COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines


There’s a provocative statement!  It is an Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola.

It is supported by the following information and a video that is linked further down and it makes very interesting reading.

The significance of this is “earth-shattering” and it will likely be difficult to spread it very widely, but here it is:

Story at-a-glance

  • By referring to COVID-19 vaccines as “vaccines” rather than gene therapies, the U.S. government is violating its 15 U.S. Code Section 41, which regulates deceptive practices in medical claims

  • The mRNA injections are gene therapies that do not fulfill a single criteria or definition of a vaccine

  • COVID-19 “vaccines” do not impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. They only are designed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you get infected. As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine

  • Since a vast majority of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms at all, they’ve not even been able to establish a causal link between the virus and the clinical disease

  • By calling this experimental gene therapy technology a “vaccine,” they are circumventing liability for damages that would otherwise apply

Did you know that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines aren’t vaccines in the medical and legal definition of a vaccine? They do not prevent you from getting the infection, nor do they prevent its spread. They’re really experimental gene therapies.

I discussed this troubling fact in a recent interview with molecular biologist Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. While the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots are labeled as “vaccines,” and news agencies and health policy leaders call them that, the actual patents for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s injections more truthfully describe them as “gene therapy,” not vaccines.

Definition of ‘Vaccine’

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,1 a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”

Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claim this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.” In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they will not even test for immunity.

Unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 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.

They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.

As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine, and as noted by David Martin, Ph.D., in the video above, “The legal ramifications of this deception are immense.”

15 U.S. Code Section 41

As explained by Martin, 15 U.S. Code Section 41 of the Federal Trade Commission Act2 is the law that governs advertising of medical practices. This law, which dictates what you may and may not do in terms of promotion, has for many years been routinely used to shut down alternative health practitioners and companies.

“If this law can be used to shut down people of good will, who are trying to help others,” Martin says, “it certainly should be equally applied when we know deceptive medical practices are being done in the name of public health.”

Per this law, it is unlawful to advertise:

“… that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”3What Constitutes ‘The Greater Good’?

Martin points to the 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts,4 which essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit. To put it bluntly, it argued that it’s acceptable for individuals to be harmed by public health directives provided it benefits the collective.

Now, if vaccination is a public health measure that is supposed to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to a) ensure that the individual who is vaccinated is rendered immune from the disease in question; and b) that the vaccine inhibits transmission of the disease.

Only if these two outcomes can be scientifically proven can you say that vaccination protects and benefits the collective — the population as a whole. This is where we run into problems with the mRNA “vaccines.”

What Constitutes ‘The Greater Good’?

Martin points to the 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts,4 which essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit. To put it bluntly, it argued that it’s acceptable for individuals to be harmed by public health directives provided it benefits the collective.

Now, if vaccination is a public health measure that is supposed to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to a) ensure that the individual who is vaccinated is rendered immune from the disease in question; and b) that the vaccine inhibits transmission of the disease.

Only if these two outcomes can be scientifically proven can you say that vaccination protects and benefits the collective — the population as a whole. This is where we run into problems with the mRNA “vaccines.”

Moderna’s SEC filings, which Martin claims to have carefully reviewed, specifies and stresses that its technology is a “gene therapy technology.” Originally, its technology was set up to be a cancer treatment, so more specifically, it’s a chemotherapy gene therapy technology.

As noted by Martin, who would raise their hand to receive prophylactic chemotherapy gene therapy for a cancer you do not have and may never be at risk for? In all likelihood, few would jump at such an offer, and for good reason.
Moreover, states and employers would not be able to mandate individuals to receive chemotherapy gene therapy for a cancer they do not have. It simply would not be legal. Yet, they’re proposing that all of humanity be forced to get gene therapy for COVID-19.

COVID-19 Vaccines — A Case of False Advertising

Now, if the COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine, why are they calling it that? While the CDC provides a definition of “vaccine,” the CDC is not the actual law. It’s an agency empowered by the law, but it does not create law itself. Interestingly enough, it’s more difficult to find a legal definition of “vaccine,” but there have been a few cases. Martin provides the following examples:

Iowa code — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.” Again, the COVID-19 vaccines make no claim of providing immunity. They are only designed to lessen symptoms if and when you get infected.

Washington state code — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” Since Moderna and Pfizer are using synthetic RNA, they clearly do not meet this definition.

Being a manmade synthetic, the RNA used is not derived from anything that has at one point been alive, be it a whole microorganism or a fraction thereof. The statute continues to specify that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”

So, in summary, “vaccine” and “immunity” are well-defined terms that do not match the end points specified in COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary end point in these trials is: “Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease.” Is that the same as “immunity”? No, it is not.

