BioNTech's pandemic narrative is often spun as a "miracle" of science, one that rocketed forward under the fittingly titled "Project Lightspeed," a name that ironically matches their high-stakes race to market. With a COVID-19 vaccine rushed to approval, BioNTech achieved almost mythical status—especially Dr. Uğur Şahin and Dr. Özlem Türeci, who helped push these experimental mRNA products out with unprecedented haste.
Conveniently, this lightspeed approach allowed BioNTech to bring forward technology they'd been working on for years, just as the pandemic rolled out across the world, following closely after Event 201’s simulated pandemic scenario. The result? They reaped astronomical financial rewards and global influence, ostensibly offering a “solution” to the very crisis they appeared uniquely positioned for from the start.
This analysis centers on BioNTech’s co-founders, Dr. Uğur Şahin and Dr. Özlem Türeci, who claimed to have initiated work on a COVID-19 vaccine as early as January 2020. This coincided with the sequencing of a virus that has never been definitively isolated. They positioned themselves as the pharmaceutical champions ready to deliver an mRNA vaccine—a technology that previously struggled to clear safety testing before the "pandemic." This narrative suggests a rapid transformation from research to urgent public health response, raising questions about the motivations and integrity of this supposed timeline.
Examining BioNTech’s network of public-private alliances, the strategic partnerships it established well before COVID-19, and the involvement of military and pharmaceutical interests—alongside companies like Moderna working on mRNA technology around the same time—uncovers a larger, intricate history that extends back decades.
BioNTech’s swift transition from niche cancer research to a globally dominant mRNA company didn’t happen seemingly overnight or by coincidence. Neither did the efforts of Moderna!
Add to this the deeper history of mRNA research funding from military and pharmaceutical interests and the eerie parallels between Dr. Uğur Şahin and the German immunologist Paul Ehrlich, and BioNTech’s rise to power becomes a story of influence, opportunism, and strategic alliances.
The Foundation: Dr. Ugur Sahin, Dr. Ozlem Tureci, and Their Companies
Dr. Uğur Şahin and Dr. Özlem Türeci are both Turkish-German scientists who established themselves in the fields of oncology and immunotherapy long before the pandemic. They met at the University of Mainz in Germany during the early 1990s while both were involved in research focused on immunology and oncology. Şahin was dedicated to cancer research, while Türeci was working on immunotherapy approaches aimed at treating cancer. Their shared interests in advancing cancer treatment laid the groundwork for both their personal relationship and their later professional collaborations.
“In the 1990sÖzlem Türeci and Uğur Şahin research mRNA and the possibilities of developing immunotherapies against cancer cells.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-00
Supposedly frustrated by the pharmaceutical industry's prioritization of business strategies over meaningful oncology advancements, he recognized that real change in cancer treatment required him to “take matters into his own hands”. This realization prompted him to establish Ganymed Pharmaceuticals along with , which focused on developing targeted immunotherapies.
During this time, Ganymed raised eyebrows due to the company's rapid ascent, and the partnership and Türeci that blurred professional and personal lines, suggesting a strategic alliance that benefited both their careers. Şahin soon discovered that navigating the complexities of getting therapeutics to market required him to engage with the business aspects, marking a shift that many critics view as opportunistic rather than altruistic.
BioNTech's Project Lightspeed exemplifies the suspicious dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry, where the shift from mRNA cancer therapies to a COVID-19 vaccine unfolded dramatically.
“December 2019In the Chinese city of Wuhan, population 8 million, there is a high incidence of lung diseases, some of which are severe or even fatal, and are apparently transmitted by infection.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-01
"January 24, 2020A previously unknown coronavirus is suspected as the cause. Uğur Şahin comes across an article about the outbreak in The Lancet. He immediately grasps the global implications.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-01
“January 27, 2020At the BioNTech headquarters, a series of meetings is scheduled at short notice. Uğur Şahin informs the management and teams about his findings and forecasts. In plain language: It’s a pandemic.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-02
“January 27, 2020The message is urgent: Redirect all BioNTech resources to developing, producing, and marketing an effective vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-02
“Early 2020Europe becomes the epicenter of the pandemic. In the “first wave”, many people become seriously ill, and thousands die.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-03
“From February 2020In the labs, preclinical studies are in full swing, seeking to identify the first selection of vaccine candidates.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-04
“From March 2020Producing mRNA vaccine for the global mass market means upscaling the laboratory-proven process by a factor of 100,000 in the shortest possible time.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-05
“March – December 2020A global production network is established within a few months: BioNTech and Pfizer facilities, and 20 sites of other partners, churn out billions of vaccine doses.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-05
“December 2020Other countries follow. And shortly before the end of the year, the EU does, too. At BioNTech, the equipment runs 24/7 in order to fulfill all delivery agreements.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-06
“Mid-December 2020There are increasing reports of a Variant of Concern of the line B.1.1.7, which has been spreading in the UK since September – the Alpha variant.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-07
“July, October, November, December 2020 / May, November 2021Epsilon, Beta, Gamma, Eta, Delta, Omicron – the mutated variants of the virus originated in different places on earth.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-07
“2021Of the approximately 3 billion vaccine doses produced by BioNTech this year, more than 1 billion go to low- and middle-income countries.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-08
“2021 and todayBut there are many and powerful voices calling on pharmaceutical companies to release the patents on drugs against COVID-19.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-08
“Today and in the futureParallel to the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, specialized teams at BioNTech continue to develop mRNA-based immunotherapies for cancer.” Image from https://www.projektlightspeed.de/en/#chapter-09
What is truly interesting about it all is that prior to the pandemic, it proved extremely difficult (well impossible really) for any pharma comany to secure regulatory approval for its cancer-related mRNA or other mRNA therapeutics or vaccines, highlighting the hurdles and skepticism surrounding this technology. Yet, in a matter of months, this company pivoted to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, which seemingly breezed through regulatory processes that previously may have stymied their mRNA cancer therapeutics approvals.
