Found this (German) article and let DeepL translate it. Original link: https://www.tichyseinblick.de/meinungen/mechanismus-moderna-myokarditis-entschluesselt
Translation: Mechanism of modRNA myocarditis decoded Tuesday, December 23, 2025
Four years after the modRNA field trial, the official narrative is crumbling. A new Stanford study explains the mechanism of vaccine myocarditis for the first time and reveals why young men are particularly affected. A scientific finding with political explosiveness. By Lothar Krimmel
Four years ago, a global field trial began in which modRNA injections were tested as “COVID vaccinations” on several billion people. While those responsible claim that several million people have been saved as a result, critics claim that several million people have died as a result.
Both camps base their arguments on assumptions that are difficult to verify retrospectively. But the extreme and still unexplained excess mortality of 100,000 people in Germany in 2023, the first year after the pandemic, seems to prove the skeptics right.
Be that as it may, the renowned Stanford University on the US West Coast has just investigating the mechanism that leads to heart muscle inflammation (myocarditis) after an mRNA injection.
It had already become clear in 2021 that this side effect must be a very specific mechanism that is not comparable to the known courses of infectious heart muscle inflammation. This is because it mainly affects men under the age of 30, and the symptoms, which include chest pain, shortness of breath, fever, and palpitations, most commonly occur two to three days after the second mRNA injection.
Cytokines from macrophages and T cells
Using complex experimental models, the team at the identified two proteins from the cytokine class, CXCL10 and IFN-gamma, which are responsible for triggering modRNA myocarditis. These cytokines are signaling molecules secreted by immune cells to communicate with each other. CXCL10 (C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10) is produced by macrophages and INF-gamma (interferon-gamma) by T cells.
As the “frontline fighters” of the immune system, macrophages, like the so-called neutrophils among white blood cells, are directly responsible for the damage to heart muscle cells following modRNA injection, based on their communication via these two cytokines. It is likely that the injection of modRNA triggers an overproduction of the two signaling substances, causing them to attack the heart muscle tissue in a kind of “friendly fire.”
There are indications that this destruction is not limited to the heart. Similar processes have also been observed in the lungs, liver, and kidneys following modRNA injections. The Stanford researchers conclude that organ damage caused by increased IFN-gamma signaling is a class effect of modRNA substances, since IFN-gamma signaling is a fundamental defense mechanism against exogenous DNA and RNA molecules, including viral nucleic acids.
Tofu against heart muscle inflammation?
However, the Stanford team did not stop at elucidating the mechanism of heart muscle damage. The surprising concentration of this side effect in young men led to the assumption that estrogens offer natural protection against the cytokine-driven “freak-out” of the immune system.
And indeed, genistein, a substance derived from soybeans that is similar to human estrogen and is already known to be anti-inflammatory, was able to significantly mitigate these harmful effects in various experimental settings.
What does this mean? Should you eat plenty of tofu if you have been exposed to an mRNA injection? At least so far, no cases of tofu overdose have been reported worldwide.
But in fact, commercially available genistein could offer some protection against side effects if more therapeutic mRNA products are approved for cancer treatment in the future. In this field, the use of these substances is much less controversial anyway. This is because cancer patients decide on modRNA therapy according to completely different criteria than healthy people who are pressured by the government to accept a “vaccination offer.”
Risk assessment between “vaccination” and “non-vaccination”
The Stanford study also stands out in that it literally apologizes for daring to investigate the causes of side effects. The fact that a government recommendation, which—at least in Germany—was officially declared to be “free of side effects,” is said to have numerous serious side effects has also been dismissed in this country as a “right-wing conspiracy theory.” Research into the causes of side effects that are not supposed to exist was thus a “delegitimization of the state” and made the researcher an enemy of the constitution.
That is why the Stanford scientists were quick to sing the praises of the “COVID vaccination” when presenting their study and to compare the risk of myocarditis from the mRNA injection with the risk of myocarditis from COVID disease, which is “about 10 times higher.”
The crucial flaw in such comparisons lies in overlooking a simple but extremely important fact: the “vaccinated” person irrevocably exposes themselves to the risk of myocarditis through this vaccination, while the “unvaccinated” person is highly unlikely to become infected at all, meaning they do not even enter the circle of infected people who are exposed to this risk.
And this distinction was highly significant during the coronavirus years. In 2021, for example, the first “vaccination year,” there were 5.4 million documented COVID-19 cases, while around 50 million of the more than 80 million inhabitants were treated with mRNA at least once. This means that 50 million people were exposed to the risk of mRNA myocarditis, compared to just over 5 million who were exposed to the risk of COVID myocarditis.
These figures are of utmost importance for individual decisions. This is because the risk of a young man being one of the 60 in a million who develop potentially fatal myocarditis after a modRNA injection is offset by two relatively high probabilities: first, even without “vaccination,” he is unlikely to be among the approximately 10 percent who fall ill in the first place, and second, as a young person, he is likely to recover from the disease without any lasting damage.
In addition, the aspect of a lifelong increased risk of fatal cardiac events is not reflected at all in such figures. This is because, especially for previously healthy children's hearts, the modRNA injection, which makes no sense from a preventive medicine perspective, poses a sometimes lifelong risk of heart failure, cardiomyopathy, arrhythmias, and sudden cardiac death.
Compulsory tolerance of modRNA injections was a crime against the state
Incidentally, with regard to heart muscle inflammation following modRNA injections, a high number of unreported cases can be assumed, especially among healthy young men, so that a stated risk of 60 to 1 million is likely to significantly underestimate the actual cardiac risk potential of modRNA injections.
This latter aspect is particularly significant for the political and ethical assessment of the state-imposed “obligation to tolerate” modRNA injections for soldiers and reservists of the German Armed Forces. The fact that the section of the population most at risk of cardiac side effects was forcibly exposed to this risk as a “reward” for defending the country is and remains a unique political scandal.
And the fact that this immoral coercion was also approved by the Federal Administrative Court, even though the initially claimed protection against transmission had proven to be false information deliberately spread by the state and state-affiliated media, also makes this a legal scandal. It is both telling and shameful that only one of the parties represented in the Bundestag has advocated for the soldiers' right to physical integrity and for the rehabilitation of the “vaccine refusers.”
Dr. Lothar Krimmel, a specialist in general medicine, was managing director of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians from 1992 to 2000 and is therefore an expert on the medical sector.
(post is archived)