period from the first molecular detection.

Total; 70


From the data found in board 4, we can conclude:

Cases of non-vaccinated individuals; 53.822

Deaths of non-vaccinated individuals; 44

Crude death rate of non-vaccinated individuals; 44/53.822= 0.082%


Cases of vaccinated individuals; 27.192

Deaths of vaccinated individuals; 70

Crude death rate of vaccinated individuals; 70/27.192= 0.26%


According to the data from U.K for the delta variant, even though there were more cases amongst non-vaccinated individuals (53.822 vs 27.192 case), was far more fatal to vaccinated individuals than to  unvaccinated individuals.


Almost triple mortality [13] !!!


Even though we cannot conclude from the given data “the exact cause of the observed difference in mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals”, it is clear that the virus is still being transmitted amongst vaccinated individuals.


And it is more harmful to them!!


So any segregation of citizens in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups is scientifically and legally unacceptable.








1).European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker.

2). Mateo Porres-Aguilar, Alejandro Lazo-Langner, Arturo Panduro, and Misael Uribe. COVID-19 vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: An emerging cause of splanchnic vein thrombosis. Ann Hepatol. 2021 July-August; 23: 100356.

3). Greinacher A., Thiele T., Warkentin T.E., Weisser K., Kyrle P.A., Eichinger S. Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2021;(April) doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104840.

4). Schultz N.H., Sørvoll I.H., Michelsen A.E., Munthe L.A., Lund-Johansen F., Ahlen M.T. Thrombosis, and thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2021;(April) doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104882.

5). Gupalo E., Buriachkovskaia L., Othman M. Human platelets express CAR with localization at the sites of intercellular interaction. Virol. J. 2011;8:456. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-8-456.

6). Dicks M.D.J., Spencer A.J., Coughlan L., Bauza K., Gilbert S.C., Hill A.V.S., Cottingham M.G. Differential immunogenicity between HAdV-5 and chimpanzee adenovirus vector ChAdOx1 is independent of fiber and penton RGD loop sequences in mice. Sci. Rep. 2015;5:16756. doi: 10.1038/srep16756.

7). Baker A.T., Mundy R.M., Davies J.A., Rizkallah P.J., Parker A.L. Human adenovirus type 26 uses sialic acid–bearing glycans as a primary cell entry receptor. Sci. Adv. 2019;5:eaax3567. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax3567.

8). Piotr Rzymski, Bartłomiej Perek, and Robert Flisiak. Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 Vaccination: In Search of the Underlying Mechanism. Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Jun; 9(6): 559.

9). Dr. Tess Lawrie. RE: Urgent preliminary report of Yellow Card data up to 26th May 2021. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.



12)., Harald Walach1,2,3,*, Rainer J. Klement4and Wouter Aukema. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethinkthe Policy. Vaccines2021,9, 693.

13). Public Health England. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England Technical briefing 17 25 June 2021
























According to the report [1] on the epidemiologic status of Germany, it was proposed to investigate based on a count of 100.000 per week.


The  discovered mortality rate is around 2.4% for unvaccinated individuals.


In vaccinated individuals, the mortality after the infection was calculated to 4.7%  generally, 4,6% at the first dose and 5,1%  percent at the second dose.


The vaccines show positive cases rates of 3,2% for Pfizer, 7% for Moderna and 12% for Sputnik.


If compared with 10.7% of unvaccinated individuals, it leads us to the cancellation of clinical trials of the vaccines.


Given the fact that there are 79000 cases  of adverse reactions and 837 deaths, an increase in events is observed, generally from vaccines of 171 times and of serious injuries 25 times!!


The vaccinated individual’s  has the same chance  of been infected from COVID-19 or entering the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) as an unvaccinated individual.


Finally, the death probability of a vaccinated individual is 0,1/100000/w, comparable to vehicle accidents.


The aforementioned data shows that vaccines cannot stop the pandemic and that those vaccinated that got infected are also exposed to great aforementioned risks, in a field of ambiguity, lacking critical data and studies and ,most importantly, in a field purely experimental.


The writers also note that the major percentage of those whose lives are threatened, are the elderly individuals!!

Thus, the narrative of the protection of the elderly is vitiated since they are much more likely to die [1]. !!





Dr. Tenpenny S. [2], from Cleveland Ohio, sums up the pathophysiology after vaccination, in the following clinical models with specific literature references.


  1. Anaphylactic shock, allergy, Reaction to PEG.


  1. Macrophages M2 are inhibited by anti-spike antibodies ( anti-S-Ab).



  1. The translation of spike protein acts in four different ways.


  1. It acts as autoimmune peptide on the surface of tissues [3]
  2. It destroys organs like the lung parenchyma, and it passes through blood brain barrier (BBB).
  3. It is integrated in DNA [4].
  4. It creates detrimental antibodies.


  1. It is harmful to the lung endothelium creating nonreversible pulmonary hypertension.


  1. The spike protein binds via ACE2 tightly into the ovaries and testes.



  1. It passes through the BBB and causes neuropathological conditions and cerebral degeneration.


  1. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
  2. Protein TD-43 is mutated, resulting in a variety of neurodegenerative disorders.


  1. The mutation of FUS leads to carcinogenesis.



  1. The adenoviruses being used lead to carcinogenesis.


  1. The anti-spike antibodies react with 28 types of tissue and lead to multiorgan disorder and failure [5].



  1. Previous exposure to common coronavirus cancels the exposure to SARS CoV-2.


  1. Increased risk for past vaccine of influenza.



  1. Reaction to the antibodies leads to severe disease.


  1. Increased lymphadenitis.



  1. Wide use of vaccinations specifically if there is past infection, leads to more difficult mutation to handle, with non-neutralizing antibodies.


  1. ADE Syndrome, with the entry of the virus in macrophages and higher intension infection [7].



  1. Integration of anti-DNA antibodies in genome.


  1. The vaccines of Astra Zeneca and J&J contain DsDNA. The antibodies of those materials are diagnostic tools for a variety of autoimmune diseases.



  1. VIPIT



It is noted that the clinical models are based on literature references with major impact factor.


It is an unprecedented range of clinical entities that even overlap with molecular biology  data to a superlative extent, atypical for consent form data from a clinical physician!





Kounis syndrome is defined as every acute coronary syndrome, in which the cause is a form of hypersensitivity with the activation of eosinophils and mast cells.


The cardiological team from the university of Patra extended the definition of the phenomenon in a  pathophysiological basis, caused by the activation of platelets and  the clotting mechanism in other vascular networks, like mesenterium and cerebral vessels [8].


That was prophetic cause after the beginning of  vaccinations, it  interprets the unexpected and unexplained ( specifically without autopsy), fatal incidents from the respective anatomical sites.


To his credit, Mr. Kounis, developed concerns about the vaccines in relation to the syndrome, with core questions like the following one;  if there are increased levels of IgE after the incident, or if the vaccinated individual still transmits the virus.


It is not clear though which component, specifically of the mRNA vaccines can cause the syndrome and at the same time it assumes a postmortem examination needs to be combined with detection at mRNA and proteins level [9]. Also, visionarily prefers as a pathological initiation mechanism the activation of platelet agglutination that interprets the mechanism of rupture of the plaque in the coronary vessels [10]. Therefore, deaths due to heart attacks caused by the vaccine, should be fully studied [11] and towards the direction of the hypersensitivity reaction and activation of the clotting mechanism.




FDA’s recently updated instructions, relative with the use of Pfizer/Biotech vaccine, emphasize the risk of myocarditis.


However, FDA does not consider it (??)  as a reason to be exempted from the vaccination, since it is not included in the adverse reactions of the second dose. FDA admits that it happens a few days after the injection, mainly during the second dose, confessing that the myocyte is directly affected.


Similar instructions have been also given  by CDC in U.S.A, whereas there is no guarantee for a good long term physical history of the adverse reaction [12].


In one editorial by D. Shay et al in JAMA [13], they present the phenomenon,  reporting their  personal experience of both of the mRNA  vaccines, having 4 cases, 3 of them were young men and one 70-year-old woman, that  were considered unusual events since there was no correlation with coronary artery disease. They correlate the incidents with the vaccination and propose that there is an immune mechanism involvement which is rarely present in another kind of vaccines (e.g. chickenpox vaccine).


The major number of active American soldiers (Montgomery et al. [14]), according to the writers showed with a dramatical manner the unexpected high frequency of myocarditis, 1:20000 with 23 patients, relative to the expected number of 8:436000, which corresponds to  a doubling of the expected impact 1:50000.


Similarly, an experience from Israel, with more than 24 cases in 1.000.000 population [15].


Direct connection with the COVID 19  is weak, given the fact that the data from U.S.A (CDC) during infection relate to a minimum <5% percent of the causes for hospital admission with the undefined title “cardiovascular disease” [16].


Radiology encourages documentation with cardiac MRI [17].


A priori, an unusually increased incidence of myocarditis with symptoms pain and increase troponin is presumed from the literature. The mechanisms are not yet clearly specified, although the immune stimulation is the most potential one.


Despite that the young people have minimum effect of severe disease and are not a target group, the instructions encourage  vaccination!! Although, it concerns, an epidemiological paradox, as the transmission has not been excluded, which could justify the goal of a wall of immunity, persistent practices for the vaccination of the young people, is an unacceptable strategy.


Myocarditis refers to a severe adverse reaction, and a prodromal condition  of even life threatening disease (end stage cardiac failure), regardless of what long-term follow-up of the cases will show and it is unacceptable in a group of population with high life expectancy.





