We the People of Johnson County Missouri, Wednesday, October 25, 2023 🧬💉 Remarkable Update: EUA May NOT Protect Covid Shots From Litigation!!!
Hi Folks!
More REMARKABLY IMPORTANT late-breaking news!!!!!
THIS IS ABOUT THE mRNA SHOTS. READ ON….
I’m copying from Coffee and Covid by Jeff Childers, who got it from Steve Kirsch. Long way around, but excellent information!!!
Coffee and Covid (link)
On Saturday, my friend, tech entrepreneur, and anti-vaccine activist Steve Kirsch set the internet on fire by excitedly and repeatedly tweeting that “you can now sue the vaccine makers:”
Steve’s enthusiasm ballooned after the Epoch Times ran a story Thursday headlined, EXCLUSIVE: Health Canada Confirms Undisclosed Presence of DNA Sequence in Pfizer Shot. In the story, the Canadian regulatory agency confirmed that an undisclosed SV40 gene can be found in the mRNA shots (more on that below). An agency spokesman told Epoch Times, "Although the full DNA sequence of the Pfizer plasmid was provided at the time of initial filing, the sponsor (Pfizer) did not specifically identify the SV40 sequence."
Having a government regulatory agency confirm this issue is huge news. So Steve is technically correct. But legally, we’re still not quite all the way there yet. I’ll explain.
Early this year, a heroic independent genetic researcher named Kevin McKernan discovered in the shots some DNA contamination (“plasmids”) in the form of E. coli and a harmful part of monkey DNA called the SV40 promoter gene. None of these things should have been in the jabs and it appears none were disclosed in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s EUA applications.
Over the spring, summer, and into the fall, other researchers have confirmed Kevin’s original findings. In other words, other researchers are also finding plasmids and SV40 in the mRNA shots. And now, at least one government regulatory agency — Health Canada — has also confirmed the unexpected presence of SV40.
So Steve is understandably excited because, if the contaminants (especially but not only the SV40 gene) were not, in fact, disclosed, then the products injected into people were not the same ones approved by the FDA, and therefore should not enjoy liability protection. There’s also another argument, that the jabs are “adulterated,” which gets you to the same spot.
It may be enough that the products differ from what was on the EUA applications. But our scientists are still disagreeing over whether the contaminants pose any risk at all, or if they do, just how serious of a risk. What remains unclear to me, as a litigator, is who exactly has standing to sue a drug company for adulterated products absent clear evidence the contaminants caused the harms. I know, I know, but someone still must close that causation gap.
And we still must prove that Pfizer’s EUA application in the United States was wrong. That is strongly suspected but not yet proven. The entire application is tens of thousands of pages.
But. We are getting very, very close now. Stand by.
END OF COFFEE AND COVID
I highly recommend this substack.com account. You find out some very cutting edge information.
FEEL FREE TO SHARE, SHARE, SHARE!!!