This rapid turnaround raises questions about the motivations behind the accelerated approval of the vaccine. Critics argue that the urgency of the pandemic allowed BioNTech, in partnership with Pfizer, to bypass standard safety protocols and expedite the deployment of their mRNA technology (as if any vaccines are really truly safe though).
With billions in funding and a global health crisis framing their efforts, the focus shifted from thorough evaluation to rapid rollout, leaving many to wonder if profit motives overshadowed genuine public health concerns.
Reports of fatalities shortly after vaccination and the rapid approval processes have fueled public skepticism regarding the motivations behind these vaccines.
They secured significant private investment from the German billionaire twins Thomas and Andreas Strüngmann, who saw promise in Şahin’s and Türeci’s work on antibody therapies targeting solid tumors.
Brothers Thomas and Andreas Strüngmann, founded Hexal AG in 1986. The company focused on producing generic medications, which allowed them to capitalize on the growing demand for affordable healthcare options in Germany and beyond. The brothers obtained their wealth primarily through their investments in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly with the establishment and growth of their company, Hexal AG, as well as subsequent investments in various biotechnology firms including Ganymed and BioNTech.
Their first major success came in 2016 when Ganymed was sold to the Japanese pharmaceutical company Astellas Pharma for €1.3 billion, providing the couple with substantial capital that would later fuel BioNTech’s expansion.
Named for a scientist whose work at the turn of the 20th century revolutionized immunology and cancer treatment, the Paul Ehrlich Institute embodies the legacy of Ehrlich’s commitment to “public health”.
The Paul Ehrlich Institute (Paul-Ehrlich-Institut) was founded in 1896 initially under the name "Institute for Serum Research and Serum Testing." It began its mission focused on drug testing and quality control, a role that has evolved significantly over time. The institute has since become a recognized federal authority responsible for vaccines and biomedicine, particularly regarding blood-derived products and gene therapies. It continues to play a critical role in the evaluation and regulation of innovative “medical therapies.”
Paul Ehrlich is remembered for his groundbreaking work in immunotherapy and targeted treatments. He developed one of the first drugs specifically targeting what was deemed syphilis according to germ theory etiology theories originally spearheaded by influential figures like Louis Pasteur.
Ehrlich also introduced concepts such as “magic bullets” that could supposedly target disease-causing agents without harming surrounding tissues, a principle that remains foundational in modern immunotherapy.
Paul Ehrlich's contributions to early immunology and chemotherapy prominently featured the development of arsenic-based compounds like Atoxyl and Salvarsan. Atoxyl, synthesized in the late 19th century, was initially intended for treating infections such as sleeping sickness and other other germ theory based illnesses. It exemplified Ehrlich's "magic bullet" concept aimed at effectively targeting pathogens while minimizing harm to patients. However, Atoxyl was notorious for its toxic effects, which limited its clinical utility.
Following this, Salvarsan was specifically developed to treat syphilis and, while marketed as a groundbreaking solution, it also bore significant toxicity, raising ethical concerns about the safety of chemical treatments in medicine. These early endeavors illustrated the persistent tensions in drug development, where the promise of targeted therapies is often overshadowed by their harmful side effects, a narrative that remains relevant in contemporary discussions about pharmaceuticals.
Sahachiro Hata, another of Ehrlich's associates, contributed to the production of Salvarsan, an arsenic-based treatment for syphilis that Ehrlich touted as a “magic bullet.” However, this toxic compound raised serious concerns about the reliance on harmful chemicals for "curing" diseases. Hata and Ehrlich’s work on Salvarsan established the groundwork for the modern concept of "magic bullets," which aimed to target disease agents without (in theory) harming patients.
This notion later echoed in synthetic treatments like ivermectin, a lab-modified antiparasitic initially derived from soil bacteria and developed by Satoshi Ōmura decades later, linking it to the lineage of chemical treatments tracing back to early therapeutics like Salvarsan.
Paul Ehrlich's work in early immunology and chemotherapeutics significantly influenced several notable scientists who helped entrench germ theory in mainstream medicine. Collaborators like Emil von Behring leveraged Ehrlich's research on immunity to develop diphtheria serum, earning accolades such as the Nobel Prize, even though these early serums posed considerable risks to recipients.
Ehrlich's "magic bullet" theory also inspired figures like Alexander Fleming and Gerhard Domagk in their development of penicillin and sulfa drugs, respectively, these treatments also introduced complications and side effects that contributed to today’s overreliance on pharmaceuticals for managing illness.
Despite the acclaim for these developments, many critics argue that Ehrlich's chemical-centric approach has led to a narrow focus on synthetic or toxic drug-dependent solutions, overshadowing the potential benefits of more holistic health strategies. The legacy of his "magic bullet" theory continues to influence drug development, prompting ongoing debates about the implications of prioritizing synthetic treatments in the face of mounting evidence suggesting that they often do more harm than good.
While these treatments were groundbreaking for their time, they also carried significant risks and adverse effects, raising ethical concerns about the safety and efficacy of early immunotherapies.
Ehrlich’s work laid the foundation for personalized medicine—a philosophy that Dr. Uğur Şahin shares, as seen in his early efforts in developing individualized cancer treatments at BioNTech. However, there are darker, more controversial aspects of Ehrlich’s work. Ehrlich was instrumental in developing toxic treatments that, were supposedly effective at treating germ theory based illnesses, but often caused significant side effects. Şahin’s trajectory has paralleled Ehrlich’s in that both scientists earned reputations as pioneers who ventured into high-risk, high-reward medical research. Both are celebrated for advances in medicine, but their work has also sparked ethical and health concerns due to the adverse effects of their treatments.