The Deaths after Covid-19 vaccinations are significantly increased compared with other kinds of vaccines throughout the years, as it is ascertained from the data of the European Eudravigilance [18] and  the American VAERS [19].


Additionally, a variability of the adverse events with variable mechanisms is observed.


According to the European data, 50% of the cases are severe, which contradicts the records  of the clinical trials for vaccine approval!!


The American VAERS reports that 75% of 6985 deaths since June 25 occurred the first 48 hours.


In the study using the available data of three  institutions of Germany, up to 25 times higher rates of severe adverse reactions were ascertain compared to pre-pandemic era [20]!!!


Elder et al ( Eppendorf’s Team)  conclude that autopsies are necessitated because many pathophysiological mechanisms are implicated and need to be clarified.


As it is known, in our country, autopsies for individuals died from Covid vaccinations, are avoided, whereas there is an obvious effort to conceal  adverse reactions and deaths  cases !!


A Similar omission was observed for deaths of people who were positive for SARS-CoV-2, even though the common logical practice in the pre Covid era, was to request autopsies, since only then the medical scientific community could be familiar with the new virus, if it actually was a new virus according to the prevailing consensus.




Without transparency in autopsies, and without complementary clinical lab examinations for the activation of mechanisms of overstimulated immune response, a sense of trust in citizens cannot be established  [21].


In Norway, like in other countries with high percentage of elderly in geriatric institutions, there were counted deaths, which although were not enlisted as deaths from the vaccine, immediately leaded to the addition of instructions for more intensive care, since it was something not predicted by the clinical trials for vaccine approval [22].



CAPILLARY LEAKING SYNDROME/ Alert adverse reaction for                                                               the Johnson & Johnson vaccine


The Capillary Leak Syndrome involves mechanisms of membranes activation via an autoimmune pathway. It is characteristic that the regulatory agency, EMA [23] with only four incidents and one death, decided the discontinuation of its use in similar cases. It is strongly associated with vaccine mechanisms, like antigen presentation and the activation of complement by opsonized antibodies. The course of events was so rapid, that recently a strong recommendation [24] was recently announced for the vaccine of J&J for patient history of the syndrome of activation of cytokine storm and lethal clinical syndromes simulation.


Why only a strong recommendation?


Pathophysiological correlation with spike-like antigen production would have led to new arising questions for the rest of SARS-CoV2 vaccines.




In a recent review of Nature [25] on the natural immunity after infection, the concern for the duration of the immunity is mentioned. It is presumed by the presence of anti-spike neutralizing antibodies measured  over time. Their reduction is critically treated as a drop in of effective immunity, which has been used in vaccination protocols to justify the need of a booster dose.


Ηowever, a series of 4 studies, dominated by a Danish study, recently overturned the data.


Nielses al proved that in 203 patients, the natural immunity is present in patients with COVID-19, independently from the grade of infection ( mild, moderate, severe) [26].


In all three types of patients, the vast majority, It was found that after 12 weeks, antibodies titer (>99%) and plasma neutralization of the patients (95%), also increased response in the function of CD+8 T lymphocytes (90%). In the conversation it is emphasized that the finding proves that human beings are ready for the prevention of the new coronavirus. The activation of the defensive mechanism after natural infection, shifts the topic of conversation from the search of antibodies titer (with dependence on the grade of disease), into a level of immune response and cellular immunity.


In the same manner, the study of Song G. which revealed that they did not detect circulated neutralizing antibodies in patients who were infected with Coronavirus in the past, but they detected activated B-lymphocyte memory antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. [27]


The protocols of COVID 19  vaccine producing companies should adopt evidence of complete immunity, which are easily observed in naturally infected individuals. Although, the scientific question arises, for the necessity of the vaccines, at least it is proven per se  that the naturally infected individuals have activated long term complete immunity.

A study that proves the presence of B Lymphocytes in medulla of the bones, certifies the eternal immunity against the new coronavirus [28].


In every case of mass vaccinations, both the epidemiologic success with regression of transmission and infection and the scientifically proper documentation of activated completed humoral and cellular immunity with specified protocol should be taken into consideration.


The proven immune response of infected individuals (>90%) increases the need for investigation and delineation of the groups of population who are not immunologically prepared and need stimulation of acquired immune response (vaccination).


In every case the infected individuals, comprise a team of the general population with complete immune response. It is imperative of the national program of vaccinations to take into consideration the recent data. As for the administration of the second dose, it is scientifically, ethically and legally, unacceptable, after the released new data of well-documented clinical trials.




Vaccines in official authorities [29] have limitations related to the rush of data being provided.


Also, according to them there is not any evidence of effectiveness of natural immunity and vaccine’s immunity !!


The mutations are a dynamic phenomenon and the conclusions are reached when evidence of humoral and cellular immunity is collected. There is a gap in the effectiveness  of non transmission by the vaccines.


These problems and gaps in the dealing with the pandemic highlight the need for targeted clinical trials in real time.

It seems like they do not care!!


The mathematical simulation models [30] do not take into account the synergistic effect of biological parameters of the pandemic. The conclusions are often risky and deceiving. Thus, as an example, they advocate the reduction of pandemic outbreaks without the reduction of infections and  transmission. The latter one it is primarily achieved through measures of epidemiological surveillance in particular.




In an epidemiological study, the transparent consulting strategy  did not reduce the vaccinations and  it did not reduce the behavior of the social distance too. Therefore, the state have no right to propagandize and people must decide freely [31].



1). Moerl F. et co. Die Häufigkeiten erneuter C19-Infektionen und Nebenwirkungen nach Impfung: empirische Daten der deutschen Feldstudie 2021, Documente, Corona

2). Tenpenny Cleveland Ohio from www.

3). Μerchant H.Re: COVID vaccines and thrombotic events: is mRNA translation and spike protein synthesis by platelets a real possibility? BMJ 2021;372:n699.

4). Zhang L. et al. Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues, PNAP 118 No 21.

5). Liu Y. et al. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE2. Circulation Research. 2021;128:1323–1326.

6). Liu Y. et al. An infectivity-enhancing site on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by antibodies. Cell 184, 1-15, June 24, 2021.

7). Liu Y. et al. An infectivity-enhancing site on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by antibodies. Cell 184, 1-15, June 24, 2021.

8). Kounis N. Kounis Syndrome—not a Single-organ Arterial Disorder but a Multisystem and multidisciplinary Disease. Balkan Med J 2019;36:212-21.

9). Kounis N. et al.,  Allergic Reactions to Current Available COVID-19 Vaccinations: Pathophysiology, Causality, and Therapeutic Considerations. Vaccines 2021, 9,221.

10). Kounis N. et al.Kounis syndrome: a new twist on an old disease. Review. Future Cardiol. 2011 Nov;7(6):805-24.

11). Boivin Z. et al.Untimely Myocardial Infarction or COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effect. Cureus 13(3). B

12). Fact sheet for healthcare providers administering vaccine, The Pfizer- Biontech COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent COVID 19 Disease, FDA, p. 19.

13). D. Shay et al., Myocarditis occurring after immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, JAMA, Editorial, 06/29/2021.

14). Montgomery J. et al., Myocarditis following immunization with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in members of the US army, JAMA Cardiol., 06/29/2021.

15). Surveillance of myocarditis (inflammation of  the heart muscle) cases between Dec. 2020 and  May 2021. News release, Israel Ministry of health June 6, 2021.

16) Havers FP et al., COVID- NET Surveillance Team. Hospitalization of adolescents aged 12-17 years with laboratory- confirmed COVID-19- COVID-NET, states. March 1, 2020-April 24, 2021. NMWR. 2021;70 (23): 851-857.

17).Stepniak M., Radiologists, CDC warn of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination, Radiology Business, May 2021.

18). Eudrovigilance up to June 5, 2021.

19) Vaccination Adverse Event Reporting System up to June 25, 2021.

20) Moerl F. et co. Die Häufigkeiten erneuter C19-Infektionen und Nebenwirkungen nach  Impfung: empirische Daten der deutschen Feldstudie 2021, Documente, Corona

21) Edler al., Deaths associated with newly launched SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (Comirnaty®), case report. Legal Medicine 51, 2021.

22). Torjensen I. Covid-19: Norway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination, BMJ 372 (p 149).

23) PRAG News, June 11, 2021

24). EMA News, July 9, 2021

25). Radbruch A. et  al.. A long-term perspective on immunity to COVID. Nature, June, 14, 2021

26). Nielsen S. et al., SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity. EBioMedicine, The Lancet, June 04,2021.

27). Ge S.  et al., Cross-reactive serum and memory B-cell responses to spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 and endemic coronavirus, Nature Communications, 12, 2938 (2021), May 19, 2021.

28). Turner J. et al.. SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans. Nature,  May 24, 2021.

29). ΕCDC Technical Report, March 31, 2021

30). Moghadas S. The impact of vaccination on COVID-19 outbreaks in the United States, medRxiv,   January 2, 2021.

31). Kerr J. Effect of Information about COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness and Side Effects on Behavioral Intentions: Two Online Experiments. Vaccines 9, 379.

























Pathophysiological mechanisms of impairment and adverse reactions of Sars-CoC-2 vaccines in the male reproductive system.