It is understood that “Prevention of the disease” is not actually claimed, but that “reduced symptoms” is the terminology used by the manufacturers.
It seems that the proffered “vaccines” are neither legally nor technically vaccines!

The complete article and video are linked here.

 

About Ken McMurtrie

Retired Electronics Engineer, most recently installing and maintaining medical X-Ray equipment. A mature age "student" of Life and Nature, an advocate of Truth, Justice and Humanity, promoting awareness of the injustices in the world.
This entry was posted in AGENDA 2030, Civil Liberties, Cover-ups, Covid-19, NO safety testing for most vaccines, Vaccinations, WHO, World Issues and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines

  1. daveburton says:

    Mercola is one of the most infamous quacks and notorious liars in America. Almost nothing he wrote about this is true.

    Re: “1. By referring to COVID-19 vaccines as “vaccines” rather than gene therapies, the U.S. government is violating its 15 U.S. Code Section 41…”

    That’s a lie. They are vaccines.

    Re: “2. The mRNA injections are gene therapies that do not fulfill a single criteria or definition of a vaccine”

    That’s a lie. They are vaccines.

    Re: 3. COVID-19 “vaccines” do not impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. They only are designed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you get infected…”

    That’s three lies: They do impart immunity, they reduce transmissibility, and they are not “designed to [merely] lessen… symptoms.”

    Re: “…As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine…”

    That’s two more lies: There is no “legal definition of a vaccine,” and they are what the medical field calls vaccines.

    Re: Since a vast majority of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms at all, they’ve not even been able to establish a causal link between the virus and the clinical disease…”

    That’s a two more obvious, brazen lies.

    Re: “By calling this experimental gene therapy technology a “vaccine,” they are circumventing liability for damages that would otherwise apply”

    That’s another lie. Calling these vaccines “vaccines” is simply calling them what they are.

    Re: “Did you know that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines aren’t vaccines in the medical and legal definition of a vaccine?”

    That’s not two more lies, only because it is two lies that he’s already committed, repeated.

    Re: “They do not prevent you from getting the infection, nor do they prevent its spread.”

    That’s two more lies. Very large scale phase 3 trials have shown the efficacy of these vaccines: They don’t completely eliminate the risk of infection, but they do drastically reduce it.

    Evaluating the degree by which they also reduce transmission is tricky. There is speculation by some experts that some vaccinated patients might get asymptomatic disease, and still be contagious, but that is unproven. However, in the entire (>one century) history of vaccines, there’s never been a vaccine for a communicable disease which did not at least greatly reduce transmission of the disease.

    Re: ” They’re really experimental gene therapies.”

    That’s a lie. Gene therapies transfer human genes. The two approved mRNA Covid-19 vaccines contain virus-like genetic material, which is not the same.

    Like viruses, themselves, these vaccines use RNA to make your body to produce something. In the case of viruses, it’s the virus, itself, which is produced, but these mRNA vaccines instead cause the body to produce just one of the 28 proteins in the SARS-CoV2 virus, to trigger the body’s immune response.

    • daveburton says:

      Mercola is one of a disturbing number of quacks who spreading brazen, deadly lies, trying to dissuade people from getting vaccinated, apparently with the goal of increasing the spread of this disease. Three other prominent ones are Dr. Sherri Tenpenny (like Mercola, an osteopath), Mr. Jon Rappoport (who calls himself an “investigative reporter”), and Dr. Simone Gold (the only MD of the four).

      I cannot imagine why those people are doing such evil. Their motives might vary.

      In Mercola’s case it seems to be his business model:
      1. make outrageous claims in opposition to all medical evidence, which appeal to people who distrust the medical establishment, and mislead them.
      2. sell them crap.

      I can’t tell whether those people actually believe the brazen lies they tell. If they do, they’re literally crazy. If they don’t, they’re deeply evil. Either way, you should not listen to them!
       

      The world seems to be awash in craziness, these days. I don’t know why. It could be, at least in part, the lasting effects of deinstitutionalization.

      Covid could be contributing, too. In some cases, people who’ve survived Covid-19 are made “crazy” by it, at least temporarily. (I know of one such case, personally.) That might help people like Mercola, Tenpenny, Rappoport & Gold spread this misinformation, and it might help Mercola sell his quack remedies and newsletters.

