One of the brightest voices in our movement, Dr David Martin, drops truth bombs on Covid 'vaccine'
"Let's make sure we're clear ... It's not a vaccine. They're using the term 'vaccine' to squeeze... View MoreOne of the brightest voices in our movement, Dr David Martin, drops truth bombs on Covid 'vaccine'
"Let's make sure we're clear ... It's not a vaccine. They're using the term 'vaccine' to squeeze under public health exemptions. It's not a vaccine. It's about MRNA wrapped in a fat wrap that is delivered to a cell. This is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell to become a creator of pathogens. It is not a vaccine. In fact, vaccines are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term according to CDC and FDA standards. And the vaccine must specifically boost both the immunity of the person receiving it and must also interrupt transmission. And that is not what it is. They were very clear in saying that the strand of mRNA that enters the cell is not to stop transmission, it is a treatment But if it were discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of the public health authorities because then the people would say, "What other treatments are there?" the vaccine is inconceivable nor good and for the legal definition and in fact, the punch for free speech ... Moderna started out as a cancer chemotherapy company, not as a manufacturer of SARSCOV2 vaccines. we were saying we were giving people prophylactic chemotherapy for cancer that they don't have yet, they would laugh at us in the room because that's a stupid idea. That's exactly what it is. it is a mechanical device in the form of a very small package of technology that is inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a manufacturing site for pathogens. And I refuse to stipulate in any conversation that it is in fact a vaccine problem. The only reason the term is used is to abuse the Jacobson affair of 1905, which has been misrepresented since it was written. What if we were to to be honest with that we would call it in f What it is: It is a chemical pathogen device that is actually intended to trigger an action producing a chemical pathogen in a cell. It is a medical device and not a drug, as it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It's not a living system, it's not a biological system, it's physical technology - it turns out to be the size of a molecular whole. Therefore, we have to be very clear to make sure that we don't fall in love with their game. Because their game is that if we talk about it as a vaccine, then we are going to get into a conversation about the vaccine, but it doesn't. is not, according to them, a vaccine. Accordingly, it should be clear to anyone listening that we will not be fooled by this flawed definition, just as we will not be fooled by its industrial chemical definition of health. Both have functional flaws and are an implicit violation of the legal construct that is being exploited. It frustrates me to hear activists and lawyers say "we are going to fight the vaccine". If you say it's a vaccine, you've already lost the battle. It is not a vaccine. It is made to make you sick ... 80% of people exposed to SARSCOV2 are asymptomatic carriers. 80% of people who received this injection experience an adverse clinical event. They inject you with a chemical to induce disease, not to induce an immunotransmitter response. In other words, none of this will stop you from transmitting something. It's about making you sick and your own cells are what make you sick.
When the payer of the information distribution turns out to be the industry that handles the distribution, we lose. Because the only story is the one that will be paid for by the people who write the check. This applies to our politicians ... and our media, it has been paid for, if you follow the money, you realize that there is no voice without conflict in any network. "