It seems increasingly plausible that the public has been subjected to harmful exposures under the guise of medical "advancements"—a troubling trend that raises doubts about official narratives in science and medicine. Figures like Louis Pasteur, Paul Ehrlich, and others who pioneered germ theory and antimicrobial treatments may have set in motion a paradigm where illness perception feeds pharmaceutical intervention, often involving harmful substances. This legacy continues, fostering a cycle where illness and treatment appear suspiciously intertwined, prompting skepticism about the true intent behind these health interventions.
A Deeper Dive on Paul Ehrlich and the Speyer Banking Dynasty: A Critical Examination of Their Legacy
Paul Ehrlich, a pivotal figure in the history of medicine, was a Jewish physician and scientist whose career unfolded during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Born in 1854 in Strehlen, Silesia, Ehrlich pursued medical training in Germany and became particularly interested in immunology and the treatment of infectious diseases. His early work in the laboratory of Robert Koch, a renowned bacteriologist, laid the foundation for his later breakthroughs. Ehrlich's research was characterized by a blend of innovative thinking and controversial methods, often crossing ethical boundaries in the pursuit of scientific advancement.
Ehrlich’s legacy is intricately linked with elite banking families, notably the Speyer family, whose motives and influence warrant scrutiny. His significant work was originally funded by Georg Speyer, a prominent member of one of the wealthiest banking families of the time. The Speyer family was exceptionally affluent, with wealth surpassing that of the Rothschilds, and their financial dealings connected them to other influential banking families through strategic marriages, creating a web of financial power that extended across Europe.
Portrait of Georg Speyer 1873. Image from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Speyer
Cécile Furtado-Heine, also from a wealthy Jewish family, played a crucial role in this network. She was linked to the Pasteur Institute and heavily invested in public health initiatives, reflecting a trend where financial power intersects with medical innovation.
Cécile Furtado-Heine is often celebrated as a philanthropist, but beneath her charitable façade lies a more complex and potentially troubling narrative. Born into immense wealth and connected to powerful networks, Cécile may not have wielded her fortune not merely fo…
Ehrlich's most notable contribution to medicine was the development of the concept of the "magic bullet." He envisioned a therapeutic agent that could selectively target and kill pathogens without harming the host. This vision culminated in his discovery of Salvarsan (arsphenamine), which became the first effective treatment for syphilis. Salvarsan arose from Ehrlich's belief in creating specific pharmaceuticals that could eliminate diseases—though it ultimately revealed significant toxic side effects. His earlier work with Atoxyl, another arsenic-based compound, demonstrated his drive for targeted treatments despite its damaging effects on patients' optic nerves. The toxic nature of these compounds raises questions about the true intent behind their development.
Following Georg Speyer's death in 1902, his widow, Franziska Speyer, the eldest daughter of a Berlin banker, continued to support Ehrlich’s work and founded the Georg Speyer Haus in Frankfurt, establishing a dedicated research facility for cancer and chemotherapy. The support from the Speyer family was crucial in advancing Ehrlich’s ambitious projects, allowing him to conduct large-scale experiments and develop research methodologies that would become standard in the pharmaceutical industry. However, the intersection of medicine and finance often led to ethical compromises, as the quest for profit sometimes overshadowed patient safety and informed consent. This dynamic was exacerbated by the prevailing attitudes toward scientific advancement, where the ends often justified the means.
Ehrlich's quest for a “chemotherapia specifica” led to the development of Atoxyl and Salvarsan. Atoxyl, despite being labeled as a non-toxic arsenic compound, caused significant harm, particularly to the optic nerve, highlighting the risks associated with experimental treatments. Salvarsan, heralded as a revolutionary treatment for syphilis, became known as Ehrlich's "magic bullet." This term described his ideal of a specific treatment that could target and eradicate pathogens without harming the host, reflecting his vision of a therapeutic agent that precisely targeted disease-causing organisms. However, the introduction of Salvarsan sparked ethical debates due to the severe side effects experienced by patients. The drug's efficacy was questionable, and the marketing strategies employed often obscured its dangers.
Despite its shortcomings, Salvarsan became the first systematically developed and specifically acting therapeutic agent in modern medicine, paving the way for the pharmaceutical industry's later development of targeted and really dubious treatments. However, the significant profits generated from these drugs raised suspicions about the motivations behind their promotion, particularly considering the financial ties between Ehrlich and his benefactors.
Image from https://www.slideshare.net/obedcudjoe1/antimicrobialchemotherapy160421081407pptx
One of Ehrlich's most notable contributions to immunology was his side chain theory, developed in the 1890s. This theory posited that cells possess specific "side chains" or receptors that can bind to toxins and antigens. For example, in his studies of tetanus toxin, he proposed that the poison attached to these side chains, impairing cellular function. His groundbreaking notion suggested that when the body encounters a toxin, it could regenerate these side chains, leading to immunity. This concept was foundational for the development of vaccines and immunological treatments. Ehrlich further elaborated on this theory by introducing complex terminology such as "amboceptors" and "complements," which, while innovative, often obscured the practical implications of his work.
Ehrlich's legacy extends beyond his scientific contributions; his relationships with influential banking families like the Speyers reflect a broader pattern of interconnectedness among elite families in the pharmaceutical and public health sectors. Their wealth and influence seemingly were leveraged not just for medical advancement but also for control over health narratives, shaping public perceptions and policies that live on over a hundred years later.
Image from https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/truth-about-chemotherapy/
In contemporary discussions surrounding pharmaceutical ethics, Ehrlich's story serves as a cautionary tale. The motivations of the Speyer family, Cécile Furtado-Heine, and their contemporaries in investing heavily in health research continue to prompt questions about the integrity of “philanthropic” efforts in modern medicine. Are these investments driven by altruism, or do they serve deeper, more manipulative goals tied to wealth and power? The complexities of their relationships illustrate how finance and medicine can intertwine, leading to questions about the ethics of medical advancements that remain relevant today.
