Inventor Of mRNA Technology Warned FDA That Shots Have Serious Health Threat
Dr. Robert Malone invented the mRNA gene therapy technology and warned the FDA that the vaccines are dangerous. Did the FDA listen to him? No. Instead, he was censored by Big Pharma and the FDA went ahead with the Emergency Use Authorization that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of injuries.
In the video below, podcast host, Bret Weinstein, Ph.D biologist interviews Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology, and Steve Kirsch, an entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID-19 gene therapies.
Dr. Robert Malone is the scientist who talks openly how invented technology has been ethically compromised to make informed consent impossible for the average person.
Steve Kirsch just recently published the article titled “Should You Get Vaccinated?” in which he explains all reasons why he changed his mind about Covid 19 “vaccines” after he and his 3 daughters received 2 shots of Moderna.
It is highly advisable that anyone who is going to get or someone who knows anyone that is going to get the Covid jab is to read it.
Further on in the interview Dr Malone mentioned that many months ago he warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the spike protein — which the COVID-19 “vaccines” instruct your cells to make — could be dangerous.
The FDA ignored his concerns by saying that they do did not believe the spike protein was biologically active and in the way vaccine makers designed vaccines was so that spike protein would stick and not float freely.
It turned out that they were wrong in both cases since it was established that indeed spike protein is biologically active and it does float freely causing severe problems such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body and heart problems.
The inventor of mRNA vaccines also clearly states in the interview that they are not vaccines but gene therapy.
Steve Kirsch’s one of many concerns is accumulation of spike protein in woman’s ovaries. Percentage is very high for a woman to have miscarriage after Covid 19 jab which disturbingly The Pfizer research on reproductive toxicology was skipped in the interest of speed.
Despite lack of studies on reproductive toxicology and rapidly growing number of miscarriages, CDC was still urging pregnant woman to get vaccinated. One must really ask themselves why would they do that?
As discussed in interview it was mentioned also that Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is being manipulated as reports that were filed are now missing. Even with such manipulation, number of reported post-vaccination deaths are beyond anything we have ever seen.
Other serious effects are also off the charts. For example, Israeli data show boys and men between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been vaccinated have 25 times the rate of myocarditis (heart inflammation) than normal. Additionally, many young people are dying because of this to myocarditis.
Dr Malone also pointed out alarming fact that FDA opted out of post vaccination data collection and evaluation for this Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that governs these COVID shots. Without them, there’s no way of evaluating the safety of these products.
Clear suppression of drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin was noted by Kirsch who wrote in his article:
“Repurposed drugs [such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin] are safer and more effective than the current vaccines. In general, early treatment with an effective protocol reduces your risk of dying by more than 100X so instead of 600,000 deaths, we’d have fewer than 6,000 deaths. NOTE: The vaccine has already killed over 6,000 people and that’s from the vaccine alone (and doesn’t count any breakthrough deaths).”
Violation of Bioethics Laws
In a May 30, 2021, essay, Dr Malone highlighted the importance of informed consent, where all censorship is making it impossible to be given properly. Informed consent is not something lightly to be taken but it is the law, both nationally and internationally. The current vaccine push also violates bioethical principles in general.
“By way of background, please understand that I am a vaccine specialist and advocate, as well as the original inventor of the mRNA vaccine (and DNA vaccine) core platform technology. But I also have extensive training in bioethics from the University of Maryland, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and Harvard Medical School, and advanced clinical development and regulatory affairs are core competencies for me,” Malone writes.
“Why is it necessary to suppress discussion and full disclosure of information concerning mRNA reactogenicity and safety risks? Let’s analyze the vaccine-related adverse event data rigorously. Is there information or patterns that can be found, such as the recent finding of the cardiomyopathy signals, or the latent virus reactivation signals?
We should be enlisting the best biostatistics and machine learning experts to examine these data, and the results should — no must — be made available to the public promptly. Please follow along and take a moment to examine the underlying bioethics of this situation with me …
The suppression of information, discussion, and outright censorship concerning these current COVID vaccines which are based on gene therapy technologies cast a bad light on the entire vaccine enterprise. It is my opinion that the adult public can handle information and open discussion. Furthermore, we must fully disclose any and all risks associated with these experimental research products.
In this context, the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial.
And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research — written or otherwise.
The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration.18 There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects.”
Experimentation without proper informed consent also violates the Nuremberg Code.This set of principles were developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.
Lastly, government and any of those institutions that are encouraging, companies and schools to make these experimental injections mandatory, which violates the rule of voluntariness where massive incentives are created to participate in this experiment, including million-dollar lotteries and school scholarships. None of this is ethical or even legal. As noted by Dr Malone:
“… as these vaccines are not yet market authorized (licensed), coercion of human subjects to participate in medical experimentation is specifically forbidden. Therefore, public health policies which meet generally accepted criteria for coercion to participate in clinical research are forbidden.
For example, if I were to propose a clinical trial involving children and entice participation by giving out ice cream to those willing to participate, any institutional human subjects safety board (IRB) in the United States would reject that protocol.
If I were to propose a clinical research protocol wherein the population of a geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in my study, once again, that protocol would be rejected by any US IRB based on coercion of subject participation. No coercion to participate in the study is allowed.
In human subject clinical research, in most countries of the world this is considered a bright line that cannot be crossed. So, now we are told to waive that requirement without even so much as open public discussion being allowed? In conclusion, I hope that you will join me; stop to take a moment and consider for yourself what is going on. The logic seems clear to me.
1)An unlicensed medical product deployed under emergency use authorization (EUA) remains an experimental product under clinical research development.
2)EUA authorized by national authorities basically grants a short-term right to administer the research product to human subjects without written informed consent.
3)The Geneva Convention, the Helsinki declaration, and the entire structure which supports ethical human subjects research requires that research subjects be fully informed of risks and must consent to participation without coercion.”
Source: https://www.technocracy.news/inventor-of-mrna-technology-warned-fda-that-shots-could-be-dangerous/