      Or maybe it’s the cats:
      https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/how-your-cat-is-making-you-crazy/308873/
       

      As for the Covid-19 vaccines, there’ve been two U.S. cases in the news in which people have died after being vaccinated, apparently (though not 100% provably) due to their vaccination — out of 52.9 million doses administered. That’s not very dangerous.

      These are the three cases I know of in which an American is reliably reported to have died after getting vaccinated; the first two appear likely to have been caused by the vaccine, though that’s not certain; the third probably was not caused by the vaccine:
      1. 52yo Dr. Gregory Michael (Florida): https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/01/06/death-florida-doctor-following-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-under-investigation-gregory-michael/6574414002/
      2. 60yo Mr. Tim Zook (California): https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2021/01/28/pfizer-vaccine-orange-county-moderna/
      3. A 78yo unnamed patient (California): https://patch.com/california/los-angeles/woman-78-dies-after-getting-covid-19-vaccine-no-link-suspected

      Of course, with >50 million vaccine jabs having been given, there’ve also been been many other patients who’ve died, but whose deaths could not be linked to their vaccinations. On an average day, when there’s no epidemic, 7000-8000 Americans die of all causes. That’s about 0.0023% of the U.S. population. If 1.5 million people get a vaccination jab on an average day, you would expect about 30-35 of them to die within 24 hours of their vaccination, from some OTHER cause. You would also expect that each day about 200-250 people would die from some OTHER cause, within a week of getting vaccinated for Covid-19.

      Of course, many of the people who die each day were already at deaths door, and so probably would not be vaccinated. But many were not.

      For comparison, the USA has had 28,271,810 known Covid-19 cases, and 497,278 known deaths from them. (That’s a CFR or 1.76%.)

      Because mild Covid-19 cases are often undiagnosed and unreported, the true number of cases is probably about twice that, which is still slightly greater than the number of vaccine jabs administered, so far. Plus, it takes two jabs for full vaccination. But even taking those facts into consideration, the disease is still at least 100,000 times more deadly than the vaccine.

      90% of Americans would be 300M people. To vaccinate 300M would require 600M jabs. If there are two deaths per 50M jabs, we can expect that vaccinating 90% of Americans will kill about 24 people. Currently, Covid-19 is killing that many Americans every seven minutes.

      • I suggest that you are greatly uninformed and are basically brainwashed by your medical industry and the MSM.
        Insanity is clearly running rife through our civilization. However it is not limited to those questioning vaccines and other medical procedures.

    • OK Dave, your points are taken.
      Mercola is of course, vilified by the mainstream/pharma system. So are many alternative professionals.
      (Not large scale) tests, have shown antibody responses, not any proof of immunity.
      They are experimental, because never before used in this fashion of as a
      “vaccine”.
      Obviously they have insignificant protection and reduction in transmittability as the “specialists” are saying still wear masks and isolate after vaccination!
      Many mainstream medical theories and practices are legitimately claimed to be bordering on false medical theory and claims.
      Mercola is only one of several. ? many, qualified experts fighting Big Pharma about what is true or not.
      I am happy to let readers make up their own minds, they are capable of independent thinking, unlike most of the general public, who accept the MSM lies without question.
      By the way, if you keep tabs on the adverse reactions, seriousness and frequency, you may have second thoughts on supporting mRNA “vaccines”.

  2. Dana says:

    We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache. The vaccines appear to be of limited value, what little protection they may offer will be short lived. The response to the vaccines has been mild and multiple injections are necessary to build up resistance to the virus. All of the front-line vaccine makers are aiming for a two-shot administration. Even then, the effects may only last 3 to 6 months, and at best a year.

    • daveburton says:

      I don’t know who told you that the vaccines don’t prevent serious disease. That’s wrong. That’s one of their two main purposes of vaccination:

      1. To prevent serious disease, and
      2. To prevent transmission of disease

      These vaccines are NOT of limited value. They are EXTREMELY valuable. They are much more effective than typical flu vaccines (>90% efficacy vs. avg. 50% efficacy), and they protect against a disease which is both more transmissible and much more deadly than typical flu — yet even flu vaccination provably saves many lives.

      The protection from these vaccines certainly lasts more than 3 months; we know that from the trials. Whether it lasts more than 6 months is unknown, but probable. Whether it lasts more than a year is also unknown.

      So what? I’m old enough to remember when nobody knew how long tetanus protection lasted, so people often got tetanus shots whenever they had a wound. Now we know that a tetanus booster is only needed every decade or so, and there’s partial immunity even longer.