In examining Ehrlich's work and the influence of banking families like the Speyer banking family, it becomes evident that the pharmaceutical industry has long been a battleground for ethical dilemmas, where the lines between scientific progress and financial gain are often blurred.
The legacy of these figures underscores the importance of scrutinizing the motivations behind health initiatives and the consequences of allowing financial interests to shape public health discourse.
Ultimately, the intertwined histories of these elite families, their agendas, and their contributions to every aspect of our lives including medicine prompt a critical examination of whether their actions serve the greater good or obscure a more insidious agenda.
Through strategic marriages and frequent changes (like the connection between the Speyers and Warburg amongst many other banking families) in last names, these families are far more interconnected than we might realize, masking the extent of their influence and possible agendas. It’s fascinating—and concerning—how these global elites appear linked in their pursuit of absolute power and control, hinting at a unified vision of dominance. Could their means of achieving this lie in steering our health and well-being? The evidence certainly points in that direction.
Dr. Uğur Şahin and Özlem Türeci’s work with mRNA technology at BioNTech carries on the scientific legacy of Paul Ehrlich and the banking philanthropists of his time, whose early immunotherapy research laid the groundwork for “magic bullet” approaches aimed at precise, targeted disease intervention. Much like Ehrlich’s pioneering treatments, BioNTech’s mRNA vaccines were intended to direct the immune system to recognize and target specific antigens. However, both Ehrlich’s experimental therapies and BioNTech's mRNA treatments have sparked debate over the unforeseen risks and harmful effects these magic bullet interventions can cause.
In recognition of their contributions, Şahin and Türeci were awarded the Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstaedter Prize in 2022, a prestigious accolade honoring groundbreaking research in medicine and immunology. Despite this acclaim, their technologies have increasingly come under scrutiny for proving more harmful than beneficial to innumerable individuals, raising ethical and scientific questions about the drive for rapid advancements in immunological medicine.
Moderna recently surprised investors with a quarterly profit, supported by deferred revenue and cost reductions, despite decreased sales of its COVID vaccine, its primary product. The company, alongside other COVID vaccine manufacturers, fa…
Up until the “coincidental” timing of the COVID-19 pandemic, BioNTech was reportedly focused exclusively on using mRNA technology for cancer research. This shift aligns intriguingly with Bill Gates’ frequent predictions of an impending global pandemic, which he mentioned in TED Talks, interviews, and particularly in Event 201—a scenario-planning event that simulated such an outbreak.
Early research revealed that mRNA posed significant dangers, as it could rapidly degrade in the body before delivering its genetic instructions, leading to unpredictable and potentially harmful responses. Despite efforts to encapsulate mRNA in lipid nanoparticles to improve its delivery into cells, the technology raised alarms about its safety profile and potential toxicity.
In 1976, Robert Langer and Judah Folkman pioneered the utilization of nano- and microparticles for encapsulating nucleic acids like DNA and RNA, suggesting the potential use of DNA or RNA as a therapeutic. Expanding on this discovery, they introduced liposomes two years later to deliver mRNA to lymphocytes.
While Şahin and Türeci’s work focused on mRNA cancer therapeutics in BioNTech’s early years, the military’s growing interest in mRNA technology coincided with BioNTech’s and Moderna’s expansion. DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, had been funding mRNA research for more than a decade (but there is no real way of knowing when this research truly began). DARPA’s interest in mRNA supposedly stemmed from its potential in pandemic preparedness and biodefense, particularly due to mRNA’s adaptability, allowing rapid response to emerging biological threats.
BioNTech’s mRNA expertise and the ready infrastructure developed by DARPA-funded projects paved the way for BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine to move from the lab to distribution at unprecedented speed.
These partnerships were strategic, aligning BioNTech with global interests in pandemic preparedness.
In 2020, when Operation Warp Speed directed billions of dollars into vaccine development, Pfizer received substantial funding for its collaboration with BioNTech, making the U.S. government a crucial player in BioNTech’s rapid ascent.
Event 201: A Pandemic Simulation and BioNTech’s Preparedness
In October 2019, only a few months before COVID-19 began spreading globally, Johns Hopkins University hosted Event 201, a pandemic simulation focusing on a hypothetical coronavirus outbreak. Co-sponsored by the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the simulation gathered experts from public health, government, and pharmaceutical industries to discuss how the world could respond to a viral pandemic. Participants explored scenarios including vaccine distribution, government response, and public messaging strategies.
The world has seen a growing number of epidemic events, amounting to about 200 per year
Pandemics could cause average annual economic losses of 0.7% of global GDP
Event 201 exercise will bring together public and private leaders to inform multistakeholder cooperation for pandemic preparedness and response
Follow the live virtual exercise from 08.50 - 12.30 EDT here
Geneva, Switzerland, 15 October 2019 – The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will host Event 201: a high-level simulation exercise for pandemic preparedness and response, in New York, USA, on Friday 18 October, 08.45 - 12.30 EDT.
The exercise will bring together business, government, security and public health leaders to address a hypothetical global pandemic scenario. It will also feature a live virtual experience from 08.50 – 12.30 EDT to engage stakeholders worldwide and members of the public in a meaningful conversation of difficult high-level policy choices that could arise in the midst of a severe pandemic.
The world has seen a growing number of epidemics in recent years, with about 200 events annually including Ebola, Zika, MERS and SARS. At the same time, collective vulnerability to the social and economic impacts of infectious disease crises appears to be increasing. Experts suggest there is a growing likelihood of one of these events becoming a global threat – or an “event 201” pandemic – that would pose disruptions to health and society and cause average annual economic losses of 0.7% global GDP, similar in scale to climate change.
