Written on 21 April 2025.

European Stonewalling of Scientists: The Case of the mRNA Vaccine Documents

In a revealing and troubling case, five university professors—experts in chemistry and physics—have spent over three years attempting to acquire basic information regarding the quality control of the mRNA vaccines used throughout the European Union. Their inquiry, submitted under the EU's own Freedom of Information laws (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz, IFG), has been met with extraordinary resistance. The situation lays bare the degree to which public institutions in Europe are unwilling to provide transparency, even when it concerns substances injected into millions of citizens.

Scientists Seeking Clarity

Since February 2022, Professors J"org Matysik (University of Leipzig), Gerald Dyker (Ruhr-University Bochum), Andreas Schnepf (University of T"ubingen), Tobias Unruh (FAU Erlangen-N"urnberg), and Martin Winkler (Z"urcher Hochschule der angewandten Wissenschaften) have been requesting specific documentation from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Germany’s Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI).

Their goal has been to assess how thoroughly the new mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines—particularly BioNTech/Pfizer’s Comirnaty—were evaluated. They focused on analytical techniques used to measure quality, the allowed manufacturing tolerances, and information concerning contaminants like DNA.

The Bureaucratic Wall

Though IFG laws require authorities to provide requested documentation within two years, these scientists were only given access after more than three years—and even then, the documents were so heavily redacted as to be useless. The researchers report that the key data—tolerance thresholds, test methodologies, and specific chemical identifiers—was blacked out under the pretense of protecting "trade secrets."

"We know that the amount of active mRNA can vary by a factor of 4—that is, up to 400%—and the pH range permitted spans a full unit, representing a tenfold change in hydrogen ion concentration."

They further observed that leaked documents—already circulating online—include some of the very information that European regulators continue to suppress. This casts doubt on whether redactions are truly about industrial secrecy, or whether authorities are shielding themselves from scrutiny.

Limited and Outdated Testing

The Paul-Ehrlich-Institut reportedly performs only four tests:

A subjective color check by the human eye.
A pH test with a wide acceptable range.
A test on mRNA strand length, which passes if only half the strands are correct.
A partial identity test for mRNA, using short sequences.

They do not test for DNA contamination themselves but rely solely on manufacturer claims—an approach that the professors argue is scientifically unsound.

Next-generation sequencing, a modern tool already available at the PEI, is not used. The reason given: it is "too sensitive."

Misguided Redactions and Misunderstandings

The authors report strange inconsistencies. In some cases, benign substances like sodium sulfate are redacted, while EDTA—an agent with known biological activity—is left unredacted. The criteria behind these decisions remain unexplained.

Equally concerning, the EMA cited sections of the European Pharmacopoeia that pertain to irrelevant topics (e.g., the softening point of suppositories) when responding to questions about the optical behavior of lipid nanoparticles.

Trust Undermined

After years of effort, the scientists still do not have clear answers. The core question they raise is simple: If the quality controls and tolerances are scientifically sound, why not disclose them? The refusal to provide data seems to confirm fears that the regulatory process may be more performative than robust.

"If this is how authorities treat credentialed chemists asking polite, science-based questions—what chance does the average citizen have?"

A System Protecting Itself

This case reveals a troubling aspect of European regulatory culture: the default stance is not openness but obstruction. Bureaucracies claim to protect public health, yet behave as if they are guarding the pharmaceutical industry from public scrutiny. The IFG, once viewed as a democratic tool for transparency, is revealed to be a paper tiger—technically in place, but practically defanged.

As the authors put it, even basic questions about product consistency, ingredient tolerances, and contaminant levels are met with silence, delay, or redactions. Trust in medicine cannot be sustained by secrecy. It requires transparency.