      • daveburton says:

        Re: longevity of protection:
        https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/mrna-vaccines-may-provide-lower-immunity-to-new-sars-cov-2-variants#Studying-vaccines-neutralizing-effect

        EXCERPT:

        The researchers took blood plasma from six people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and 14 people who received the Moderna vaccine, to study the immune system’s response to vaccination.

        The mRNA vaccines prime the immune system to target the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein. This is an important area that allows SARS-CoV-2 to enter cells.

        The researchers assessed the number of B memory cells present after vaccination. B memory cells are indicators of immune memory, which is important in the body’s ability to recognize the spike protein and defend against SARS-CoV-2.

        About 6.2 months after vaccination, people’s number of memory B cells was similar to that of someone who recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

        “Thus, mRNA vaccination elicits a robust SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific B cell memory response that resembles natural infection,” write the authors.

        The study also looked at the type of antibodies produced by memory B cells. The researchers found a neutralizing antibody response against the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein. Whether a person received the Moderna or the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, nearly identical antibodies were created.

        BTW, I have a comment stuck in moderation (#151583).

      • I agree about the main purposes, but the safety and efficacy aspects are clearly questionable. (You have not included “profit”)
        You either have a closed mind and/or have limited your reading and learning experiences.

    • Thanks Dana, for your information.

    • daveburton says:

      “You can prove anything if you can make up your data.” – Jerry Pournelle

      The virus has not merely been isolated, it’s genome has been fully sequenced thousands of times, identifying many different (mutated) variants.

      Nextstrain tracks Covid-19 strains on their “genomic epidemiology” web page. Hover your mouse cursor over the graphic for information about the particular mutations which characterize each strain:

      https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global

      Do you understand that it would have been impossible to genetically sequence the virus if it hadn’t been isolated?

      Jon Rappoport is a total crackpot. He’s a journalist, of sorts, who also calls himself a “poet,” “painter,” and “personal creative power” consultant. He used to have a radio show on the far-left Progressive Radio Network. He promotes crackpottery like “past life regression.” He has no medical or scientific expertise.

      I find it difficult to fathom how anyone could be foolish enough to believe the lies he makes up. He apparently enjoys confusing people — even if such confusion could kill them.

      He wants you to think the COVID-19 coronavirus is imaginary. A half-million Americans have been killed by this disease, so far, and we are averaging another 2600 deaths from it per day. Globally, the disease has killed over 2.4 million people. But Jon Rappoport wants you to think that it is imaginary.

      That’s insane.

      He calls the SARS-CoV-2 virus “purported,” and “unproven,” an “illusion,” a “PSYOP,” and “THE VIRUS THAT ISN’T THERE.”

      With at least 248 different vaccines for it in development, 56 of them in clinical trials, and ten in use, he nevertheless wants you to think it is all a hoax.

      Calling him a loon would be unfair to actual loons:

      He claims that the Covid-19 tests are worthless, even though countries like South Korea, Taiwan & New Zealand have used those tests to identify and quarantine nearly all their Covid patients, and thereby nearly eliminate the disease. The result is that South Korea’s per-capita Covid death toll is about 2% of the U.S.’s.

      Please do not spread his deadly lies, ggita32.

  3. ggita32 says:

    THE COVID VACCINE’S DIRTY SECRET
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/k1uz1Sl4T3Dt/

    • daveburton says:

      That video is six months old, and the Dr. Peter Hotez clip in it is at least ten months old. The reason we have large scale vaccine trials is to ensure that the vaccines are safe (or at least a LOT safer than going unvaccinated). That hadn’t been done ten months ago. Now it has been.

      Here’s a more recent video of Dr. Hotez discussing Covid=19 vaccines:
      https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/peter-hotez-md-phd-his-10-years-work-coronavirus

      • Dave, Thanks for your updated information.
        It has some merit and will give readers food for thought. What was not clarified is the value of existing vaccines to be effective on variants of the virus.
        Also no dealing with vaccine adverse reactions.
        Also with insufficient safety testing because of limited times and small sample sizes. Together with historically poor recording and publishing of serious reactions, including deaths, the public do not get realistic information from the MSM.
        We, the vaccine critics, have a great deal of legitimate evidence to support our arguments and might relax our protests if the medical industry was honest in its transparency. OTOH, perhaps that would simply prove our arguments to be perfectly justified.

  4. Thanks for your support and contributions. I think DaveBurton fits the description of a troll.
    Perhaps he would provide his status and qualifications, seeing as he considers qualifications to be more important than the message!
    I wonder if he has seen the genuine video of Bill Gates saying that a few good vaccines will help reduce “P”, the population in his infamous equation?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s