"We are in a new era of epidemic risk, where essential public-private cooperation remains challenged, despite being necessary to mitigate risk and impact” said Arnaud Bernaert, Head of Shaping the Future of Health and Health Care, World Economic Forum. “Now is the time to scale up cooperation between national governments, key international institutions and critical industries, to enhance global capacity for preparedness and response.”
The International Health Regulations (IHR) that unite 196 countries across the globe in a legal commitment to prevent and respond to acute public health risks, prioritize both minimizing public health risks and avoiding unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade. Minimizing the economic impact of epidemics also represents an opportunity to build core capacities to prevent, detect, and respond to outbreaks generally.
"We live in an increasingly interconnected world, and we must help all UN member states align with the International Health Regulations and be prepared to prevent, detect, and respond to acute outbreaks,” said Chris Elias, President of Global Development at the Gates Foundation. “If we fail to do so, the world will be unprepared for the next pandemic."
"In this new era of extreme pandemic threat, public-private cooperation is essential for an effective response,” said Tom Inglesby, Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “While governments and public health systems are already strained due to the increase in dangerous outbreaks, experts agree that a severe, fast-spreading human-to-human pandemic incident could happen at any time. We believe this well-crafted and thorough realistic tabletop exercise will provide leaders with a deeper understanding of the impact of epidemics on their communities and inspire them to take important steps to advance prevention and response.”
The participants in the live simulation represent a range of backgrounds and industries and include:
Latoya Abbott, Risk Management/Global Senior Director Occupational Health Services, Marriott International
Stan Bergman, Chairman and CEO, Henry Schein
Sofia Borges, Senior Vice President, UN Foundation
Chris Elias, President, Global Development division, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Tim Evans, Former Senior Director of Health, World Bank Group
George Gao, Director-General, Chinese Center for Disease Control
Avril Haines, Former Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency; Former Deputy National Security Advisor
Jane Halton, Board member, ANZ Bank; Former Secretary of Finance and Former Secretary of Health, Australia
Matthew Harrington, Global President and Chief Operations Officer, Edelman
Chikwe Ihekweazu, Director General, Nigeria Centre for Disease Control
Martin Knuchel, Head of Crisis, Emergency and Business Continuity Management, Lufthansa Group Airlines
Eduardo Martinez, President, The UPS Foundation
Stephen Redd, Deputy Director for Public Health Service and Implementation Science, US CDC
Paul Stoffels, M.D., Vice Chair of the Executive Committee and Chief Scientific Officer, Johnson & Johnson
Hasti Taghi, Vice President and Executive Advisor, NBCUniversal Media
Lavan Thiru, Chief Representative, Monetary Authority of Singapore
Similar high-level pandemic exercises designed to address difficult policy issues have included: Dark Winter, examining the challenges of a biological attack on the US; Atlantic Storm, asking NATO leaders to respond collaboratively to a bioterrorist attack: and most recently, Clade X, calling on US government leaders to make difficult national security and public health decisions in the face of a rapidly evolving global crisis.
In addition, Bill Gates co-chaired a simulation at the Forum’s Annual Meeting 2017, resulting in the creation of the Epidemics Readiness Accelerator, a public-private platform to address effective readiness in issues including travel and tourism, supply chain and logistics, legal and regulatory, communications and data innovations.
Notes to editors
Learn more about the exercise here and follow the exercise at #Event201 and @JHSPH_CHS, @wef and @gatesfoundation
Join the live virtual experience and register at http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/
Learn more about the Forum’s Epidemics Readiness Accelerator here
Read the Forum’s report “Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact” here
Read about the Transformation of Biological Risk in the Forum’s 2019 Global Risk Report here
The World Economic Forum, committed to improving the state of the world, is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.
Though BioNTech wasn’t directly publicly involved, Event 201 emphasizes how the global health community, including pharmaceutical and governmental institutions, had long been preparing for a coronavirus pandemic. As COVID-19 took hold, much of what was simulated during Event 201 seemed to play out in reality, with unprecedented vaccine funding, regulatory fast-tracking, and an aggressive push to inoculate the global population.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (the “Foundation”) and BioNTech SE (the “Company”), a biopharmaceutical company, entered into this Strategic Relationship Letter Agreement in August 2019 in connection with the Foundation’s USD $55 million investment (the “Foundation Investment“), which was made for the purpose of inducing BioNTech to perform certain Global Access Commitments.
The Global Access Commitments require BioNtech to fulfill two statements of work related to HIV and TB products (the “Initial HIV SOW” and the “Initial TB SOW”), as well as undertaking up to three Additional Projects using BioNTech’s Platform Technology upon the Foundation’s request. Any agreements for further work on any Project beyond an initial SOW will include a manufacturing, commercialization and distribution plan for a list of Developing Countries (included as Appendix A to the Agreement) that is consistent with the relevant target product profile (“TPP”). Any product produced under a Project will be made available in Developing Countries at or below the price set out in the applicable TPP (provided that the price is not lower than Fully Loaded Costs), and in the quantities agreed between BioNTech and the Foundation in an SOW.
The Global Access Commitments also include the grant of a Global Health License from BioNTech to the Foundation. The license allows the Foundation to use Funded Developments and the BioNTech Platform Technology to make and sell products for the benefit of Developing Country populations, however it may only be exercised of BioNTech breaches certain obligations under the Letter Agreement (including the Global Access Commitments), or enters into bankruptcy proceedings.
