Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gab TV, GETTR
Guest post by Paul S. Gardiner
Editor's Note - the CDC changed its definition of a 'vaccine' to include gene therapies in September of last year in an attempt to enable the fraud described below
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 of this video by Dr. David Martin, a national intelligence analyst and founder of IQ100 Index, 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 US Code, Section 41 outlaws such deceptive practices."
During the presentation, various entities and individuals were identified as supporters of the above alleged deception to include the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of North Carolina, and other individuals.
Why call an experimental gene therapy product a "vaccine"? Dr. Martin believes that there are two basic reasons why Moderna and Pfizer call their products vaccines: 1) to circumvent liability for damages; and 2) if the products were called gene therapy or similar description, most people would wisely refuse to use them.
Regarding avoiding liability for damages, as long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like COVID-19 “vaccines” are allowed under emergency use authorization. As long as the emergency use authorization is in effect, the makers of these "vaccines" are not financially liable for any damages that comes from their use. However, Dr Martin states that "---there is no liability shield for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy." In fact, if the documentation Pfizer and Moderna provided the Federal Drug Administration for emergency use authorization can be proven fraudulent, then there is no legal protection.
Given the above, a multitude of multi-million dollar law suites are possible, if not probable, against the two pharmaceutical companies by parties who have been "injured" in one way or another by Moderna and Pfizer inoculations. Depending on the evidence produced, criminal indictments may also be a possibility.
What needs to happen next? Dr. Martin urges citizens to contact their state attorney, governor, representatives, and anyone else who might be in a position to take affirmative action to address and correct what he calls a tremendous fraud on the American people. He hopes that his presentation will be viewed and acted upon by officials with the authority to thoroughly investigate his findings.
He states "Defense contractors are violating FTC law, and gene therapy companies — not vaccine manufacturers — are conducting experimental trials under deceptive medical practices. They’re making claims of being 'vaccines' without clinical proof, and must be held accountable for their deceptive marketing and medical practices."
The need for accountability extends to anyone who promoted the use of the Moderna and Pfizer products while having full knowledge that they were not bona fide vaccines as described herein.
Dr. Martin states "World governments and global and national health organizations are all complicit in this illegal deception and must be held accountable."
In conclusion, Dr Martin makes a most sobering comment: "These injections are not vaccines. They do not prevent infection, they do not render you immune, and they do not prevent transmission of the disease. Instead, they alter your genetic coding."
Given the above, perhaps it is time for several state attorneys general to band together and thoroughly investigate the activities of Moderna, Pfizer, and various individuals in this matter. This could develop into a similar cooperative multi-state effort reminiscent of the 1998 Big Tobacco law suite. In this action, 52 state and territory attorneys general ultimately signed a Master Settlement Agreement with the four largest tobacco companies in the U.S. to settle dozens of state lawsuits brought to recover billions of dollars in health care costs associated with treating smoking-related illnesses.
Paul S. Gardiner is a retired Army officer, Vietnam veteran, and lover of America. He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina, University of Alabama, and the United States Army War College. He is hopeful that the truth will eventually emerge about the Moderna and Pfizer inoculation products as well as truth about statements made by various high ranking officials promoting their use.
Subscribe to our evening newsletter to stay informed during these challenging times!!
Of course they are not, and their developers and promoters know it too !!! They even deliberately changed the definition of what is a vaccine, in the process relegating its prophylactic "immunity inducing" function to an incidental by product.
What do you mean, "if proven true?" I thought this was just a given fact since the beginning. Everybody knew mRNA tech as "gene therapy." I don't think there's anything new to discover here on that. This never did fit the medical or the legal definition of "vaccine" and then they changed that definition, even in the Merriam Webster dictionary to try to encompass it by avoiding the "immune" terminology.
Regarding the purposeful change of definition - to circumvent legal road-blocks to the declaration of 'emergency use'', there's another road-block to this authorisation, which was also pushed aside: Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) can only be put in place, "...if there are no alternative treatments for the condition..."
The existence of phrase, in the EUA documentation, explains the single-mindedness of Fauci, the CDC, FDA and Pharma, in denying the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and the rest...
If ONE of the available off-label drugs helps to treat Covid19, EUA becomes illegal.