{"id":22754,"date":"2021-09-07T09:58:04","date_gmt":"2021-09-07T09:58:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/evaggelatos.com\/?p=22754"},"modified":"2021-09-07T10:15:35","modified_gmt":"2021-09-07T10:15:35","slug":"antony-fauci-asked-scientist-to-create-a-bioweapon-apathogen-virus-that-does-not-exist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/evaggelatos.com\/?p=22754","title":{"rendered":"Antony Fauci asked scientist to create a BIOWEAPON a pathogen Virus that does not exist"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dr. David Martin warned the\u00a0public that the Food and Drug Administration<\/em> (FDA) has approved a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine that does not exist<\/a>, is a computer simulation that does not stimulate your immune system, but turns your body into a factory producing S1 spike proteins similar to those found in coronavirus<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"dr.<\/p>\n

<\/span>\u201cWhen members of the mainstream suggest that this approval has suddenly put what is sitting in freezers around the world into an approved status, that\u2019s actually not true,\u201d Martin said during his appearance on \u201cBrighteon Conversations.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThere are still manufacturing guidelines that were not required for the EUA that would be required for a full-approved product.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

He told Health Ranger Mike Adams that the FDA has approved a \u201cunicorn (monokero)_.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

\u201cComirnaty does not exis<\/strong>t,\u201d Martin said, referring to the brand name of the Pfizer vaccine granted full approval by the federal agency. \u201cThe approval is for future production of COVID vaccine.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Martin related that some vital information had been redacted in the approval letter that Pfizer had, as well as in its official publication from the FDA.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe section of where it can be manufactured and when it can be manufactured is redacted, which is unusual given the fact that an approval letter is supposed to be a public announcement that makes these things visible,\u201d Martin said.<\/span><\/p>\n

COVID-19 vaccines should lose EUA protections<\/h2>\n

Both Adams and Martin agreed that the confusion brought by the approval was compounded by the extension of the emergency use authorization<\/strong> (EUA) for the Pfizer vaccine<\/a> used for children between the ages 12 and 15, as well as for the Moderna<\/a> and the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe mandate for EUA has to live inside of no clinical alternative,\u201d said Martin. \u201cThe moment there is an approval, then the EUA protections for Moderna and Johnson & Johnson would cease to exist instantaneously.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In its approval letter, the FDA acknowledged that there is \u201ca significant amount\u201d of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine produced under EUA still available for use. The FDA ruled that Pfizer\u2019s COVID-19 vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used \u201cinterchangeably\u201d with Comirnaty.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Under the circumstances, it was clear that the granting of full approval was a calculated move by the government to encourage businesses and schools to impose vaccine mandates and enable Pfizer to unload inventories of its COVID-19 vaccine under EUA. Martin said the Biden administration is pushing to get students vaccinated in time for the start of the coming school year.<\/span><\/p>\n

Difference between fully approved and under EUA products<\/h2>\n

There is a huge real-world difference between products approved under EUA compared with those fully approved by the FDA<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

EUA products are experimental under U.S. laws. Both the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations state that no one can force a human being to participate in the experiment.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Under U.S. laws, it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse experimental vaccines.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

On the other hand, U.S. laws permit employers and schools to require students and workers to take licensed vaccines.<\/span><\/p>\n

EUA-approved vaccines have an extraordinary liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act. Vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct<\/strong><\/span>. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Comirnaty vaccine is subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products. Licensed adult vaccines, including Comirnaty, do not enjoy any liability shield.<\/span><\/p>\n

People injured by the Comirnaty vaccine could potentially sue for damages. Jury awards could be astronomical, so Pfizer is unlikely to allow any American to take a Comirnaty vaccine until it can somehow arrange immunity for the product.<\/span><\/p>\n

Public misled by mainstream media<\/h2>\n

Members of the mainstream media were quick to report that vaccine mandates are now legal for military, healthcare workers, college students and employees in many industries following the full approval given by the FDA to Comirnaty on Aug. 23.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Pentagon promptly announced it will go ahead with its plan to force members of the military to get vaccinated<\/a> against the virus, while New York City announced on the same day that all public school teachers and other staffers will have to get vaccinated.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the first to implement the requirement was the\u00a0State University of New York<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(SUNY) system, which has nearly 400,000 students and more than 85,000 faculty members spread across its 64 campuses. Several other prominent institutions are expected to impose vaccine mandates after consultation with their Boards of Trustees and state officials.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fauci started all the madness decades ago<\/h2>\n

According to Martin, this madness all started in 1999. It was when National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases<\/em> (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci came up with the idea of creating an infectious replication-defective form of coronavirus.<\/strong> Fauci paid researchers at the<\/span> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill<\/span><\/em><\/a> to invent a pathogen that did not exist<\/span><\/strong>,<\/span> Martin said.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fauci essentially asked the researchers to create a bioweapon.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cYou cannot manufacture a bioweapon and not say that you\u2019re trying to kill people. That\u2019s what a bioweapon is for<\/strong>,\u201d Martin said.<\/span><\/p>\n

Kizzy Corbett, the person behind the development of COVID-19 vaccines using mRNA technology, once said: \u201cIt\u2019s really cool because you don\u2019t even need much of lab. You can build one of these on your computer at home.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

That, Martin said, is an admission of biological warfare.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe are not talking about a virus. We are talking about an engineered pathogen,\u201d Martin said. \u201cWe are not talking about a vaccine. We are talking about the introduction of a computer-simulated code in the form of mRNA \u2013 not to stimulate your immune system, but to turn your body into a factory producing S1 spike proteins similar to those found in coronavirus.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Watch the full episode of \u201cBrighteon Conversations\u201d with Mike Adams and Dr. David Martin here<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n