This "coincidence" was especially uncanny given Gates’s repeated predictions about an upcoming pandemic, conveniently matching the exact course of events. With BioNTech ready and mRNA technology teed up, the scene was set for rapid vaccine rollout, yet few seem to question this setup. The lack of investigation is as surprising as the timing itself. BioNTech’s early start on its COVID-19 vaccine, claiming to begin development as early as January 2020, aligned almost too conveniently with this pre-existing pandemic response infrastructure.
BioNTech began work on the vaccine in January (2020), after Dr. Sahin read an article in the medical journal The Lancet that left him convinced that the coronavirus, at the time spreading quickly in parts of China, would explode into a full-blown pandemic. Scientists at the company, based in Mainz, Germany, canceled vacations and set to work on what they called Project Lightspeed. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/business/biontech-covid-vaccine.html
The Paul Ehrlich Institute and BioNTech’s Fast-Tracked Approvals
The Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) played a pivotal role in fast-tracking BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine. Given PEI’s authority to approve vaccines in Germany, the institute was instrumental in granting BioNTech rapid regulatory clearance, which helped build global confidence in the vaccine’s safety and efficacy. PEI’s head, Dr. Klaus Cichutek, has extensive ties within the pharmaceutical industry, further solidifying the institute’s role as a regulatory ally for BioNTech. The close relationship between PEI and BioNTech raises questions about regulatory independence, especially given BioNTech’s significant profits from vaccine sales and the Strüngmann brothers’ influential role in German industry.
Financial Explosion: BioNTech’s Profits and Lack of Transparency
In January 2020, BioNTech’s market cap was under $5 billion. By 2021, BioNTech’s valuation soared to over $25 billion, a surge driven by global demand for its COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Uğur Şahin and Dr. Tureci’s wealth skyrocketed to over $5 billion, making them some of Germany’s wealthiest people. Despite this exponential wealth increase, BioNTech’s financial details, including its profit-sharing with Pfizer and its contracts with governments worldwide, remain largely confidential.
The Impact of mRNA Vaccines on Cancer and Emerging “Turbo Cancers”
The intersection of BioNTech’s rapid vaccine development and its historical work in cancer research raises unsettling questions. Some medical professionals and researchers are exploring potential links between the immune response triggered by mRNA vaccines and the rapid growth of certain tumors, although much more research is necessary in this area. Reports of “turbo cancers”—tumors developing at alarming speeds—have circulated within medical circles and among the vaccinated population, fueling speculation about long-term impacts.
This overlap in cancer research and mRNA vaccine development presents an alarming narrative. As BioNTech and Moderna pushed their mRNA vaccines into the public sphere, reports of turbo cancers began emerging, leading to speculation about long-term impacts on vaccinated populations. The urgency of the pandemic response may have overshadowed thorough scrutiny of the potential implications of rapidly deployed mRNA technology. No need to worry – mRNA-based cancer vaccines they've been developing for years are conveniently set to hit the market, timed to combat cancers that are arising, quite ironically, following the use of earlier mRNA vaccines. Was this the magic bullet Ehrlich had in mind?
Image from https://blogs.stjude.org/progress/new-chemotherapies-changes-approach-to-cancer-treatment/
In 2015, Şahin explored the development of personalized mRNA vaccines for cancer treatment. However, regulatory hurdles prevented these companies from obtaining the necessary approvals for their vaccines.
Now, in the wake of the pandemic, mRNA therapeutics related to this technology are swiftly progressing through the pipelines of various pharmaceutical companies, such as BioNTech and Moderna, which previously struggled to gain approval for these products. This shift is certainly noteworthy!
TRON (Translational Research in Oncology) appears to have been founded in 2010 as an offshoot of BioNTech. Curiously, BioNTech was already involved in similar work, so the motivation for establishing this additional entity raises questions. Given that TRON operates as a private, non-profit limited liability company, finding detailed information about its activities has proven challenging, if not impossible. Quite intriguing!
While limited information about TRON has been publicly released, the company seems to have been established to deepen BioNTech’s pursuit of personalized cancer therapies, focusing heavily on mRNA technology. But who funded this work, and which entities were partnered in these efforts? Given the recent pandemic and the rapid, unprecedented approvals of the mRNA technology developed during this period, shouldn't transparency be paramount? If these influential players are indeed connected to such major decisions in global health, this raises serious ethical questions: are they involved in what could be one of the most consequential events of modern times?
When exploring TRON’s role in advancing BioNTech’s mRNA technology (and BioNTech partnering with Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies on this technology prior to the pandemic), it’s evident that TRON was established against a backdrop of earlier mRNA initiatives.
These connected companies were already pioneering mRNA therapies specifically for cancer related issues before the pandemic, particularly through the SUMMIT (Suppression of Malignant Tumors by mRNA Immunotherapy) project launched in somewhere between 2012-2015, which focused on personalized cancer vaccines based on unique cancer antigens. The MERIT (mRNA Epitope Therapy for Immuno-Oncology) project, whose timeline is also a bit unclear) aimed to enhance T-cell therapies and investigate synergies with mRNA vaccines.
Despite the groundbreaking work in SUMMIT and MERIT, the conflicting information available about these projects and TRON's specific contributions raises alarming red flags. This veil of secrecy is particularly troubling given the immense public interest in mRNA technology. The lack of transparency around funding sources and project specifics begs the question of what ulterior motives might be at play. Understanding these dynamics could unveil the unsettling connections between foundational research and the rapid mRNA advancements seen during the pandemic, suggesting a manipulation of public health strategies for hidden agendas.
Toxicity Concerns
Prior to the pandemic, mRNA technology faced significant challenges, particularly in demonstrating its safety and efficacy for use in vaccines. Although research into mRNA began in the late 20th century, early attempts were met with toxicity concerns and stability issues, hindering progress in clinical applications. Unmodified mRNA was known to provoke strong immune responses, leading to potential toxic effects. Researchers struggled to create formulations that were both effective and safe, which created skepticism around mRNA technologies.
