Drag to reposition your photo

Pauline Hager

Female. Lives in Port St Lucie. Is divorced.

About Me

I am in my 80's and retired from United States Customs back in 1991. Born and raised in Wellsville,... View More

Liked Pages5

2666 Likes

Lin Wood Fan Page

Politics

4432 Likes

Hodge Twins - Conservative Twins

Artist, Band or Public Figure » Public Figure

6688 Likes

Candace Owens

Artist, Band or Public Figure

Pauline Hager

Report this User

Status Update

Pauline Hager shared

January 17, 2021 7:45 pm

The Globe Channel

January 17, 2021 8:49 am

If you read anything about the COVID vaccine, read this! It will clear things up for you very quickly. Statement by Dr. David Martin on Jan 5th 2021: �Let�s make sure we�re clear on something. Let�s... View MoreIf you read anything about the COVID vaccine, read this! It will clear things up for you very quickly. Statement by Dr. David Martin on Jan 5th 2021: �Let�s make sure we�re clear on something. Let�s stipulate that this is not a vaccine. We need to be really clear: we�re using the term �vaccine� to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine. This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally-defined term - they�re a legally-defined term under public health law, they are a legally-defined term under CDC and FDA standards - and a vaccine specifically has to stimulate both an immunity within the person receiving it, but it also has to disrupt transmission. And that is not what this is. They [Moderna and Pfizer] have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop transmission, it is a treatment. But IF it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say, �well, what other treatments are there?� The use of the term �vaccine� is unconscionable for both the legal definition term of it, but also because it actually is the sucker punch to open and free discourse. Because by saying �vaccine,� you dump it into this thing where you can be �anti� or �pro� the therapy. But if you actually talked about it as a therapy - remember, Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARS. If we said we are going to give people prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don�t yet have, you�d be laughed out of the room because it�s a stupid idea. That�s exactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small packet of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site. I refuse to stipulate in any conversations that this is in fact a vaccine issue. The only reason why the term is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobson case that has been misrepresented since it was written. And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell. It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biologic system, it is a physical technology, it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package. So, we need to be really clear on making sure we don�t fall for their game. Because their game is if we talk about it as a vaccine, then we are going to get into a vaccine conversation. But this is not, by their own admission, a vaccine. As a result, it must be clear to everyone listening that we will not fall for this failed definition just like we won�t fall for their industrial chemical definition of health. Because both of them are functionally flawed and are an explicit violation of the legal construct that is being exploited. Tammy Charlie L Coleman Casey Coleman Dm Linin Yikes!!!

View Less

Recent Photos

View More Photos