Mask wearing does help reduce community transmission

[denso13]

An experimental gene therapy could not be released as a vaccine with emergency use authorisation without changing the historical definition of a vaccine, which is exactly what the WHO did.

There is a saying used by an esteemed poster on here regularly. "You saying something doesn't make it so". You are writing nonsense.

 

[Notch7]

An experimental gene therapy

And the conspiracies keep on rolling

there is no gene therapy in mRNA vaccine grandad

 

[denso13]

That is what critical thinkers call a 'fact'.

No, it's what antivaxxer sheeple lap up on a daily basis.

 

[Notch7]

That is what critical thinkers call a 'fact'. An experimental gene therapy could not be released as a vaccine with emergency use authorisation without changing the historical definition of a vaccine, which is exactly what the WHO did. You have my sympathy if you were foolish enough to have it.

Where’s the fact in that garbage

 

[Notch7]

Can you give me another example of an experimental mrna 'vaccine' used before in humans? I'll wait...

doesnt prove it’s not a vaccine

another strawman.

you are losing badly, you poor thing

 

[denso13]

An experimental gene therapy could not be released as a vaccine with emergency use authorisation without changing the historical definition of a vaccine, which is exactly what the WHO did.

Why bother? Emergency use authorisation covers not only vaccines. Being a "vaccine" was irrelevant.

 

[denso13]

Can you tell me why the FDA classified Moderna's 'vaccine' as a gene therapy?

Ask the FDA. That was way before any vaccine was actually developed, tested and used. What did the FDA classify it when it was first used?

 

[denso13]

Moderna release their gene therapy

They didn't release any gene therapies.

 

[denso13]

one of them being that it is what it says it is, that definitely wasn't true

Yes it was.

neither was the 'safe and effective' part,

Yes it was.

 

[Notch7]

I think we've already established you don't understand the difference between a source and a platform. We also now know you're incapable of reading facts objectively, and have to resort to the rather sad tactic of playing the man not the ball.

WRONG

the platform is dishonestly representing the conclusions of the German Supreme Court.

According to independent pharmaceutical journal DAZonline, the higher regional court judges in Stuttgart, where Lanka filed his appeal in 2016, did not doubt the existence of the virus.

 

[Notch7]

According to the FDA they did, it's literally there in the document. Lying to the Exchange and Securities Commission is a very risky business.

Wrong

Vaccines that use mRNA technology are not gene therapy because they do not alter your genes

 

[denso13]

According to the FDA they did

No they didn't. That was before release and testing. What did the FDA say at that time regarding gene therapy?

And not what someone else thought the FDA were thinking (like the document you posted).

 

[Notch7]

So you've not looked into the Pfizer 'vaccine' trial documents that they tried to hide for 75 years and are being forced to release, I didn't think so.

More misinformation

 

[Notch7]

Perhaps you can show the full context of what they said and prove that? Of course that doesn't necessarily prove anything, but feel free.

I don’t need to

you are claiming the German Supreme Court ruled the Measles virus doesn’t exist

So you provide the original court documents to back it up.

 

[denso13]

So you've not looked into the Pfizer 'vaccine' trial documents

Yes, I have.

You are simply regurgitating the antivaxxer bible of quotes.

You are new here. The site has a very good search function. As a basic courtesy you could at least check how all of these claims have been debunked before.