Gene Technology Marketed as Vaccines - Why?

By calling it a vaccine, it appealed to all those who trust that vaccines are safe. It also meant that anyone who questioned it could be marginalised as an 'anti vaxxer'. But how many people who took it, thinking it was 'just another vaccine', would have done so, if the truth of what it actually was had been clearly made known to them?Show more

"If we had surveyed two years ago in the public, 'Would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?' we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate."

~Stefan Oelrich

"I am one of the academics that argues that these mRNA products, which everybody calls 'vaccines', are qualitatively different than standard vaccines. And so I found it fascinating to learn that Merriam-Webster changed it's definition of vaccine earlier this year."

~Peter Doshi.

"What they've done, is they've smuggled in a really, truly radically new technology and they caused us all not to worry about it very much by using the term 'vaccine'".

~Bret Weinstein.

"This platform, a lipid nanoparticle plus a gene is not a 'vaccine', it is a mechanism to make your body a factory for a foreign protein. This is a grand experiment to leap forward, making your body a factory for a foreign, and now known to be toxic, protein."

~Dr. Ryan Cole.

"There's an FDA definition of a gene therapy, and they state that a gene therapy is any time you inject genetic material and that material then produces a product. Clearly that's what these 'vaccines' are, right? We inject mRNA, mRNA makes spike - gene therapy."

~ Dr. Pierre Kory.

"It came out of a gene therapy research programme. These, and the adenoviral vectors, are absolutely gene therapy technology applied for the purpose of eliciting an immune response."

~ Dr. Robert Malone.

TEXT AND VIDEO SOURCE: https://twitter.com/c_plushie/status/1779578343173882078