I
(Note: I am sharing this public information as a blog because I was told by Facebook that I could not post it without suffering limited exposure or other kinds of restrictions.)
Dr. Tal Zaks is the chief medical officer at Moderna, Inc. He explained in a 2017 TED talk how the company’s mRNA vaccine was designed to work: “I’m here to tell you that we are actually hacking the software of life.” Moderna describes its new vaccine as “a computer operating system.” You can listen to Dr. Zak’s TED talk here https://leohohmann.com/2021/03/09/modernas-top-scientist-we-are-actually-hacking-the-software-of-life/
Dr. David Martin is a professor, researcher, author, inventor, and business visionary. His first invention was a laser integrated system to target and treat inoperable tumors. His mathematics helped unravel the way the human body processes hormones. Dr. Martin explains that the injections being supplied by Moderna and Pfizer are not vaccines. According to Dr. Martin, these manufacturers disguised their treatments as vaccines in order to fit them under the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts U.S. Supreme Court case, a ruling that has been interpreted [some say misinterpreted] as a license for states to mandate vaccines during health emergencies.
Dr. Martin says, “. . . This is not a vaccine. This 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 a legally defined term under public health law. They’re a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards, and a vaccine specifically has to stimulate . . . an immunity within the person receiving it but it also has to disrupt transmission. And that’s not what this is. They have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand going into the cell is not to stop transmission. It is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment it would not get the sympathetic ear of the public health authorities because then people would say well what other treatments are there?”
Dr. Martin continues, “The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable for both the legal definition of it, but also because it actually is the sucker punch to open and free discourse, because by saying ‘vaccine’ you dump it into a thing where you could be anti or pro ‘the therapy,’ but if you actually talked about it as a therapy, and remember–and people forget this–Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARS-COV2. If we said we’re going to give people prophylactic therapy for the cancer they don’t have, you’d be laughed out of a room, because that’s a stupid idea. That’s eactly 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 to activate the cell to become a pathogen-manufacturing site.”
Dr. Martin expresses frustration when he hears activists and lawyers and others say they’re “going to fight the vaccine.” Why? Because, he says, “if you stipulate that it’s a vaccine you’ve already lost the battle. It is not a vaccine. . . . Eighty percent of the people who get the virus are asymptomatic, meaning they have no symptoms at all. Eighty percent of the the people who get this injection have a clinical adverse event. You are getting injected with a chemical substance to induce illness, not to induce an immuno-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 being the thing that get you sick.”
I’m in over my head here, friends of Ezerwoman. This isn’t my area of expertise in any way, shape, or form. But because I was forbidden from sharing this information by Facebook “fact checkers,” I’m taking a risk and sharing it on my own blog site. You can read more of what Dr. Martin has to explain here https://leohohmann.com/2021/03/12/heres-why-mrna-injections-do-not-meet-the-legal-definition-of-vaccine/
There is one last thing. Sharyl Attkisson, former CBS News reporter, is the author of the book Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship. She explains that the media will use loaded words to steer you away from factual reports that do damage to the false narrative they are trying to feed into the public psyche. Attkisson explains that there are powerful interests that don’t want you to see or believe a particular study, report, or news article. They are trying to control the information.
So, because the information I shared above seems credible, I am attempting my first evasive maneuver around the Facebook thought police.
March 14, 2021
Ezerwoman's Blog 