SAN FRANCISCO — Moderna Therapeutics, the most highly valued private company in biotech, has run into troubling safety problems with its most ambitious therapy, STAT has learned — and is now banking on a mysterious new technology to keep afloat its brash promise of reinventing modern medicine.
Exactly one year ago, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel talked up his company’s “unbelievable” future before a standing-room-only crowd at the annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference here. He promised that Moderna’s treatment for a rare and debilitating disease known as Crigler-Najjar syndrome, developed alongside biotech giant Alexion Pharmaceuticals, would enter human trials in 2016.
It was to be the first therapy using audacious new technology that Bancel promised would yield dozens of drugs in the coming decade.
But the Crigler-Najjar treatment has been indefinitely delayed, an Alexion spokeswoman told STAT. It never proved safe enough to test in humans, according to several former Moderna employees and collaborators who worked closely on the project. Unable to press forward with that technology, Moderna has had to focus instead on developing a handful of vaccines, turning to a less lucrative field that might not justify the company’s nearly $5 billion valuation.
“It’s all vaccines right now, and vaccines are a loss-leader,” said one former Moderna manager. “Moderna right now is a multibillion-dollar vaccines company, and I don’t see how that holds up.”
Bancel made no mention of the Crigler-Najjar drug when he spoke Monday before a similarly packed room at this year’s J.P. Morgan conference.
His presentation instead focused on four vaccines that the company is moving through the first phase of clinical trials: two target strains of influenza, a third is for Zika virus, and the fourth remains a secret. Bancel clicked through graphs of data from animal studies before hurrying on to tout Moderna’s balance sheet and discuss the company’s cancer vaccines, slated for clinical testing later this year.
When STAT asked Bancel after the presentation about Crigler-Najjar, he deferred to Alexion.
In need of a Hail Mary
Founded in 2012, Moderna reached unicorn status — a $1 billion valuation — in just two years, faster than Uber, Dropbox, and Lyft, according to CB Insights. The company’s premise: Using custom-built strands of messenger RNA, known as mRNA, it aims to turn the body’s cells into ad hoc drug factories, compelling them to produce the proteins needed to treat a wide variety of diseases.
But mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects.
Bancel has repeatedly promised that Moderna’s new therapies will change the world, but the company has refused to publish any data on its mRNA vehicles, sparking skepticism from some scientists and a chiding from the editors of Nature.
The indefinite delay on the Crigler-Najjar project signals persistent and troubling safety concerns for any mRNA treatment that needs to be delivered in multiple doses, covering almost everything that isn’t a vaccine, former employees and collaborators said.
The company did disclose a new technology on Monday that it says will more safely deliver mRNA. It’s called V1GL. Last month, Bancel told Forbes about another new technology, N1GL.
But in neither case has the company provided any details. And that lack of specificity has inevitably raised questions.
Three former employees and collaborators close to the process said Moderna was always toiling away on new delivery technologies in hopes of hitting on something safer than what it had. (Even Bancel has acknowledged, in an interview with Forbes, that the delivery method used in Moderna’s first vaccines “was not very good.”)
Are N1GL and V1GL better? The company has produced no data to answer that question. When STAT asked about new technologies, Bancel referred questions to the company’s patent filings.
The three former employees and collaborators said they believe N1GL and V1GL are either very recent discoveries, just in the earliest stages of testing — or else new names slapped on technologies Moderna has owned for years.
“[The technology] would have to be a miraculous, Hail Mary sort of save for them to get to where they need to be on their timelines,” one former employee said. “Either [Bancel] is extremely confident that it’s going to work, or he’s getting kind of jittery that with a lack of progress he needs to put something out there.”
Former employees and collaborators who spoke with STAT requested anonymity because they had signed nondisclosure agreements — which the highly secretive Moderna requires even some job candidates to sign.
A STAT investigation last year found that Bancel had driven away top talent from Moderna with a culture of recrimination and a caustic work environment, including on-the-spot firings for failed experiments.
The company, based in Cambridge, Mass., seems to have repaired its reputation among many rank-and-file employees, winning workplace accolades from Science Magazine and the Boston Globe, but Moderna has lost more than a dozen top scientists and managers in the past four years, despite its vast financial resources.
Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel in the company’s headquarters in Cambridge, Mass.Aram Boghosian for STAT
A bug in the software
Bancel, a first-time biotech CEO, has dismissed questions about Moderna’s potential. He describes mRNA as a simple way to develop treatments for scores of ailments. As he told STAT over the summer, “mRNA is like software: You can just turn the crank and get a lot of products going into development.”
It seems clear, however, that the software has run into bugs.
Patients with Crigler-Najjar are missing a key liver enzyme needed to break down bilirubin, a yellowish substance that crops up in the body as old red blood cells break down. Without that enzyme, bilirubin proliferates in the blood, leading to jaundice, muscle degeneration, and even brain damage.
In Moderna’s eyes, the one-in-million disease looked like an ideal candidate for mRNA therapy. The company crafted a string of mRNA that would encode for the missing enzyme, believing it had hit upon an excellent starting point to prove technology could be used to treat rare diseases.
But things gradually came apart last year.
Every drug has what’s called a therapeutic window, the scientific sweet spot where a treatment is powerful enough to have an effect on a disease but not so strong as to put patients at too much risk. For mRNA, that has proved elusive.
In order to protect mRNA molecules from the body’s natural defenses, drug developers must wrap them in a protective casing. For Moderna, that meant putting its Crigler-Najjar therapy in nanoparticles made of lipids. And for its chemists, those nanoparticles created a daunting challenge: Dose too little, and you don’t get enough enzyme to affect the disease; dose too much, and the drug is too toxic for patients.
