Covid-19 Cepiva

Second, the FDA pointed out that the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing, EUA Pfizer vaccine are “legally distinct,” but proclaims that their differences do not “impact safety or effectiveness.”

Klikni za razširitev

Given this background, the FDA’s acknowledgement in its approval letter that there are insufficient stocks of the licensed Comirnaty, but an abundant supply of the EUA Pfizer BioNTech jab, exposes the “approval” as a cynical scheme to encourage businesses and schools to impose illegal jab mandates.

Klikni za razširitev

Uporabnik mr_ je napisal:

Čaki, čaki, prej nekaj razlagaš, trdiš, sedaj pa da mora biti neka fora.

Klikni za razširitev

Uporabnik Zebdi je napisal:

Prvič cepljen marca, na nalepki piše Comirnaty. Sestra cepljena januarja, takisto Comirnaty. Kje vi vidite drugo cepivo, mi ni jasno...

Klikni za razširitev

In addition, web/smartphone tools to provide self-assessment of risk, and home-based self testing. No coercion. Freedom of choice. No mandates. Treat people with respect and dignity, not like livestock. And drop the authoritarianism, censorship, fearmongering. SO 20th century.

Klikni za razširitev

Finally, the "war profiteering" needs to stop. Now. A global public health crisis should not be used to enrich people at the expense of governments and patients.

Klikni za razširitev

Uporabnik D_K je napisal:

Da ta nikoli ni razvil mRNA cepiva.

Klikni za razširitev

RNA Vaccine Inventor — RW Malone MD, LLC

www.rwmalonemd.com

FDA Pfizer authorization (Comirnaty): Key points to consider and discuss.
These points are an aggregate of many minds, including Dr. Robert Malone.
23 Aug 2021

General talking points
• Why mandates if herd immunity isn't possible?
• What happens 8 months after boosters?
• What's the plan for the next variant?
• Why we're messing with vaccine injury liability if the vaccines are safe and effective?

Klikni za razširitev

There are now TWO LEGALLY distinct (Pfizer vs. BionTech), but otherwise identical products,
based on two FDA letters, as well as a press release. The analysis of these FDA products
below is preliminary and subject to change.


• DOES NOT GIVE FULL APPROVAL
• Extends EUA to allow supply of current Pfizer under EUA because limited supply of
BioNTech version.
• “The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or
effectiveness. (page 2, Pfizer letter)
o here FDA quietly admits that the licensed Pfizer vaccine and the authorized
Pfizer vaccine are identical with regard to safety/efficacy, but they are "legally
distinct." That's code for one has manufacturer liability, while the other doesn't.
It is also code for "we don't want to impose a mandate on the EUA product cause
it is illegal, but we can probably get away with a mandate on the licensed
product."
o page 12 AA (Conditions with Respect to Use of Licensed Product). This tells you
that yes, we licensed the vaccine, but...there is a lot of the old vaccine out there,
actually "a significant amount" and this amount will be considered an EUA and
will continue to be used.
o Now, why would they do that? Why specify that identical versions of the
product will be legally different? Because they need the license to impose the
mandates. But they need the EUA to evade liability.
o Along with the license comes liability for the manufacturer. (While all EUA
products were given a liability shield.)
o Unfortunately, our federal governments would prefer us to be without
recourse if we are injured, rather than have Pfizer defend its product in court.
So, the feds want us to THINK the vaccine we are receiving is licensed, which will
make people submit because they think it can now be mandated, but instead we
are almost certain to receive the EUA vials instead, to save Pfizer's behind. Yes, a

stingy CICP injury program exists, but it has not paid out for a single COVID
vaccine injury yet.
• Warning about myocarditis and pericarditis

Klikni za razširitev

Uporabnik D_K je napisal:

Ne da se mi... obstaja XYZ člankov ki debunkajo vse njegove trditve, tako kot tiste ki jih ne.
Za mene je on prispeval k mRNA toliko kot je Craig Wright Satoshi Nakamoto.

False: Dr. Robert Malone invented mRNA vaccines.

www.logically.ai

UPDATE: Malone reached out to Logically, stating that he did not invent the mRNA vaccines, but instead the "vaccine technology platform." He also presented us with copies of nine patents – none of which showed that he invented the mRNA vaccines. The judgment for the claim has not changed.

Klikni za razširitev

RNA Vaccine Inventor — RW Malone MD, LLC

www.rwmalonemd.com

Uporabnik Gargy je napisal:

Prvi stavek tvoje spletne strani se glasi:

"Dr. Malone is the inventor of mRNA vaccines"

Podčrtaj "technology"

Klikni za razširitev

It all started when…​

Dr. Malone is the inventor of mRNA vaccines (and DNA vaccines). He also discovered lipid mediated and naked RNA transfection technologies.

It all started when he was at the Salk Institute in 1987 and 1988. There, he pioneered in-vitro RNA transfection and also in-vivo RNA transfection (in frog embryos, as well as mice).

This resulted in his seminal paper: Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection RW Malone, PL Felgner, IM Verma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 86 (16), 6077-6081
His filed patent and disclosures from the Salk included in-vivo RNA transfection and also methods for mRNA stabilization - now being claimed as invented by others. These are available for review.
His research was continued at Vical in 1989, where the first in-vivo mammalian rat experiments were designed by him. The mRNA, constructs, reagents were developed at the Salk institute and at Vical by Dr. Malone, this included dosing amounts for the in-vivo experiments. RNA and DNA were sent to Dr. Jon Wolff via Fedex. Dr.Wolff at the University of Wisconsin injected mice and rats. The initial patent disclosures for RNA and DNA vaccination were written by Dr. Malone in 1988-1989. Dr. Malone was also an inventor of DNA vaccines in 1988 and 1989.

This body of work resulted in over 10 patents and numerous publications, yielding about 7000 citations for this work. The paper was the first showing data for DNA and RNA side by side for in-vivo (the first paper for in-vivo DNA):
Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Wolff JA, Malone RW, et al. Science. 1990;247(4949 Pt 1):1465-8. Cited in 4,750 articles, is the result of that work.
In 1989, research was performed that gave rise to the 10+ groundbreaking patents on mRNA vaccination, all with a priority date of March 3, 1989. This is the same priority date as the Salk Patent application, showing that the two institutions were working together (without Robert’s knowledge). These patents are the first published research on mRNA vaccination. The titles and links to the patents are listed in the documents below. These patents have proof of principle experiments on mRNA vaccines - that clearly document that the invention worked and that these are the first experiments showing this.

Vical was to license the Salk Technology. Instead, they hired Robert’s thesis advisor from the Salk and soon after, the Salk dropped the patent and Vical never pursued a license from the Salk. Due to an employee contract with Vical, this stopped Robert from working in the field commercially for a decade. Vical claimed all the Salk research happened at Vical and sent a cease and desist letter.

Dr. Malone carried on his research into mRNA vaccination during the 1990s, culminating in a mucosal patent that was issued in 2000. He also helped revolutionized the field of cationic liposomes for the use in RNA vaccinations. This work was so far ahead of its time, that only now is the world turning to mucosal mRNA vaccination as a method of immunization. For a listing of some of his work, see the publications at the end of this page.

Scientifically trained at UC Davis, UC San Diego, and at the Salk Institute Molecular Biology and Virology laboratories, Dr. Malone received his medical training at Northwestern University (MD) and Harvard University Medical School (Clinical Research Post Graduate) , and in Pathology at UC Davis, He has almost 100 peer-reviewed publications, and has been an invited speaker at about 50 conferences.

Klikni za razširitev