Dr. Mike Yeadon posted on Telegram: “This very interesting paper discusses the regulatory environment in Europe 4 – 5 years ago. Considering how much emotion has been expended on the question “are these gene-based vaccines, “vaccines” or are they gene therapy, read for yourself.“
Dr. Yeadon was referring to a paper titled: The European Regulatory Environment of RNA-Based Vaccines which you can read by following this LINK.
The paper states: “Interestingly, depending on whether RNA-based vaccines are directed against tumours or infectious disease, they are formally considered gene therapy products or not, respectively.”
Dr. Yeadon comments:
“The answer is of course they’re gene therapy. They instruct your body to manufacture a part of a foreign organism by inserting genetic code into your cells.
“If the objective is to raise an immune response against a non-self tumour target, it’s called and classified as gene therapy. However, if the objective is to raise an immune response against a non-self foreign protein, specifically one from a pathogen, it’s not gene therapy (and instead a vaccine).
“Now, I know this is nuts and extremely dangerous. It suggests the people deciding this were stupid, reckless and/ or evil (why choose?). Why do I say that? For this blindingly obvious reason.
“A standard vaccine is to be given to large numbers of people in perfectly good health including many not at the slightest risk from the pathogen against which the vaccine is intended to induce immunity. So, not people in whom much risk can be justified. But it’s this very setting in which this new and untested technology are to be given to billions that we set the lowest bar.
“The requirements for infectious disease vaccines are low. Very little is done. No PK [pharmacokinetic] / PD [pharmacodynamics], for example. They didn’t study where the vaccine dose went, what it did where, how much and for how long.
“This is how we ended up with brain blood clots and deaths. Because stupid regulators permitted a low-ball package to pass their ridiculously stupid regulations.
“I believe this wasn’t an accident. How do you pass regulations? Well, you either raise your game or you suggest to those setting the bar that it’s too high and “will impede the flow of innovative, life-saving products”. The bar is placed helpfully, and they all go off for a nice dinner.”
Anna de Buisseret, a UK lawyer, said the mass vaccination programmes are “not legal, because it’s not being authorised and regulated under the correct [legal] framework.” She goes on to explain, “this is not a human medicine. These, specifically the mRNA injections, cannot be legally defined either as a vaccine or as a human medicine, which is how they’ve been regulated – under the human medicines regulations.”
Dr. David Martin, an American whose business is to monitor the innovation that’s happening around the world and specifically to monitor the economics of that innovation, says the Covid injections were never intended to be a vaccine, they are “about getting people injected with the known to be harmful Spike Protein.”
“When Anthony Fauci [previously] tried desperately to get some of his quote, “synthetic RNA vaccines” published, he had his own patents rejected by the patent office … So, Anthony Fauci himself was told by the patent office themselves, that what he was proposing as a vaccine does not meet the patentable standard, the legal standard, or the clinical standard,” Dr. Martin told the Corona Investigative Committee.
Catherine Austin Fitts says it’s not a vaccine, it’s injection fraud. Fitts was an investment banker and trained as a portfolio strategist. She says, “I appreciate why Gates and his colleagues want to call these technologies “vaccines.” If they can persuade the body politic that injectable credit cards or injectable surveillance trackers or injectable brain-machine interface nanotechnologies are “vaccines,” then they can enjoy the protection of a century or more of legal decisions and laws that support their efforts to mandate what they want to do.”
Science Based Medicine (“SBM”) is, so it claims on its website, a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting science and critical thinking and aims to “provide a much needed “alternative” perspective.”
In an article, The latest antivax false claim: mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are not vaccines but “medical devices” or “gene therapy”, SBM heavily criticised a doctor who had stated that Pfizer, Moderna et al Covid products were medical devices and not vaccines. SBM uses the definition of a vaccine as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
By SBM’s definition, whatever is being injected into the Scottish population are definitely not vaccines. People who have had two Covid injections account for 73% of recent Covid deaths and data shows those who have had two injections are over 5 times more likely to die if infected with Covid. Whatever you prefer to call the Covid injections, by anyone’s definition, they are not functioning as vaccines.
In February, the Merriam-Webster dictionary quietly changed the definition of the term “vaccine” to include components of mRNA injections, “such as a fragment of virus spike protein.” It’s like changing the definition of food to include poison. To quote SMB, “I’m sorry, but [Merriam-Webster’s] claim is just plain silly. You don’t get to redefine terms to suit your narrative, try as you might.”
We have to stop falling for the “mainstream” narrative and false claims. We have to stop calling the experimental gene-based Covid injections – which are drugs, gene therapy, medical devices, injection fraud, chemical and /or biological weapons but not – “vaccines.”