fact finder
Status: 04.01.2022 2:18 p.m.
The immunologist Carsten Watzl has described statements about serious vaccine damage as unscientific nonsense. Microbiologist Bhkadi’s claims were based on false premises.
By Patrick Gensing, editorial office at ARD-faktenfinder
A video by emeritus microbiology professor Sucharit Bhakdi continues to circulate on social media, in which he claims that the vaccinations against corona are ineffective. The video was shared by ex-Constitutional Protection President Hans-Georg Maaßen, for which he was severely criticized. Maassen defended the video on Twitter, claiming that Bhakdi had serious arguments in favor of a vaccination ban.
The immunologist Carsten Watzl, professor at the University of Dortmund and since 2013 Secretary General of the German Society for Immunology, sees it differently. He clearly contradicts Bhakdi’s claims and describes them as unscientific nonsense.
Misrepresentation
In conversation with tagesschau.de Watzl justifies his assessment. Bhakdi speaks of the Navy and the Air Force when it comes to the claim that the vaccinations could not protect against Corona. This refers to antibodies that swim in the blood – the navy – as well as those that sit in the mucous membranes and are supposed to fight off viruses from the air – the air force, explains Watzl.
The immunologist Watzl explains why the statements are not tenable.
However, Bhakdi “incorrectly portrays them as two completely independent systems,” according to Watzl. “Only the antibodies on the mucous membranes would be effective against corona, but they would not be induced by a vaccination in the upper arm. Bhakdi concludes from this that the vaccines are ineffective – but that is wrong,” says the immunologist. Rather, “the vaccines protect against infection and a severe course. This has been shown by the approval procedures and the evaluations of data after vaccinations from many countries.”
However, protection against infection decreases over time, says Watzl, and can be significantly reduced in variants with many mutations, such as Omikron. The protection of the vaccinations against a severe course is also given at Omikron. “The fact that the vaccinations didn’t work is simply wrong,” emphasizes Watzl.
“You can’t vaccinate that much”
Bhakdi also claimed in the video that it was dangerous for the spike protein to get into the lymph nodes through the vaccines, as it would cause lymphocytes – immune cells – to kill each other. “That is nonsense,” says Watzl, “because if, for example, the coronavirus infects the lungs, the spike protein and other parts of the virus also get into the lymph nodes, because only there an immune reaction can be stimulated”.
Bakhdi also claims that the vaccine penetrates the whole body and organs and causes fatal damage. That, too, is not immunologically tenable, says Watzl: “It could be – if you measure extremely sensitively – that traces and fragments of the spike protein can be found in the blood a few days after the vaccination. But the amounts are so small that this can happen Can’t have any biological effects. You couldn’t inject that much vaccine so that it could go anywhere. This picture has nothing to do with reality, “explains the immunologist.
No context, sometimes confused
The video shows some images of organs and vessels that are apparently intended to show that the vaccine is getting everywhere and causing damage. However, it is completely unclear where exactly the pictures come from, says Watzl. “What did the respective person die of? What previous illnesses did they have?” Asks the expert. Watzl emphasizes that a connection between the shown infiltrations and vaccinations is “pure speculation, these can have many other causes that are far more likely”.
Watzl criticizes that it is still suggested that damage was caused by vaccinations. “The context is completely unclear. That is no scientific proof,” says the immunologist. In addition, the comments on this are “barely comprehensible and sometimes confused” from an immunological point of view.
“Wrong premises”
In the video, Bhakdi still speaks of numerous people who have probably become seriously ill from the vaccinations, but that cannot be proven. “In doing so, he builds a narrative that can neither be proven nor refuted,” criticizes Watzl. Bhakdi invokes basic immunological principles that are absolutely false – “and on these false premises he then builds all of his theses”.
Watzl thinks that this seems convincing to many people, because it is presented clearly and in part is conclusive. But the explanations were based on wrong assumptions and are “unscientific nonsense”.