Expert: Covid Shots Are Bioweapons, Not Vaccines
Celebrated virology expert Dr. David Martin has warned the public that Covid mRNA shots are, in fact, bioweapons, and not “vaccines” as they’ve been led to believe.
In a new interview, Dr. Martin explains why the injections do not qualify as traditional vaccines.
Alarmingly, Martin revealed that the mRNA shots cause the body to trigger a deadly “scheduled toxin” that will cause serious injuries and possible death long after the injection was received.
Martin listed several points regarding the Covid shots that expose their true nature.
Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna both knew the injections were not vaccines and explicitly described mRNA as an experimental gene therapy in their SEC filings, Martin explains.
In addition, coronavirus fragments were described as “bio-warfare enabling technology” during a 2005 DARPA conference, the doctor notes.
According to 7 CFR Part 331, the spike protein associated with any modification of coronavirus is classified as a biological weapon.
And finally, the injections instruct the human body to manufacture a scheduled toxin in the form of the spike protein, he warns.
The Injection Put into People’s Arms Instructs the Human Body to Manufacture a SCHEDULED TOXIN@DrDMartinWorld explains why the COVID shots are actually bioweapons, not vaccines.
• Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna explicitly described mRNA as an experimental gene therapy in their… pic.twitter.com/5JdKiRn6VR
— Vigilant News (@VigilantNews) June 16, 2024
Dr. Martin was responding to the recent court ruling that determined that Cobid shots are not vaccines.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision could reshape public health policy across the nation.
The ruling was delivered during a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).
While ruling on the case, the court has declared that COVID-19 mRNA injections do not qualify as vaccines under traditional medical definitions.
The case revolved around the LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.
The policy required all employees to be fully vaccinated against Covid by a specified deadline.
The plaintiffs argued that the district’s vaccine mandate infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.
They argue that the mRNA shots do not prevent the transmission of Covid but merely mitigate symptoms for the recipient, at best.
The court’s opinion was written by Circuit Judge R. Nelson and supported by Judge Collins.
The judges assert that the mRNA shots, marketed as vaccines, do not effectively prevent the transmission of COVID-19.
In the opinion, the judges note that the injections do nothing more than merely reduce symptoms in those who contract the virus.
Therefore, the injections cannot be labeled as vaccines.
Judge Nelson pointed out that the mandate was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s century-old ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
The case upheld the state’s right to enforce smallpox vaccinations due to their proven effectiveness in preventing disease spread.
In contrast, the Covid mRNA shots do not offer such public health benefits.
Therefore, they fail the criteria established by Jacobson.
The ruling points out that traditional vaccines are designed to provide immunity and prevent transmission.
This is not conclusively proven in the case of Covid mRNA injections.
In addition, the Covid mRNA shots have been linked to widespread injuries and mass deaths.
As Slay News previously reported, Pfizer’s President of International Developed Markets Janine Small admitted during an October 2022 EU hearing that the vaccine had never been tested on its ability to prevent transmission.
This bombshell admission was contrary to what was previously advertised.
Government health officials and the media pressured the public into taking the injections by arguing that they had a responsibility to protect others.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Collins highlighted that compulsory medical treatments for individual health benefits infringe upon the fundamental right to refuse such treatments.
This perspective aligns with the constitutional principles protecting personal liberty against unwarranted governmental intrusions.