The converting enzyme of Angiotensin -2 (ACE2) is an enzyme- protease, that takes part in the production of Angiotensin 1-7 (Ag 1-7) by Angiotensin II (Ag II)  and the production of Angiotensin 1-9 (Ag 1-9) from Angiotensin (Ag I). The Ag 1-7 and Ag 1-9 comprise the force action regulators of the System of Renin and Angiotensin (RAS) via the vascular dilatation, the reduction of production of reactive oxygen species and through tissue remodeling, making RAS beneficial for the homeostasis of the organism. For that reason ACE2 is the primary regulator of RAS [1,2].


One more enzyme-protease ADAM17 (A Disindegrin and Mettalloproteinase, Tace- Tumor Necrosis Factor-a Converting Enzyme), it is proven that except from the degradation of TNF, it also causes degradation of cytokines and the receptors that are relative with the conservation of the inflammation process [3,4]. As for the action of ACE2, ADAM17 cuts of the extracellular area (ectodomain) of ACE2, resulting in freeing the ACE2 in circulation (in diluted form) [5]. However, the molecular site of ACE2 recognized by RBD receptor (Receptor Binding Domain) of Spike proteins of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV2, is located in the  diluted extracellular area and in the main ACE2.


From all of the above, it is clear that the action of the specific vaccines mimics the virus action. To conclude, the effect of the Spike protein into different organs depends on the presence of ACE2 in them. The more Spike protein binds the receptor of ACE2, the AgII predominates with negative outcomes for the organism.

It is precisely on this imbalance that pathological manifestations are based in all organs, and in this case the reproductive system!!



Manifestations on the male reproductive system:


Two decades ago, the study of Donoghue et al. [6] showed that the ACE2 receptors are only located in cardiac tissue, kidneys and testes. In 2010 though, the derivative  of ACE2 was discovered, Ag 1-7 and its receptors, called MAS, in the testes and specifically in the intermediate compartment and in cytoplasm of Leydig cells. Also, the strong correlation of ACE2  and male’s reproductive system became prominent, by  the fact that men with reduced spermatogenesis, low levels of ACE2, Ag 1-7 and MAS receptor were observed [7].


Moreover, the studies showed  increased presence of ACE2 in spermatogenic cells, in myoid cells, stem cells, cells of Leydig and cells of seminal vesicles [8,9,10].


Generally speaking, all of the above studies evaluated  only the expression of ACE2  in male reproductive systems, but not its effect in the pathophysiology of reproduction.


The study of Shen et al. [11] showed that ACE2 was expressed in both stem and somatic cells. In addition, it was found that the positive percentage of ACE2 in testes of infertile men was higher than the normal one, so it is implied that the Spike protein of the virus can cause reproductive disturbances via the pathway of ACE2 activation.


Specifically, men with disturbances in their reproductive system, are more likely to be affected to a greater extent.


In addition, it appears that the level of ACE2 is relative to the age of the man and that the tip of the positive frequency was 30 years. So, the younger men are more likely to be affected by the Spike protein [11].


It was also observed that the extend of ACE2 expression was reduced with increasing age.


The ACE2 was expressed by all the types of cells, but the Sertoli cells had the higher level of expression. Although, in Sertoli cells of patients with nonobstructive  azoospermia, its expression was significantly reduced.


We point out that the role of those cells is to provide support and sustenance to the cells of spermatic epithelium, in order to transport mature spermatids in the lobule of spermatic vesicles, to produce substances that with endocrine or paracrine action regulate the spermatogenesis and cross react with the Leydig cells (production of testosterone under the influence of LH hormone).


Therefore, the testes is an organ of the male reproductive system, which is most vulnerable to Spike protein, mainly because of the high expression of ACE2. The sensitivity of prostate is not fully clarified yet.


A significant reduction of the sperm quality was statistically observed ( concentration of sperm cells, total number of sperm cells per ejaculation and sperm movement). That can be attributed to the RAAS (renin angiotensin aldosterone system) being one of the regulators of spermatogenesis, [12] because many enzymes and receptors of this kind of system exist in human sperm cells (ACE1 and 2, the receptors of AgI and AgII and the receptor of Ag 1-7 MAS) [13]. The effect of the Spike protein and the virus in ACE2 of sperm cells, [14] could have possibly increased  the levels of AgII, which would have lead to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), resulting in the  ageing of cells   and apoptosis [15].


However, the DNA of sperm cells can be influenced, through the oxidative stress and the alternation of the reproductive endocrine pathway[15].


                                Manifestations in the  female reproductive system:


mRNA transcriptions of ACE2 were detected in the ovaries of women in their reproductive age and in post menopause women [16].  The researchers showed that Ag 1-7, is found in many   compartments of the ovary, mainly in the cells of the follicles [17) and also in the οvum [18]. (widely expressed)


In the recent study, it was proven that ACE2 receptors exist in vagina and cervix (the only study that correlates the lower reproductive system).


In other studies, the presence of ACE2 mRNA in epithelial cells was observed and also in the intermediate cells of the endometrium, with increased expression during secretory phase (neutral phase of menstrual cycle, after ovulation, when we there is mainly the secretion of progesterone) [19]. It is also being mentioned that spike protein could enter in those intermediate cells and cause pathological manifestations and specifically, increased risk of miscarriage at the first stages of pregnancy [19] !!


AgII was recognized as a fibrosis factor of the cancer metastases in endometrium [20]. The pathway ACE2/AgII/AG 1-7 is involved in the maintenance of arterial pressure and the alternations of that pathway ( if there is reduced expression of ACE2, as it occurs with the effect of spike protein of SARS-CoV-2) are correlated with the preeclampsia, eclampsia and negative outcome of the pregnancy and birth.

It is also relative with disorders of the menstrual cycle, based on the previously mentioned proof [21].


As for the vertical transmission from mother to fetus, it appears to be possible, due to the fact that the spike protein can reach the placenta, in which there is increased expression of ACE2, mainly in the trophoblasts cells, which are  in direct contact with the maternal blood.


That way, histopathological deterioration, indicative of placenta inflammation and disruption of the vascular supply can be observed [22,23,24].

It is also observed that there is a thrombotic tendency in the blood circulation of the fetus, with significant clinical consequences for both the fetus and the mother [25] !!


Finally, the increased expression of ACE2, which is normally observed in pregnancy and specifically at the 2nd half, leads to increased production of Ag 1-7, which has  a vascular dilative action  preventing the contraction οf the uterus and preterm labor [26].


In  case that ACE2 binds with Spike protein and there is decreased production of Ag 1-7, there can be observed opposite results, like contraction of uterus and preterm labor !!


The previously mentioned, were clarified with the study of Tom T Shimabukuro et al [27], which took place in U.S.A and it was published recently in New England Journal.


In this specific study, participated, 35.691 individuals 16-54 years old, from which the 3.958 were pregnant women.


From the 827 pregnant women,  in 115 (13.9%) of them the pregnancy ended with miscarriage  !!


Also, adverse complications during pregnancy, such as preterm labor in 9.4% of the women and fetuses residual growth compared to the progress of pregnancy in 3.2% were observed.


From the 221 women who developed adverse reactions, the most frequent occurrence, wads the spontaneous miscarriage (46 incidents) [27].


So, we reach to the conclusion that the RAAS ( renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system)becomes involved in the function of human reproduction. ACE1 and ACE2 are recognized as significant  pathology and physiology regulators of the reproductive system. ACE1 influences immediately the intervention of AgII and the development of follicle and follicle rupture. ACE2 takes part in ovarian physiology via Ag 1-7. Receptor of MAS and Ag 1-7 are both expressed in the intermediated ovarian cells and can stimulate steroidogenesis of the ovaries and that way can regulate ovarian functions (development of follicles, steroidogenesis, maturation of the ovum, follicle rupture, atresia). The pathway ACE2-Ag 1-7 and MasR, was recently proved that it aids at the beginning of the second miotic division of oocytes.


In testes ACE2 in combination with ACE1, takes part in the regulation of spermatogenesis. It is found mainly in spermatogenic cells in Leydig and Sertoli cells and is correlated with spermatogenesis and the conservation of functional and structural integrity of the reproductive system [28].


Binding of spike protein of SARS COV2 directly with ACE2 or indirectly through autoantibodies (against the complex Spike protein-ACE2), which are topically produced at the point of injection (but freely circulate in blood), causes disruption of the previously referred mechanisms with detrimental short and long term effects, in reproductive system and every organ that  express the ACE2 !!


1). M Donoghue  1 F HsiehE BaronasK GodboutM GosselinN StaglianoM DonovanB WoolfK RobisonR JeyaseelanR E BreitbartS Acton A novel angiotensin-converting enzyme-related carboxypeptidase (ACE2) converts angiotensin I to angiotensin 1-9 Circ Res .  2000 Sep 1;87(5):E1-9. DOI: 10.1161/01.res.87.5.e1.

2). S R Tipnis  1 N M HooperR HydeE KarranG ChristieA J Turner A human homolog of angiotensin-converting enzyme. Cloning and functional expression as a captopril-insensitive carboxypeptidase 2000 Oct 27;275(43):33238-43. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M002615200. PMID: 10924499.

3). Monika Gooz ADAM-17: The Enzyme That Does It All  doi: 10.3109/10409231003628015  PMID: 20184396.

4). Alasdair J. Scott,‡,1 Kieran P. O’Dea,‡,1 David O’Callaghan, Lynn Williams,§ Justina O. Dokpesi, Louise Tatton, Jonathan M. Handy, Philip J. Hogg, and Masao Takata‡,2 Reactive Oxygen Species and p38 Mitogen-activated Protein Kinase Mediate Tumor Necrosis Factor α-Converting Enzyme (TACE/ADAM-17) Activation in Primary Human Monocytes*  PMID: 21865167.

