Covid mRNA ‘vaccines’ are legally not vaccines

During a recent roundtable discussion entitled Focus On Fauci, Robert Kennedy Jr., Dr. Judy A. Mikovitis, PhD, Rocco Galati, Sacha Stone, and Dr. David Martin delved into the long criminal history of the grossly unqualified “America’s Doctor,” Anthony Fauci.

During an excerpt, which is transcribed below, of that discussion, Dr. David Martin explains that these new mRNA so-called “vaccines” do not, in fact, qualify under the FDA’s own legal definition of a vaccine.

This is a crucially important issue because the government – and media legal pundits like Alan Dershowitz – have been invoking the 1905 Jacobson vs Massachusetts case in which the U.S. Supreme court upheld that the States have the right to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. If these mRNA “vaccines” are not legally vaccines – but rather medical devices – then the government has no legal right to force anyone to submit to them.

Dr. David Martin explains:
“Let’s make sure we’re clear on something – let’s stipulate that this is not a vaccine. We’re using the term ‘vaccine’ to sneak this product under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine. This is an 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 are actually a legally-defined term, and they’re legally defined term under public health law – they’re legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards.

And a vaccine – specifically – has to stimulate both an immunity in the person receiving it – but it also has to disrupt transmission (of the virus, among community). And that is not what this (Anti-Covid 19 vaccine) is. They 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 were discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say, ‘What other treatments are there?’

The use of the term ‘vaccine’ is unconscionable for both the legal definition of it, but also it is actually also the ‘sucker punch’ to open and free discourse – because by saying ‘vaccine’ you dump it into a product where you can be anti- or pro- the therapy. But if you actually talked about it as a therapy remember – because people almost forgot this – Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARS! If we said we were going to give people a prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don’t have, you’d be laughed out of a 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 and activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site. And I refuse to stipulate – in any conversations – that this is 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 [FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health] definition of a device. It is not a living system – it is not a biologic system – it is a physical technology – it just occurs to come in the size of a molecular package.

So we need to be really clear in 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’ conservation – 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… If you stipulate that it is a ‘vaccine’, you’ve already lost the battle…

80% of the people allegedly exposed to the virus have no symptoms at all – they are called ‘asymptomatic carriers’. 80% of the people who get this injected into them have a ‘clinical adverse event’. You are getting injected with a chemical substance to induce illness – not to induce a immune-transmissive response. In other words, nothing about this is going to stop you from transmitting anything. This is about getting you sick – and having your own cells be the thing that get you sick.”