Not a vaccine in the medical definition, the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is really an experimental gene therapy that does not render immunity or prevent infection or transmission of the disease.
- mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are gene therapies. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine. This matters because you cannot mandate a gene therapy against COVID-19 any more than you can force entire populations to undergo gene therapy for a cancer they do not have and may never be at risk for
- mRNA contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies
- The only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the vaccinated individual, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit, it makes no sense to demand you accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community
- Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine — at least not until the CDC redefined “vaccine” — marketing them as such is a deceptive practice that violates the law that governs advertising of medical practices
- SARS-CoV-2 has not even been proven to be the cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot be said to be preventive against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked
mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Fulfill None of the Criteria for a Vaccine
To start, let’s take a look at some basic definitions of words. When these gene therapies were introduced, the definition of vaccine according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was:
- “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, was 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.”
That’s the CDC’s medical definition, which was effective until September 1, 2021 — a detail I’ll go into in the next section. The legal definition, in the few cases where it has been detailed, is equally unequivocal:
- Iowa code — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.”
- Washington state code — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” The statute also specifies that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”
These definitions, both medical and legal, present problems for mRNA “vaccines,” since:
- mRNA injections do not impart immunity. Moderna and Pfizer both admit that their clinical trials aren’t even looking at immunity. As such they did not fulfill the CDC’s medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.
- They do not inhibit transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such they do not fulfill the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine — that is, until the CDC changed its definition of vaccine.
Dictionaries and the CDC Attempt to Rewrite Medical Terms
We should not be fooled by attempts to condition the public to accept redefined terms. As of February 2019, Merriam-Webster defined “vaccine” as “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.” By February 26, 2021, they had updated the definition of “vaccine”
“A preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious disease:
a: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated … pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)”
Let’s be clear. Merriam-Webster does not dictate medical terminology. It can be used, however, to confuse people. For now, all medical dictionaries still show the traditional definition of vaccine, as Merriam-Webster did up until this year. That said, I would not be surprised if changes are made there as well, eventually, if the misrepresentation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is allowed to stand.
On the other hand, months after Merriam-Webster’s change, the CDC decided to change its definition of vaccine in such a way that it better matches what mRNA gene therapies do. Coincidentally, the CDC made that revision just a week after the FDA gave full approval for Pfizer’s gene therapy, now called Comirnaty.
Now the CDC’s definition of a vaccine is a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
The differences in the definitions are subtle but distinct: The first one defined a vaccine as something that will “produce immunity.” But, since the COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to stop infection but, rather, to only lessen the degree of infection, it becomes obvious that the new definition was created specifically to cover the COVID gene therapies.
mRNA Therapy Doesn’t Satisfy Public Health Measure Directive
There’s also the issue of whether a gene therapy can be mandated, and this may hinge on it being accepted as a vaccine. The 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit.
“Since mRNA therapies do not render person immune, and do not inhibit transmission of the virus, they cannot qualify as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk, and therefore cannot be mandated.”
Put another way, the ruling argues (although legal experts diverge on some of the finer details of its interpretation) that it’s acceptable for some individuals to be harmed by a public health directive as long as it benefits the collective. However, if vaccination is a public health measure meant to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to accomplish two things:
- Ensure that the vaccinated person is rendered immune from the disease.
- Inhibit transmission of the disease from the vaccinated person to other individuals.
We’re now back to the original problem that mRNA therapies for COVID-19 do not accomplish either of these things. Since these gene therapies do not render the person immune, and do not inhibit transmission of the virus, they cannot qualify as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk.
On the contrary, the only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the individual receiving the gene therapy, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein.
In other words, they won’t keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they are only supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected. So, getting vaccinated protects no one but yourself. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit (less severe COVID-19 symptoms upon infection), the justification to accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community is blatantly irrational.
Marketing mRNA Therapy as Vaccine Violates Federal Law
Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine that imparts immunity, referring to them as vaccines, and marketing them as such, is a deceptive practice that violates 15 U.S. Code Section 41 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the law that governs advertising of medical practices.
The lack of completed human trials also puts these mRNA products at odds with 15 U.S. Code Section 41. 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.”
Here’s the problem: The primary end point in the COVID-19 “vaccine” trials is not an actual vaccine trial end point because, again, vaccine trial end points have to do with immunity and transmission reduction. Neither of those was measured.
What’s more, key secondary end points in Moderna’s trial include prevention of severe COVID-19 disease (defined as need for hospitalization) and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms.[15 However, Moderna did not actually measure rate of infection, stating that it was too “impractical” to do so.
That means there’s no evidence of this gene therapy having an impact on infection, for better or worse. And, if you have no evidence, you cannot fulfill the U.S. Code requirement that states you must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence … substantiating that the claims are true.”
Making matters worse, both Pfizer and Moderna eliminated their control groups by offering the real vaccine to any and all placebo recipients who want it. The studies are supposed to go on for a full two years, but by eliminating the control group, determining effectiveness and risks is going to be near impossible.
What Makes COVID Vaccines Gene Therapy?
Alright. Let’s move on to the definition of “gene therapy.” As detailed on MedlinePlus.gov’s “What Is Gene Therapy” page:
“Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes to treat or prevent disease … Researchers are testing several approaches to gene therapy, including: … Introducing a new gene into the body to help fight a disease …
Although gene therapy is a promising treatment option for a number of diseases (including inherited disorders, some types of cancer, and certain viral infections), the technique remains risky and is still under study to make sure that it will be safe and effective. Gene therapy is currently being tested only for diseases that have no other cures.”
