Posted on 03/16/2022 9:43:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Evidence has come to light strongly indicating that the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines are not really "vaccines" in the medical and legal sense of the word, but rather "experimental gene therapies." If proven true, the significance and legal ramifications of this allegation are profound.
This article summarizes a presentation by Dr. David Martin, a national intelligence analyst and founder of IQ100 Index, a developer of linguistic genomics, and molecular biologist Dr. Judy Mikovits.
In the presentation, Dr. Martin states, "You cannot have a vaccine that doesn't claim to result in either immunity or blocking transmission." He goes on to say, "By their own patents and reference material, neither Pfizer nor Moderna claims this. Rather, they only classify their products as 'gene therapy.'"
Dr. Martin states the Moderna and Pfizer products "do not prevent you from getting the COVID-19 infection, nor do they prevent its spread. They are really experimental gene therapies — unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you're trying to prevent, the Moderna and Pfizer injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nanolipid carrier compound, the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus."
If indeed Moderna and Pfizer corporations are misrepresenting their experimental gene therapies as bona fide vaccines, Dr. Martin states that "the legal ramifications of this deception are immense — from a legal view, both Moderna and Pfizer qualify as using illegal deceptive practices by making medical claims without clinic trial proof of immunity and transmission blocking. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S. Code, Section 41, outlaws such deceptive practices."
During the presentation, various entities and individuals were identified as supporters of the above alleged deception,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
From the article:
Why call an experimental gene therapy product a “vaccine”? Dr. Martin believes that there are two basic reasons:
1) to circumvent liability for damages, and
2) if the products were called gene therapy or a similar label, most people would wisely refuse to use them.
It’s heartening that this stuff is getting wider distribution on mainstream platforms, but nothing will come of it.
“IF”? Only by the revised definition.
Chilling.
The has got to be the greatest hoax of the millennium.
The boy is slow, but he do seem to be catching on.
Welcome to January 2021, again...
Good to check dates on source articles before posting.
They ain’t...................
“both Moderna and Pfizer qualify as using illegal deceptive practices by making medical claims without clinic trial proof of immunity and transmission blocking”
Well, that would probably be true, IF the CDC and FDA did not collude with them to alter the definition of the word “vaccine” in their own regulations in order to negate this claim.
Haven’t you heard? They are “highly effective.”
Here is the original source of this...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/AuvhMTMoby41/
““IF”? Only by the revised definition.”
You are correct. They could have changed the definition of “vaccine” to include a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Then we could call a peanut and butter sandwich a vaccine.
No GMO anything, anywhere, any time. Except people
Old news, but at least it’s starting to break through the wall of deceit.
Umm... they CHANGED the definition of “vaccine” so they could call it a “vaccine”
That should be all the proof anyone needs.
What it really should be categorized as is a man-made synthetic virus.
"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."
There is a lot coming out about the clues left for the everyday person to see what the globalist elites have planned for us mongrels (Klaus Schwab)...
Open your minds. The truth is out there to realize, if you are able to accept it...
Ever. Nothing truly global in scope before.
The original source for reverse transcription of “vaccine” RNA to DNA I think was from Harvard or one of the Ivy League schools. At first people were skeptical but the study has been replicated at least two or three times. So yes it likely becomes incorporated into cellular genomes.
But the liability limit is based on a law passed by Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.