5). Pinglong Xu and Rik Derynck  Direct activation of TACE-mediated ectodomain shedding by p38 MAP kinase regulates EGF receptor-dependent cell proliferation  PMID: 20188673 doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.01.034.

6). M Donoghue  1 F HsiehE BaronasK GodboutM GosselinN StaglianoM  DonovanB WoolfK RobisonR JeyaseelanR E BreitbartS Acton A novel angiotensin-converting enzyme-related carboxypeptidase (ACE2) converts angiotensin I to angiotensin 1-9 Circ Res .  2000 Sep 1;87(5):E1-9. DOI: 10.1161/01.res.87.5.e1.

7). Reis AB, Araújo FC, Pereira VM, Dos Reis AM, Santos RA, Reis FM, 2010. Angiotensin (1–7) and its receptor mas are expressed in the human testis: implications for male infertility. J Mol Histol 41: 75–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] DOI: 10.1007/s10735-010-9264-8.

8). Wang Z, Xu X, 2020. ScRNA-seq profiling of human testes reveals the presence of the ACE2 receptor, a target for SARS-CoV-2 infection in spermatogonia, Leydig and sertoli cells. Cells 9: 920–929.

9). Fu J, Zhou B, Zhang L, Balaji KS, Wei C, Liu X, Chen H, Peng J, Fu J, 2020. Expressions and significances of the angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 gene, the receptor of SARS‐CoV‐2 for COVID‐19. Mol Biol Rep 47: 4383–4392.

10). Stanley KE, Thomas E, Leaver M, Wells D, 2020. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and fertility: viral host entry protein expression in male and female reproductive tissues. Fert Steril 114: 33–43.

11). Shen Q, Xiao X, Aierken A, Liao M, Hua J, 2020. The ACE2 expression in sertoli cells and germ cells may cause male reproductive disorder after SARS-CoV-2 infection. J Cell Mol Med 24: 9472–9477.

12). Vinson GP, Mehta J, Evans S, Matthews S, Puddefoot JR, Saridogan E, Holt WV, Djahanbakhch O, 1996. Angiotensin II stimulates sperm motility. Regul Pept 67: 131–135.

13). Valdivia A, Cortés L, Beitia M, Totorikaguena L, Agirregoitia N, Corcostegui B, Casis L, Matorras R, Irazusta J, Agirregoitia E, 2020. Role of angiotensin-(1–7) via MAS receptor in human sperm motility and acrosome reaction. Reprod 159: 241–249.

14). Aitken RJ, 2020. COVID-19 and human spermatozoa – potential risks for infertility and sexual transmission. Andrology (Epub ahead of print). DOI: 10.1111/andr.12859.

15). Sengupta P, Dutta S, 2020. Does SARS-CoV-2 infection cause sperm DNA fragmentation? Possible link with oxidative stress. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 25: 405–406.

16). Reis FM, Bouissou DR, Pereira VM, Camargos AF, dos Reis AM, Santos RA, 2011. Angiotensin-(1–7), its receptor mas, and the angiotensin-converting enzyme type 2 are expressed in the human ovary. Fertil Steril 95: 176–181.

17). Stanley KE, Thomas E, Leaver M, Wells D, 2020. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and fertility: viral host entry protein expression in male and female reproductive tissues. Fert Steril 114: 33–43.

18). Jing Y, Run-Qian L, Hao-Ran W, Hao-Ran C, Ya-Bin L, Yang G, Fei C, 2020. Potential influences of COVID-19/ACE2 on female reproductive system. Mol Hum Reprod 26: 367–373.

19). Chadchan SB, Maurya VK, Popli P, Kommagani R, 2020. The SARS-CoV-2 receptor, angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is required for human endometrial stromal cell decidualization. Biol Reprod (Epub, 2020 Nov 18). Available at: 10.1093/biolre/ioaa211.

20). Jing Y, Run-Qian L, Hao-Ran W, Hao-Ran C, Ya-Bin L, Yang G, et al. Potential influence of COVID-19/ACE2 on the female reproductive system. Mol Hum Reprod. (2020) 26:367–73. doi: 10.1093/molehr/gaaa030.

21). Kotlyar AM, Grechukhina O, Chen A, Popkhadze S, Grimshaw A, Tal O, et al. Vertical transmission of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. (2020) 31:e00087320. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.07.049.

22). Patanè L, Morotti D, Giunta MR, Sigismondi C, Piccoli MG, Frigerio L, et al. Vertical transmission of coronavirus disease 2019: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RNA on the fetal side of the placenta in pregnancies with coronavirus disease 2019-positive mothers and neonates at birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. (2020) 2:100145. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100145.

23). Baergen RN, Heller DS. Placental pathology in Covid-19 positive mothers: preliminary findings. Pediatr Dev Pathol. (2020) 23:177–80. doi: 10.1177/1093526620925569.

24). C, Dubruc E, Favre G, Greub G, de Leval L, Baud D. SARS-CoV-2 ACE-Receptor detection in the placenta throughout pregnancy. Clin Microbiol Infect. (2020). doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.09.049.

25). Rebecca N Baergen1 and Debra S Heller2  Placental Pathology in Covid-19 Positive Mothers: Preliminary Findings  Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2020 Jun; 23(3): 177–180.

26). Ankit Dhaundiyal,a,1 Puja Kumari,b Snehal Sainath Jawalekar,c Gaurav Chauhan,d Sourav Kalra,e,⁎,1 and Umashanker Navikf,⁎⁎,1 Is highly expressed ACE 2 in pregnant women “a curse” in times of COVID-19 pandemic? Life Sci. 2021 Jan 1; 264: 118676.

27). Tom T Shimabukuro  1 Shin Y Kim  1 Tanya R Myers  1 Pedro L Moro  1 Titilope Oduyebo  1 Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos  1 Paige L Marquez  1 Christine K Olson  1 Ruiling Liu  1 Karen T Chang  1 Sascha R Ellington  1 Veronica K Burkel  1 Ashley N Smoots  1 Caitlin J Green  1 Charles Licata  1 Bicheng C Zhang  1 Meghna Alimchandani  1 Adamma Mba-Jonas  1 Stacey W Martin  1 Julianne M Gee  1 Dana M Meaney-Delman  1 CDC v-safe COVID-19 Pregnancy Registry Team. Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 17;384(24):2273-2282. doi: 10.1056.

28). Wang Z, Xu X. ScRNA-seq profiling of human testes reveals the presence of ACE2 receptor, a target for SARS-CoV-2 infection, in spermatogonia, leydig and sertoli cells. Cells. (2020) 9:920. doi: 10.3390/cells9040920.




The incidents  started around March of 2020. The preventive measures from the beginning till today, July 2021, like quarantine, shutdown of businesses, banning of transportation within a county or out of it, obligatory use of masks indoors or outdoors (for many hours), repeated self-tests, all had to do with physical integrity of the civilians.


Mental health, was out of the question…


From clinical experience, it has been observed that all of these measures created the sensation of fear, loneliness, sorrow and despair. The result of this situation was a large increase of mental diseases like depression, panic attacks, psychosis relapse, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts. Also, increased domestical violence. We reach finally, in the present situation, which after all this pressure for 16 months, caused a fatigue to the civilians and mentally harassed them.


Those last months, the experimental mRNA vaccines were released too soon, like panacea for the salvation from Covid19, which were rapidly approved, without addressing the necessary protocols-stages that are required for the circulation of a vaccine. A large number of citizens responded positively by voluntary vaccination. We discovered that a lot of mental disorders appeared, after a variety of physical adverse reactions were developed, like thromboses, neurological disorders, deaths. That resulted in many vaccinated individuals,  visiting psychiatrists worrying for the receival of the second dose, with increased fear and stress. Even the thought of it, caused panic attacks. Moreover, there appeared an increased pressure on many employees by their employers (mainly in private sector). But pressure is being exerted in the public sector too, with supervisors and department managers through unequal treatment and removal of privileges towards the employees that have not been inoculated, as opposed to granting privileges to  those who did. Finally, the mandatory vaccination was imposed, initially to the healthcare personnel of the country.


Clinical experience teaches us, that these awful discriminations and situations lead to anxiety, fear of survival for the future of both themselves  and their families, with ultimate result of depression, especially for the most sensitive. In addition, problems are beginning to arise in relations between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, as a result of the unilateral presentation from media and social networks (and not only), that unvaccinated citizens are considered to be irresponsible and a threat to the community.

It is now a common phenomenon of fully vaccinated people (both doses administered), visiting our medical offices, regretting their decision and stressing out about the potential adverse reactions that may manifest in the future.


Summing up, we may conclude that COVID-19 has contributed to the outbreak of mental illnesses, especially panic attacks, stress, depression, which were underestimated and were not properly taken into account, from those responsible of the preventive measures. As far as vaccines are concerned, we may conclude that the rapid advocacy of the experimental mRNA vaccines along with their many adverse reactions as a result of non-compliance to the safety protocols, resulted in stress, fear, grief and depression.


Finally, the segregation of citizens into two groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated (something unheard of  with the previous flu vaccines) caused sentiments of anger or sorrow which could have been avoided, if this dichotomy between civilians was not over-emphasized at the expense of unvaccinated individuals, not only at the workplace, but even within the family.