Here, it’s worth noting that there are many different treatments that have been shown to be very effective against COVID-19, so it certainly does not qualify as a disease that has no cure. For example, research shows the antiparasitic ivermectin impairs the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein’s ability to attach to the ACE2 receptor on human cell membranes.
It also can help prevent blood clots by binding to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This prevents the spike protein from binding to CD147 on red blood cells and triggering clumping.
It makes sense, then, that gene therapy should be restricted to incurable diseases, as this is the only time that taking drastic risks might be warranted. That said, here’s how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines gene therapy:
“Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:
- Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
- Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
- Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease”
November 17, 2020, the American Society of Gene + Cell Therapy (ASGCT) announced “COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Show Gene Therapy Is a Viable Strategy,” noting that:
“Two COVID-19 vaccine trials, both of which use messenger RNA (or mRNA) technology to teach the body to fight the virus, have reported efficacy over 90 percent.
These findings, announced by Moderna on Nov. 16 and by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 … demonstrate that gene therapy is a viable strategy for developing vaccines to combat COVID-19.
Both vaccine candidates use mRNA to program a person’s cells to produce many copies of a fragment of the virus. The fragment then stimulates the immune system to attack if the real virus tries to invade the body.”
mRNA Deliver New Genetic Instructions
As explained in the ASGCT’s video above, mRNA are molecules that contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies. Then there’s Moderna’s trial website, where they describe their technology thus:
“Typical vaccines for viruses are made from a weakened or inactive virus, but mRNA-1273 is not made from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is made from messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), a genetic code that tells cells how to make protein, which help the body’s immune system make antibodies to fight the virus.”
November 18, 2020, Wired magazine made a big deal about COVID-19 vaccines being “genetic vaccines,” noting:
“The active ingredient inside their shot is mRNA — mobile strings of genetic code that contain the blueprints for proteins. Cells use mRNA to get those specs out of hard DNA storage and into their protein-making factories. The mRNA inside Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine directs any cells it reaches to run a coronavirus spike-building program.”
Importantly, as reported by David Martin, Ph.D., “Moderna … describes its product not as a vaccine, but as ‘gene therapy technology’ in SEC filings. This is because neither Moderna nor Pfizer … make any claims about their products creating immunity or preventing transmission.” Additionally, Moderna’s SEC filings specifically state that “Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA,” as well.
mRNA Is ‘Proven Form of Gene Therapy’
In a February 2021 article, MIT Technology Review reviewed the history of mRNA technology in general, and Moderna’s in particular, stating:
“Vaccines were not their focus. At the company’s founding in 2010, its leaders imagined they might be able to use RNA to replace the injected proteins that make up most of the biotech pharmacopoeia, essentially producing drugs inside the patient’s own cells from an RNA blueprint. ‘We were asking, could we turn a human into a bioreactor?’ says Noubar Afeyan, the company’s cofounder …”
Bloomberg, in August 2020, reported that the Moderna vaccine would seek to transform your body into “a vaccine-making machine.” The New York Times was more to the point. In May 2020, they reported that “Researchers at two Harvard-affiliated hospitals are adapting a proven form of gene therapy to develop a coronavirus vaccine.” Read it again — A proven form of gene therapy.
So, to summarize: The definition of “genetic” is something relating to genes, and the definition of “therapy” is the medical treatment of a disease. The definition of “gene therapy” is the process of modifying or manipulating the expression of a gene, or altering the biological properties of living cells.
mRNA are snippets of genetic code that instruct cells to produce proteins. mRNA COVID-19 therapies “deliver genetic instructions into your cells,” thereby triggering your body to produce a fragment of the virus (the spike protein). So, mRNA vaccines ARE gene therapy. There’s simply no way around this. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine.
There’s yet one more potential problem with the “COVID-19 vaccine” narrative as a whole, which Martin unpacked in a January 25, 2021, interview on the Wise Traditions podcast (above). In it, he explains:
“COVID-19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases.
The problem that we have is that in February , the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between [SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19]. One is a virus, in their definition, and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19.
The problem with that definition, and with the expectation, is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2, are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. That’s the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier.”
In short, SARS-CoV-2 has yet to be definitively proven to be the actual cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot even be touted as a preventative against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked.
“They have been willfully lying since the inception of this,” Martin says in the interview. “There is not a causal link between these things … It has never even been close to established.
We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, ‘I don’t want to get COVID-19.’ What they mean is they don’t want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other. A viral infection hasn’t been documented in the majority of what is called cases.
There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. That’s the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination … is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy …
What is this doing? It’s sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen … A vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin …
It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all … It’s not a prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then, allegedly, your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine — which is to trigger the immune response — this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.”
Why the Misrepresentation?
As for why drug companies are misrepresenting this technology, Martin suspects “it’s done exclusively so that they can get themselves under the umbrella of public health laws that exploit vaccination.”
Experimental gene therapies do not have financial liability shielding from the government, but pandemic vaccines do, even in the experimental stage, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect. This is indeed a major incentive to make sure this technology is perceived as a vaccine and nothing else, particularly after the FDA grants final approval.
So, by maintaining the illusion that COVID-19 is a state of emergency, when in reality it is not, government leaders are providing cover for these gene therapy companies so that they are insulated from any liability until that final approval is made.
Experimental Gene Therapy Is a Bad Idea
I’ve written many articles detailing the potential and expected side effects of these gene therapy “vaccines.”
The take-home message here is that 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, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. What’s happening here is a medical fraud of unprecedented magnitude, and it really needs to be stopped before it’s too late for a majority of people.
If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. And, last but not least, if you got the vaccine and are having side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:
- If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
- Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
- Report the injury on the CHD website
 CIDRAP July 27, 2020
 Moderna COVE Study