When the president of Bayer's Pharmaceuticals division publicly admits MRNA is NOT a vaccine, what "doctor" would continue to insist that it is?
Stefan Oelrich, the president of Bayer’s pharmaceuticals division, admitted to international “experts” during a recent globalist health conference that both of the mRNA (messenger RNA) “vaccines” from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are not vaccines at all, but rather “cell and gene therapy” injections in disguise. He even admitted they lied because they knew they'd have no takers.
https://www.planet-today.com/2021/11/bayer-executive-says-covid-mrna-shots.html
-I'm not the one violating the Nuremberg Code.
-I'm not the one saying it will take 75 years to release the data.
-I'm not the one hiding behind a non-disclosure agreement.
-I'm not the one ignoring the correlation between people getting the shots and then dropping dead.
...but a supposed doctor is okay with that?
...Doctor Mengele?
The Nuremberg talking point is what is actually gaslighting. You engage in the oldest liberal rhetoric in the world. Calling someone a nazi with whom you disagree. It is clear you don’t really have a grasp of what immunology involves. You want to argue the definitions. mRNA can be a vaccine as it codes for proteins to be targeted by the immune system. It is one step uo the chain from the final product of all vaccines which is a protein thst stimulates an immune response.
As for the president you quote why would I believe someone who demonstrates no rudimentary knowledge of cellular mechanism and genetics. mRNA is not gene therapy. Go read any eighth grade biology book and you will then know the difference between a gene and mRNA.
As for the correlation between the vaccine and dropping dead there was a statistical look about a month ago of the number of athletic deaths before CoVId and vaccination and after. There is no statistical difference in the incidence of sudden cardiac death. There is however hyper reporting of what continues to be one off events. I am surprised that you don’t know the basic statistical statement that correlation is not causation. You reveal a deficit of statistical knowledge in that one statement
You choose to engage in hubris and opinion disguised as fact. Unfortunately, some of us can see right through such arguments.