To summarize all of the above, there is strong concern for about the vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The provisional authorization of the vaccines was based on specific clinical trials, with significant gaps in their security protocols. It was reasonable to aim for the reduction of the relative risk (medications vs placebo). But the epidemiological course of the pandemic always in relation with the onset of the vaccinations, and the commonly  accepted evidence that the vaccines did not reduce the transmission (delta variant) , clearly deems the definition of the absolute risk reduction with absolute scientific criteria necessary.


We can easily observe that the reviews referring to the adverse reactions of the vaccines correspond to very short time frames of 3-4 months.


In the study of Harald Walach et al we can observe that only in the Netherlands and also in the U.K- NHS (Yellow Cards Consultancy), adverse reactions in comparison with the rest of Europe, with significant statistics against  vaccine safety, were fully recorded.


The question therefore arises, what would happen if we had one-year studies on the complications  of the vaccines, just as we have on mortality of SARS-CoV-2.


Furthermore, what would be the outcome of vaccine safety, if the healthcare scientists in the rest of Europe and in our country, were reporting with diligence and responsibility, the adverse reactions of the vaccines.


Instead, the effort of concealment for the adverse events and the deaths of vaccinated individuals is abundantly clear, while systematically avoiding autopsies, which under normal circumstances would be performed on a daily basis!!


We have reached the point of invoking the personal data of the deceased that died after the inoculation, while since the beginning of this narrative, there are daily announcements about the number of intubated in I.C.U-COVID19 and the deaths of individuals with/from coronavirus.


Why are the numbers of people who died, after vaccination, not announced?


Where are the personal data?


Where are the numbers?


But for that very same reason, the number of intubated and deceased people from/with covid should not be announced!!


We report in detail the pathophysiological mechanisms of thrombosis formation, hemorrhage, myocarditis, harmful consequences in major vessels and in the reproductive system.


We demand that all Greek citizens are informed for the probable adverse reactions of the vaccines, in the same manner that they are enlisted in Yellow Cards Consultancy and the rest of the reports that were previously mentioned!!


Otherwise let the present data, studies, findings and conclusions be overturned, with indisputable evidence, data and studies!!!


Or else, the vaccination program should immediately be suspended, otherwise and in any case, It must be continued exclusively in a voluntary level, but with all the knowledge  of the present indisputable scientific data, be available to all the citizens of the country!!!


As physicians, we know very well that for any medical procedure and the drug administration, the patient should be informed even about the rarest adverse reaction- complication.


It is also known that information about vaccinations is not provided in any of the vaccination facilities in our country !!!


The data on myocarditis-pericarditis incidents from international records of adverse reactions after vaccinations, do not allow for any tolerance in the vaccination course in children and young adults, as myocarditis is directly related both clinically and pathophysiologically to terminal heart failure. Vaccines without any clinical result in transmission (at least with the goal of risk reduction) and in a population that will not be severely infected, this obsession to vaccinate people has not place as it is against the bioethical aspect of medicine in everyday clinical practice !!


It is remarkable, that in all 4 EMA vaccine licenses, it is stated that there are no clinical trials for cross-reactivity with other pharmaceutics, no studies of possible genotoxicity and carcinogenesis as  the duration of the immunity they offer is unknown.


What is even more remarkable, is that the clinical trials for vaccine approval were blind-randomized with the use of  placebo. So it ease to ask, if in phase 3 of the clinical trials in the general population, the same research methodology is applied even now, because that would mean that some or our citizens are receiving the placebo vaccine without anyone knowing except the manufacturing company!!


This would result in falsely low adverse reactions of the vaccine and also a false sense of safety against SARS-CoV-2 of people that received the placebo.


Another serious issue, as mentioned above, is that FDA regarding the Pfizer Biontech vaccine, states that the scientific community has no indications as to whether the vaccine prevents or reduces the transmission of the virus from human to human !! This is evidenced by the latest No 17 Technical report of the United Kingdom Public Health Organization regarding Sars-CoV-2 vaccines distributed there.


Τhe same technical report, states that the virus is still transmitted amongst vaccinated individuals ( and they are more afflicted by it), and that therefore any segregation of the people in vaccinated and unvaccinated, in terms of freedom of social life, is scientifically unfounded and therefore hazardous for public health.


A typical example is, the fatal capillary leak syndrome, which forced EMA to announce the amendment of the vaccination policy against Johnson & Johnson vaccine.


The Israeli study of Harald Walach et al is shocking, in which occurs that for every three deaths which are prevented by vaccination, we should accept two deaths caused by the vaccinations.


Is that well understood?

For every three deaths prevented by vaccination,


we should accept two deaths caused by the vaccinations!!




Notice how the global medical community coped with the side effects and deaths following Pandemrix against swine flu epidemics:


On December 2009 the results of American studies were released for this vaccine and 3.807 adverse reactions were observed and 47 of them caused death.


For these reasons the corresponding bioethical committee decided to retract the vaccine and to stop any further clinical trials!!


Comparing the mortality of SARS-CoV-2 of the vaccines, as recorded in at least one country  like U.K (see Yellow Card Consultancy), with 1253 deaths related to the vaccine (produced by any company) during 5 months of vaccinations, the critical question arises  “why the corresponding discontinuation has not taken place by the respective bioethical committee?”!!!


How many thousands of deaths worldwide are necessary in order for this crucial decision to be made, which is a one-way street, to stop the experimental phase 3  clinical trial and later on the accelerated vaccine studies against SARS-CoV-2 at the expense of humanity??


We are now fully aware of the many and significant adverse short-term reactions οf the vaccines and the underlying  pathophysiological mechanisms as mentioned above.


We are intensely concerned for the  mid-term and long-term adverse reactions!!


This concern is all the more dramatic, if we take into consideration that the vaccines lack genotoxicity and carcinogenesis studies.


Additionally, a major issue arises about the accumulation of immunocomplexes and autoantibodies created after vaccination (Spike protein + ACE2 / + FP4 / + Sialic acid), which can accumulate in several organs causing chronic inflammation and activation of oxidative stress mechanisms with long-term unknown-harmful side effects.

Adding the side effects connected with pregnancy and the reproductive capacity of humans, a “dramatic picture” is formed, of the range of complications that can potentially occur after the vaccinations. The uniformity of the side effects  in all human systems, accentuates the need for systematic aiming to the interpretation of adverse events.


The need for systematic recording and substantiation of adverse reactions and further investigation from forensic examination, accompanied with specialized pathoanatomical protocols.

A great deal of concern is, that, while there are alternative therapies (already approved), like monoclonal antibodies and therapies with pending approval, like T-activated Lymphocytes (General Hospital of Thessaloniki- Papanikolaou) with admittedly very promising results, they are neglected whereas they could have been widely used even in an experimental stage (like vaccines) !!


What is the reason of exposing our citizens to potentially very serious complications, even death when  there are promising alternative treatments?


At this point, it is important to note that we are not against vaccinations, we have been inoculated ourselves and we have inoculated our children too, but with vaccines that have been thoroughly tested.

These specific vaccines are a major issue!!

It is our obligation to react !!

How moral is it to allow people to die, or develop a serious complication after preemptive vaccination?



In this document the ineffectiveness of vaccines is extensively analyzed with evidence from both the manufacturers themselves and the published studies. The numbered bibliographic reference for sections 1 to 9 is placed on the last pages of this report after Annex III.

Other unpublished studies which are mentioned in this text are at the disposal of the recipients of this, upon request.


  1. Vaccines than have been released in Greece:
  • Comirnaty of Pfizer BionTech
  • Spikevax of Moderna (primarily bore the name of the company)
  • Vaxzevria of AstraZeneca (primarily bore the name of the company)
  • Janseen of Johnson & Johnson


  1. Important information per pharmaceutics as it is mentioned in the data sheet
  2. Comirnaty:

mRNA vaccine. The document [1] bearing the ID 20210528164846 is the PI (Product Information) version which was given to the ΕΜΑ and was published on 28/05/2021. It states that it is recommended for people aged 16 years and older. The document [2] bearing the ID 20210713084722, was published on 07/13/2021 and states that it is recommended for people aged 12 years and older. This change in the age range was made on June 3, 2021.

There is no data on the possibility of combining this formulation with other vaccines against coronavirus in order to complete the vaccination course.

This vaccine should not be mixed in the same syringe with other vaccines or medical substances. No interaction studies have been performed. Co-administration of Comirnaty with other vaccines has not been studied.

There is no data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in children under the age of 12 (or 18, from the previous edition). It is not recommended for children under 12 years old.

Vaccination should be postponed in people suffering from acute febrile illness or acute infection.

There is no data on the safety and efficacy in people with suppressed immune system, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapy. Efficacy may be reduced in these groups.

The immunity duration of the vaccine is so far unknown and it could be determined by the clinical trials which are currently underway.

This vaccine will not cover all recipients. There is not much protection for up to 7 days after the second dose of vaccination.

There is no data on the use of the vaccine in pregnant women, nor on the transfer of the vaccine’s components to the infant through breast milk.

Studies conducted by Pfizer, excluded from the groups of interest, those people who had previously been infected with Covid-19 or immunocompromised individuals.  The groups selected were healthy men and women over 12 years of age, patients with an underlying disease that was under control, and patients with hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV-positive.

Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported as adverse side effects.

This medical formulation has received “conditional approval”.

Pre-clinical safety data, concerning toxicity in body and in reproduction, are available only on mice trials.

The vials can be left in the freezer for 6 months at -90˚ C to -60˚ C.  Thawed vials can be left in the cooler at 2 to 8˚ C for one month. Once thawed, the product cannot be refrozen.