From the start, Moderna’s scientists knew that using mRNA to spur protein production would be a tough task, so they scoured the medical literature for diseases that might be treated with just small amounts of additional protein.
“And that list of diseases is very, very short,” said the former employee who described Bancel as needing a Hail Mary.
Crigler-Najjar was the lowest-hanging fruit.
Yet Moderna could not make its therapy work, former employees and collaborators said. The safe dose was too weak, and repeat injections of a dose strong enough to be effective had troubling effects on the liver in animal studies.
The drug, ALXN1540, has since been delayed, as Moderna works on “new and better formulations” that might later reach human trials, Alexion said in an emailed statement.
A huge valuation but a modest pipeline
The failure in its first and most advanced therapy casts doubt on Moderna’s other goals for the rare disease space.
It also calls into question Moderna’s valuation, pegged at $4.7 billion by Pitchbook. The company has raised nearly $2 billion in cash from investors and partners. But it has done so by promising a revolutionary technology safe enough to deliver repeated doses of mRNA.
The drugs it is pushing along now, by contrast, are more modest, relying on single administrations of mRNA. Beyond the four vaccines, it has one early-stage clinical trial targeting cardiac disease, launched just last month by partner AstraZeneca. The treatment involves a one-time dose and doesn’t use the tricky nanoparticle casing.
Vaccines are not nearly as lucrative as the rare disease space that Moderna hoped to dominate. The market is also much more crowded; at least seven Zika vaccines, for instance, are either in clinical testing or are expected to enter testing by next fall.
Moderna has about $1.3 billion in cash on hand, according to Bancel. But with plans to spend more than $300 million a year investing in its technology, it will need to raise more money eventually. The most logical step would be to go public, and last year Moderna reorganized its business to prepare for an initial public offering.
But at its current valuation, Moderna’s IPO would be the biggest in biotech history, leaving some investors scratching their heads as to how the company’s vaccine-heavy pipeline could justify such a number. If Moderna chooses to stay private, it’s unclear whether it can raise more cash without resorting to a dreaded down round, in which new shares are sold at a price below the last ones.
Until Moderna demonstrates that its technology can safely treat a disease, those questions will be tough to answer.
“My friends ask if they are like Theranos, and I say no; I think it’s a real idea,” one former Moderna collaborator said. “The question is how well does it work.”
Bancel isn’t providing the data that could answer that. But he projects unbounded confidence.
“I’m sure that five years from now we’ll look at 2017 as the inflection point that Moderna went for a liftoff,” he said at Monday’s presentation. “We have a chance to transform medicine, and we won’t quit until we are done and we have impacted patients.”
Accelerated Development During COVID-19
The urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic allowed companies like BioNTech and Moderna to fast-track their mRNA research and development efforts. Regulatory agencies, particularly the FDA, adopted expedited approval processes, such as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), which lowered some of the barriers previously hindering mRNA vaccine development. Can this technology or our regulatory agencies really be trusted?
Could mRNA Have Been Approved Without the Pandemic?
It is unlikely that mRNA vaccines would have gained regulatory approval without the pandemic's unique context. Prior to COVID-19, mRNA technology had not been widely demonstrated for infectious disease prevention, and its safety profile was under scrutiny. The global demand for a COVID-19 vaccine, coupled with a supportive regulatory environment, was crucial in allowing mRNA vaccines to receive emergency authorization and later full approval. And now it is…
The rapid development and deployment of mRNA vaccines have raised concerns about safety, transparency, accountability, pricing strategies and profit-sharing in contracts with governments and public-private partnerships worldwide. BioNTech’s partnerships with various governments, including significant contracts with the U.S. for COVID-19 vaccine distribution, have led to questions about the ethical implications of its research and financial practices.
Navigating Innovation and Ethical Dilemmas in mRNA Technology
BioNTech's TRON subsidiary represents the company's ambition to harness mRNA technology for cancer therapies while navigating complex ethical considerations and government contracts. The rapid advancement of mRNA technology during the pandemic has fundamentally shifted public perception, fostering trust in a technology that previously faced skepticism. As BioNTech and TRON continue to evolve, their ongoing projects in oncology and the implications of their financial and regulatory practices will warrant careful examination by policymakers, healthcare professionals, and the public. And quite frankly all of it seems as shady AF!
A Story of Strategic Advantage and Unchecked Influence
The saga of BioNTech, Dr. Sahin, and Dr. Tureci reveals a complex interplay of scientific innovation, strategic partnerships, and unprecedented financial gain—all set against the backdrop of a global pandemic. While their work has undoubtedly contributed to public health, the rapid ascent of BioNTech raises critical questions about accountability, transparency, and the ethical implications of mRNA vaccine technology.
In an environment where military interests, pharmaceutical partnerships, and public-private “health efforts” converge, the narrative of BioNTech serves as a cautionary tale. As the world moves forward, the lack of scrutiny surrounding BioNTech’s financial practices, its partnerships, and its regulatory approvals remains a topic deserving of deeper investigation. Whether the meteoric rise of BioNTech is celebrated as a triumph of science or critiqued as a reflection of unchecked corporate and global power with seemingly nefarious agendas depends largely on the narratives we choose to embrace in our understanding of “modern medicine” and its “complexities”.
Just as the definition of vaccines has recently been altered, it's clear that the terms "public health" and "philanthropy" are in dire need of a complete redefinition—one that likely wouldn't reflect anything positive. This overhaul is essential to address the discrepancies and questionable practices that currently permeate these concepts.
I am completely grossed out by all of these fcks.
The things that money/power over Others that psychopaths are spurred to...
Money Motivates the Most Marvelous Manifestations! (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/money-motivates-the-most-marvelous
Why Does Money Promote Psychopaths? (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/why-does-money-promote-psychopaths
Social Currency (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/social-currency