The maximum atmospheric temperature at which the vaccine withstands is 30 degrees Celsius, just 2 hours before use.  Avoid exposure to ultraviolet radiation, direct sunlight or room light.

The deadline for the clinical trial report on the efficacy and safety of Comirnaty is December 2023.

Comirnaty does not contain the virus to produce immunity, so a person cannot be infected with coronavirus because of the vaccine.

  1. Spikevax

mRNA vaccine. The document [3] bearing the ID 20210722144340 is the PI version published on 22/07/2021 and states that it is recommended for people aged 18 years and older. The document [4] which is not bearing any previous edition ID is the last published on EMA and states that it is recommended for recipients aged 12 years and older.

There is no data on the possibility of combining this formulation with other vaccines against coronavirus, in order to complete the vaccination course.

There is no data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in children aged 12 years or less (or less than 18 years old, as mentioned in the previous edition). It is not recommended for children under 12.

This vaccine should not be mixed in the same syringe with other vaccines or medical substances. Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported as adverse side effects.

There is no data on the safety and efficacy in people with suppressed immune system, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapy. Efficacy may be reduced in these groups.

The immunity duration of the vaccine is so far unknown and it could be determined by the clinical trials which are currently underway.

There is no data on the use of the vaccine in pregnant women, nor on the transfer of the vaccine’s components to the infant through breast milk.

Studies conducted by Moderna, excluded from the groups of interest those people who had previously been infected with Covid-19, pregnant women or immunocompromised individuals.  The groups selected were healthy men and women and HIV-positive patients.

This medical formulation has received “conditional approval”.

Pre-clinical safety data, concerning toxicity in body and in reproduction, are available only on mice trials.

The vials can be left in the freezer for 7 months at -25˚ C to -15˚ C.  Thawed vials can be left in the cooler at 2˚ C to 8˚ C for one month. Once thawed, the product cannot be refrozen.

The deadline for the clinical trial report on the efficacy and safety of Spikevax is December 2022.

Spikevax does not contain the virus, so a person cannot be infected with coronavirus because the vaccine.

  1. Vaxzevria

Adenovirus vaccine [5]. Contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Recommended for use by people over 18 years old.

There is no data on the possibility of combining this formulation with other vaccines against coronavirus, in order to complete the vaccination cycle.

There is no data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in children under the age of 18. It is not recommended for children under 18 years old.

The vaccination should be postponed in people suffering from acute febrile ailment or acute infection.

Cases of thrombosis, thrombocytopenia and capillary escape syndrome are reported as adverse side effects.

There is no data on safety and efficacy in people with suppressed immune system, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapy. Efficacy may be reduced in these groups. The vaccine’s immunity duration is so far unknown and it could be determined by the clinical trials which are currently underway.

Vaccine protection begins approximately 3 weeks after the 1st dose. Recipients may not be completely protected for up to 15 days after the 2nd dose. Vaccination with Vaxzevria may not protect all recipients.

There is no data on the efficacy of the vaccine in people over 55 years of age. There is no data on the use of the vaccine in pregnant women, nor on the transfer of the vaccine’s components to the infant through breast milk. It is unknown. Fertility studies have only been performed on animals.

This medical formulation has received “conditional approval”.

Pre-clinical safety data, concerning toxicity have not been performed, as the substances contained in the vaccine are estimated to have no genotoxic potential.  As for toxicity in reproduction, studies have only been performed on mice.

Avoid freezing. Store in the refrigerator between 2˚C and 8˚C. Exposure to light is prohibited.

The deadline for the clinical trial report on the efficacy and safety of Vaxzevria is May 31, 2022.

Recipients presenting thrombosis after the 1st dose are deterred from taking the 2nd dose.

  1. Janseen

Adenovirus vaccine [6]. Contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Recommended for use by people over 18 years old.

There is no data on the possibility of combining this formulation with other vaccines against coronavirus, in order to complete the vaccination cycle.

There is no data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in children under the age of 18. It is not recommended for children under 18 years old.

Cases of thrombosis, thrombocytopenia and capillary escape syndrome are reported as adverse side effects.

There is no data on the safety and efficacy in people with suppressed immune system, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapy. Efficacy may be reduced in these groups.

The immunity duration of the vaccine is so far unknown and it could be determined by the clinical trials which are currently underway.

Vaccine protection begins 14 days after the vaccination. The Janseen vaccine may not protect all recipients.

There is no data on the use of the vaccine in pregnant women, nor on the transfer of the vaccine’s components to the infant through breast milk. It is unknown. Fertility studies have only been performed on animals.

Pre-clinical safety data, concerning toxicity have not been performed, as the substances contained in the vaccine are estimated to have no genotoxic potential.  As for toxicity in reproduction, studies have only been performed on rabbits.

It is preserved in the freezer at -25˚C to -15˚C for 2 years. To prepare for use, it must be thawed at 2˚C to 8˚C and can be kept refrigerated for up to 3 months, without exceeding the expiration date. Once thawed, it cannot be refrozen. Protection from light is required.

The deadline for the clinical trial report on the efficacy and safety of Janseen is December 31, 2023.

None of the vaccine’s ingredients can cause infection from coronavirus.

Here it is worth noting: the modification of the enclosed product information regarding the age range, thus including ages 12-18, occurred only to vaccines that use the new mRNA technology (by Pfizer and Moderna companies) and not to those that use adenovirus.

  1. Actual vaccine data – rate interpretations.

Pfizer announces 95% and Moderna 94%. These are the numbers published by the pharmaceutical companies in November 2020 for their formulations’ effectiveness.

This rate is related to:

  1. The conditions of a clinical trial
  2. The individuals selected for this clinical trial
  3. The period during which the tests were performed

If the selected individuals for example, were older with multiple comorbidities (i.e. had other medical conditions), or if the trial was performed during a period of high circulation of the virus, as was in India, the relative effectiveness of the vaccine would be even lower. The absolute risk reduction is important for the people to whom the vaccine or a treatment is offered. Some definitions are presented below:

  • Relative Risk: A number that explains that something which a person does or doesn’t do, can change the risk of ailing. For example: if one doesn’t smoke, he or she has less than 30% chances to develop cardiovascular disease than someone who smokes. So, in this case the relative risk is 30%. It’s always about comparing between two groups, and about knowing in which group he belongs to, so as to assess how likely it is for someone to develop a disease or not.

Just because this number is relative, it does not generally apply per specific person, but per group to which that person belongs.

This information about relative risk reduction is useful to researchers because it allows them to combine results from different clinical trials and to perform meta-analysis.

In no case does this information give us the benefit we would expect from a treatment, since it does not take into account the basic risk of developing the disease without treatment.

What matters is what the treatment or the vaccine can do to us individually. To find this, we need the value of Absolute Risk Reduction.

  • Absolute Risk: This is the initial probability of someone getting an illness, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease or Covid-19 if he has been infected with Sars-CoV-2. It is therefore necessary for someone to be aware of the personal risk (as a percentage), to develop the disease without treatment and subtract the “absolute risk reduction” value (%) in the clinical trials.

However, the “absolute risk reduction” is always much lower than the value of the “relative risk reduction”. Therefore, it is not effective enough to sell products that have been developed very quickly. For this reason, laboratories prefer to use the “relative risk reduction” value rather than the “absolute risk reduction” value.

Graphic representation of the difference between absolute and relative risk.  The explanation is in the following paragraphs. [7]


The following drawing shows a typical example for the calculation of Absolute and Relative risk.

100 people in group A taking the Placebo vaccine.

100 people in group B taking the real vaccine.

2 people in the Placebo group get infected.

One person in the regular treatment group gets infected by the virus.

When the two groups are compared, the relative risk reduction is 50%. That is, a person is 50% less likely to get sick if he belongs to the regular treatment group (because 1% is half of 2%).

On an individual level, the absolute risk reduction between the two groups is only 1% (2% -1% = 1%).

That’s why laboratories use the “relative risk reduction” value and not the “Absolute risk” value.

Relative risk reduction data are used for marketing and for propaganda because they reinforce the expected actual result.

Absolute risk reduction data are used to reduce the importance of side effects. Therefore, the daily bombardment of the world through the media with only the relative risk value, is extremely misleading.

When informing patients, who are in the process of deciding whether or not to receive the treatment or the vaccine, physicians should give them the absolute risk reduction value so that they can assess the true benefit.

Symbols for calculating the absolute risk and the actual number of people who will benefit from the treatment. [8]


In the order shown in the image above, we have:

AR (absolute risk) = the number of incidents (good or bad) in regular treatment groups or Placebo groups, divided by the total number of people in this group.

ARC = the absolute risk of incidents in a Placebo group.

ΑRΤ = the absolute risk of incidents in a regular treatment group.

ARR (absolute risk reduction) = ARC-ART

RR (relative risk) = ART/ARC

RRR (relative risk reduction) = (ARC-ART)/ARC

RRR = 1-RR

NNT (number of people who need to be treated) = 1/ARR

The results of studies on Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are analysed below.


Interpretation of results from the study Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine which was published in “The New England Journal of Medicine”. [9]

Pfizer vaccine




The interpretation of the above table chart is as follows: if a young person with a risk close to 0% becomes seriously ill from Covid-19, which is unlikely, there is no benefit in receiving treatment with an experimental formulation, to reduce the risk by 0.71%.

NNT is the number of people who need to be vaccinated so that a single person can benefit from the vaccine.

In Pfizer case we have: NNT = 1/ARR = 1/0.0071=141.

Table chart from Pasteur Institute showing death rates
from coronavirus by age group [10] 

This means that of the 141 people vaccinated with Pfizer, 140 take the risk of developing side effects without any benefit.


Example of Israel:

  • The Israeli data confirm the reduction of the relative risk RRR to 94%.
  • In reality, (with distances and masks), in terms of absolute risk reduction, we   have ARR = 0.46%, therefore this is much less than the expected 0.71%.
  • In this case, it would be necessary to vaccinate NNT = 1/0.0046=217 people so that only ONE could benefit from the vaccine, or 1.5 times more than the clinical trial data.

  The “experts” were very careful to conceal this parameter.


Moderna vaccine

Interpretation of results from the study Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine which was published in “The New England Journal of Medicine”. [11]


In Moderna’s case we have: NNT = 1/ARR = 1/0.011 = 91.

91 people need to be vaccinated so that only ONE can benefit from the vaccine. The remaining 90 will have taken the risk of the side effects, or died without benefiting at all.

In the FDA marketing regulations, it is highlighted that laboratories must make all this data available to the public so that everyone can assess the risk and benefits, based on evidence and on informed consent. “They have to provide the absolute risk, not just the relative risk. Patients are overly affected when they are presented with risk information using the relevant risk method. This can lead to the worst decisions. Therefore, the absolute risk must be used”. Surprisingly, neither FDA nor EMA have required this, for the specific vaccines. On the contrary, they insist only on the benefits, based on the Relative Risk reduction evaluation! “Failure to provide the public with all the information, in order to allow informed consent, is not only dishonest but also dangerous.”


  1. Natural immunity against vaccine immunity – the use of a leveraged study by the committee to incite vaccination

On May 17, Mrs. Maria Theodoridou, president of the vaccination program, made an announcement [12], that Sars-CoV-2 antibodies remain for up to 13 months after vaccination and reduce the reinfection risk. The study to which Mrs. Theodoridou refers is entitled [13] Anti-Sars-CoV-2 antibodies persist for up to 13 months and reduce risk of reinfection. It has been published on the BMJ website among the studies that have not yet been evaluated. Within the website, it explicitly states that “Pre-publications are preliminary reports of studies that have not been certified by third parties. They must not be relied upon to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and must not be reported in the media as standard information.”  It has also been registered in with a possible completion date of August 2021 ([14]Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Strasbourg University Hospital Strasbourg, France).

Τhe key features of the study are as follows:

  • The study lasted 13 months.
  • Antibodies were measured in 4 different time periods: M1 which is the first month, M3-5 which is between the 3rd and the 6th month from the beginning, M7-9 which is between the 7th and the 9th month and M11-13 between the 11th and the 13th month.
  • 1309 health personnel were selected.
  • The participants were divided into 2 groups.
  • In group A, individuals had negative diagnosis for antibodies with PCR test (916).
  • In group B, individuals had positive diagnosis for antibodies with PCR test (393), meaning they had been ill with natural immunity.
  • Of all these individuals, only 93 of group B were vaccinated.
  • The mutations which were studied against the vaccines, were:
    • D614G which was the basic total mutation.
    • 1.1.7 or otherwise British mutation.
    • Β.1.351 or otherwise South African mutation.

Initially, it must be mentioned that the sample of people selected is not representative for 2 reasons:

  1. It consists only of health personnel, who generally come in contact with many germs and bacteria on a daily basis. This means that they have a more powerful immune system.


  1. Over 70% of the participants in both groups are women. Normally the percentages should be about the same as the world percentages. That is 50.4% for men and 49.6% for women. Why focus so much on the female gender and thus distort reality?

The obscure points in the study are the following:

  • It is explicitly stated that people who were tested in 4 different time periods in 13 months, had antibodies (hence they had natural immunity) and some of these individuals were vaccinated with AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines between the 7th and the 9th month (that is, in the third time stage when   antibodies by natural immunity pre-exist). What is not mentioned, however, is the percentage of women / men who were vaccinated with said vaccines.
  • In this small number of individuals, they indicated that the number of antibodies increased, but was not studied beyond 13 months to see whether the antibodies decreased in number. Essentially, the vaccination in this study shows antibodies production for up to 6 months, and that is what the manufacturers say.
  • What is worth mentioning at this point, are the data themselves from Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca which report 6 months , 6 months and 4 months respectively (these values are not listed in the official documents cited in Chapter 2, as they are considered incomplete with deadlines starting from 2022 onwards).
  • It is also reported that the South African mutation is successfully fought through vaccination, while the same manufacturers report that the efficiency rate is quite low. At this point, the explanation within the study is incomplete and does not bear any chart or table, with said success rates. Just yesterday it was announced that those vaccinated with Pfizer-BionTech had 5 times less antibodies for the South African mutation (as they called it Beta mutation).
  • The number of participants, from whom they take samples, is gradually decreasing, essentially going through the reductio ad absurdum method, so that they can carry out the controlled results. Specifically, on page 9, it falsely states that “The SARS-CoV-2 vaccination significantly increases anti-S antibodies to levels that neutralize all three variants, regardless of the IgG levels prior vaccination, the vaccine type or the number of doses.”


Essentially in this study, there is an attempt to correlate the immunity created by physical illness with the virus, which lasts 13 months (with current data), with the immunity acquired by the vaccines.

In conclusion, the official statement of Mrs. Theodoridou is false for the following reasons:

  1. The study has not yet been evaluated, so she was not supposed to make a public statement on it, according to the rules of the journal.
  2. The study itself unsuccessfully attempts to overlay immunity with vaccination within natural immunity. So far, the official data do not show immunity through vaccination for more than 6 months, and that is why talks have begun about a new dose in early autumn.


  1. Vaccine Adequacy during Pregnancy

From the disclosure of the official documents in chapter 2, which were taken from the web page of the European Medical Association, it is evident that there are not any available data for the effects the vaccines might have on pregnant women as of yet, because the studies are currently being carried out. In an evaluated study [15] published in ¨The New England Journal of Medicine¨, entitled Preliminary findings of mRNA Covid-19 vaccine safety in pregnant persons, it has been stated that the vaccines are safe. That particular statement though is false, because the important information of the trimester at which the vaccination took place as well as the repercussions in relation to the trimester has been concealed in the study.

On table 4 of the page indexed 2280, it is reported in the memo that from 827 pregnancies, 104 failed because of miscarriage. At first and without getting into a detailed examination of the data, we have to note that fetal mortality rates climbing up to 12.6% is extremely high if we expand to a city or country level.

It has been also reported in that same study, that from a total of 827 births, 700 persons did take the vaccine during their third trimester. If we do the subtraction this yields that 827-700=127 pregnant persons took the vaccine either during their first or their second trimester, This in fact shows that from 127 persons, 104 had a miscarriage. Thus we are dealing with a post-vaccination fetal mortality rate of approximately 82% during the first or second trimester.

Later on, it is reported that 96 out of 104 persons lost their child through miscarriage before the thirteenth week, that is during the stage of organogenesis, which is one of the most important stages taking place during the first trimester. We are in fact dealing with a percentage rate of 92.3%. The remaining 8 persons which took the vaccine during their second trimester constitute a part of 7.7%.

The fact that 724 children were born from persons that were inoculated during their third trimester, by no means guarantees that those children would not develop any health conditions because of what was transferred through their mother during pregnancy.

The miscarriage rate, combined for the first and second trimester is very high and  even higher for the first trimester exclusively.

In conclusion, even for that small sample of participants, especially during the first and second trimester of pregnancy, the vaccines do not qualify as safe for the pregnant women, whilst there aren’t any studies on the effects after birth, during the breastfeeding period and afterwards.


  1. Vaccine Adequacy for Persons Belonging to Medically Vulnerable Groups

In all the aforementioned official documents of chapter 2, it is clearly stated that there is not any data available in favor of the efficiency as well as for the implications on patients with suppressed immune system. Any studies that started to become publicly available since the middle of 2021 and afterwards should not be taken into account by any Sanitary or Reportorial Authority prior to their detailed evaluation (peer-review).

In conclusion there is not any guarantee for the safety of the particular vaccines on immunosuppressed patients.


  1. Vaccine Adequacy for Children

At present there are not any completed studies for the safety and efficacy of the vaccines on children, whether up to twelve years of age or seventeen years of age [16]. All studies are on a candidate recruitment stage and on average for children up to twelve years of age, the studies will be completed on 2023-2024 while for the age span from twelve to eighteen years during 2022.

During children vaccinations that initiated in the USA, the Java Pediatrics Journal published an updated study entitled Symptomatic Acute Myocarditis in seven Adolescents following Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccination [17]. 7 cases of healthy male adolescents aged between 14 and 19 that have been vaccinated, and in particular after the second dose, developed myocarditis within the first four days post-vaccination.

None of the patients were predisposed to multi-organ inflammatory syndrome – Kawasaki Type (so called MIS-C). All patients have been vaccinated during April and May of 2021. Initially, extensive diagnostic evaluations for other myocarditis etiologies were negative. That is to say the patients had not any previous illness or predisposition towards myocarditis from any other cause.

All patients developed myocarditis or myopericarditis, which is the term for diagnosis of both myocardial and pericardial inflammation.

Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trials revealed that after mRNA vaccination younger participants had more severe side effects than older individuals. The adverse side effects often occurred more frequently after dose two (2) and within two (2) days after the completion of the vaccination schedule. The adverse side effects included pain on the injection site, fatigue, myalgia, chills, arthralgia, fever, injection site swelling, nausea, malaise, and lymphadenopathy.

On May 28th 2021, CDC officially included myocarditis/pericarditis on the list of possible adverse reactions on children, continuing though to suggest vaccination for children over twelve years of age.


  1. Studies demonstrating the risk of vaccination.


  1. Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients 

Study proving the generalized circulation of the S spike protein in blood and debunking pharmaceutical companies claiming concentration on the injection site.[18].

  1. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination induces functionally diverse antibodies to NTD, RBD, and S2

Study [19] showing the following:

  • Antibody titration after mRNA Sars-CoV-2 vaccination, targets at the following epitopes. (spike sites): RBD, NTD και S
  • mRNA vaccination presents high percentages of non-neutralizing antibodies.
  • Vaccination with mRNA vaccines creates cross-linked antibodies with seasonal β-coronaviruses HKU1, and OC.

Induction: Sars-CoV-2 is not a new virus, but as it was reasonably expected, since it belongs to the family of common human coronaviruses, it has similarities and affinities with other representatives of that group. Since the world population has been in contact with these seasonal β-coronaviruses in the past and thus acquired memory cells against them, it has obtained acquired immunity even against  Sars-CoV-2.


  1. Studies proving the acquired immunity.


  1. SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity

In this study [20], 203 patients participated which were infected from SARS-CoV-2 in Denmark between the 3rd of April and 9th of July 2020, at least 14 days after the  recovery from  COVID-19 symptoms. The participants had experienced a wide range of disease severity ranging from asymptomatic to severe. The immunological results were compared between the severity groups within the cohort and 10 pre-pandemic negative tests of SARS-CoV-2. Findings: Broad serological profiles have been reported within the cohort, tracing the antibody binding to other human coronaviruses. 202(> 99%) of the participants had neutralizing antibodies SARS-CoV-2. In the majority of the patients the acquired immunity from a prior natural infection from other coronaviruses, is present, irrespective of the degree of infection from Sars-CoV-2.




















AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS (combined with blood-brain barrier permeability)












  • EGGS



Picture 1. Organs equipped with ACE2 receptors . (Edited via WEB Software bioRender)


Picture 2. Various Organ Cells on which ACE2 Receptors are found.

Initial source of image[1]


Picture 3: Platelet with all Available Receptors for Different Viruses. The Receptors of Human Adenovirus and Coxsackie (CAR) are Distinguished.

Image Source[2]

Picture 4: Schematic Illustration  of the way Coronavirus’ Protein  Spike S is Binding to the ACE2 Receptors. (Edited with WEB Software bioRender).
Picture 5: Schematic illustration of blood clotting and thrombocytopenia induction from  Johnson & Johnson vaccine (Edited with WEB Software bioRender).
Picture 6: Schematic illustration of the creation of blood clots leading to thrombocytopenia. Case study Astra Zeneca vaccine (Edited with WEB Software bioRender).










[9] Polack F. P., M.D., Thomas S J., M.D., Kitchin N, M.D., Absalon J., M.D., Gurtman A., M.D., Lockhart S., D.M., Perez J.L., M.D., Marc G. P., M.D., Moreira E. D., M.D., Zerbini c., M.D., Bailey R., B.Sc., Swanson K.A., Ph.D., Roychoudhury S., Ph.D., Koury K., Ph.D., Ping Li, Ph.D., Kalina W. V., Ph.D., Cooper D., Ph.D., Frenck R.W., Jr., M.D., Hammitt L. L., M.D., Türeci Ö, M.D., Nell H., M.D., Schaefer A., M.D., Ünal S., M.D., Tresnan D. B., D.V.M., Ph.D., Mather S., M.D., Dormitzer P. R., M.D., Ph.D., Şahin U, M.D., Jansen K. U., Ph.D., and Gruber W. C., M.D., for the C4591001 Clinical Trial Group – Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. The New England Journal of medicine December 31 2020, Vol.383 No. 27 p.p. 2603 – 2615


[11] Baden L.R., M.D., El Sahly H. M., M.D., Essink B., M.D., Kotloff K., M.D., Frey S., M.D., Novak R., M.D., Diemert D., M.D., Spector S. A., M.D., Rouphael N., M.D., C. Creech B., M.D., McGettigan J., M.D., Khetan S., M.D., et al., for the COVE Study Group – Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. The New England Journal of medicine February 4 2021, Vol.384 No. 5 p.p. 403 – 416


[13] Gallais F., Gantner P., Bruel T., Velay A., Planas D., Wendling MJ., Bayer S., Solis M., Laugel E., Reix N., Schneider A., Glady L., Panaget B., Collongues N., Partisani M., Lessinger JM, Fontanet A., Rey D., Hansmann Y., Kling-Pillitteri L., Schwartz O., Sèze J.D., Meyer N., Gonzalez M., Schmidt-Mutter C., Fafi-Kremer s. – Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Persist for up to 13 Months and Reduce
Risk of Reinfection. doi:

[14] Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Strasbourg University
Hospital, Strasbourg, France (COVID-19) (SeroCoV-HUS)

[15] Shimabukuro T. T., M.D., Kim S.Y., M.P.H., Myers T. R., Ph.D., Moro P.L., M.D., Oduyebo T., M.D., Panagiotakopoulos L., M.D., Marquez P. L., M.S.P.H., Olson C. K., M.D., Liu R., Ph.D., Chang K. Y., Ph.D., Ellington S. R., Ph.D., Burkel V. K., M.P.H., Smoots A.N., M.P.H., Green C.J., M.P.H., Licata C., Ph.D., Zhang B. C., M.S., Alimchandani M., M.D., Mba-Jonas A., M.D., Martin S. W., M.S., Gee J. M., M.P.H., and Meaney-Delman D. M., M.D. for the CDC v-safe COVID-19 Pregnancy
Registry Team – Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine
Safety in Pregnant Persons. The New EnglanD
Journal of medicine June 17 2021 Vol. 384 no.24 p.p. 2273-2282.


[17] Marshall M., Ferguson I. D., Lewis P., Jaggi P., Gagliardo C., Collins J. S., Shaughnessya R., Carona R., Fuss C., Corbin K.J.E., Emuren L., Faherty E., Hall E. K., Di Pentima C., Oster M. E., Paintsil E., Siddiqui S., Timchak D. M., Guzman-Cottrill J. A. – Symptomatic Acute Myocarditis in Seven Adolescents Following Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccination Pediatrics Jun 2021, e2021052478; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2021-052478


[18] Ogata A. F., Cheng CA, Desjardins M., Senussi Y., Sherman A. C., Powell M., Novack L., Von S., Li X., Baden L. R., Walt D.R. – 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,–article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075

[19] Amanat F., Thapa M., Lei T., Sayed Ahmed S. M., Adelsberg D. C., Carreño J. M., Strohmeier S., Schmitz A. J., Zafar S., Zhou J. Q., Rijnink W., Alshammary H., Borcherding N., Gonzalez Reiche A., Srivastava K., Sordillo E.M., van Bakel H., The Personalized Virology Initiative, Jackson S. Turner, Goran Bajic, Viviana Simon, Ali H. Ellebedy, Florian Krammer – SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination induces functionally diverse antibodies to NTD, RBD, and S2. Cell July 22 2021 Volume 184 Issue 15 p.p. 3936-3948 E10

[20] Nielsen S. SF., Vibholm L. K., Monrad I., Olesen R., Frattari G. S., Pahus M. H., Højen J. F., Gunst J. D., Erikstrup C., Holleufer A., Hartmann R., Østergaard L., Søgaard O. S., Schleimann M. H., Tolstrup M.. – SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity. EBioMedicine June 01 2021, Vol. 68, 103410




And with all rights reserved


WE REPORT TO YOU the above indisputable scientific data, information and conclusions, which prove, on one hand, the ineffectiveness of the vaccines against Covid-19 to a great extent, on the other hand their risk, for the citizens’ health and life.


WE DENOUNCE nevertheless the inception and continuation of the vaccination program, without informing the citizens of the abovementioned risks to their health and life.


WE DENOUNCE not only the continuation of the vaccination program according to the aforementioned but also, on one hand the extortionate practices applied to all kinds of workplaces, even by the government officials themselves, as well as the segregation of citizens into two categories, the patricians vaccinated and the plebeians unvaccinated, on the other hand the vaccination mandate, which had already been legislated by 25.2.2020, even before the World Health Organization declared the pandemic, and its implementation is already decided, initially to the health personnel of the country to which we belong.


WE REQUEST the immediate cessation of the vaccination program, otherwise its continuation on an exclusively voluntary level, with a full briefing to the public of the risks, to their health and life posed by these vaccines.



YOU ARE REQUIRED to respond to hereunto WITHIN TWO WORKING DAYS, refuting its content, and this refutation must be scientifically documented with corresponding data and evidence, studies and conclusions.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that failure to meet the above deadline will constitute a tacit acceptance of the content of this document, and an admission that all of its conclusions are entirely correct.

Convince us that what we report and denounce do not apply and… include us in the vaccination campaign.


Or else, stop it…


With the express reservation of all my legal rights, a competent bailiff is ordered to deliver the hereunto to Kyriakos Mitsotakis , Prime Minister, resident of Athens, Herodou Attikou Street 19 – Maximos Mansion,  and for the legal consequences, copying the whole hereunto in the service report.


 *Respective orders are available in the extrajudicial statements which were delivered on the other 4.

Athens, 5th August 2021

The attorney-at-law



Nikolaos I. Antoniadis

Lawyer of Athens

Τελευταίες Ειδήσεις

Scroll to top