87 Comments

Do you know why Pfizer and Moderna SEC filings call them gene therapy? Honest question...

Expand full comment

Yeah, great question! I'm sure the kids at Reuters can give you an honest answer.

Expand full comment

I can provide FDA and ICH guidance documents defining this as Gene Therapy. To be clear you do not have to alter the host genome to classify as Gene Therapy. See my comment below with quotation from the most recent GT guidance and tell me how the "vaccines" don't fit this criteria.

Expand full comment

The definition of gene therapy is not solely restricted to DNA correction, but also includes "changing the cell purpose" which these do .... by hijacking the cellular process to express spike protein before apoptosis (cell destruction). So 'technically' they are gene therapy in that area of the definition. It's just that the false fact checkers zero in on one part of the definition that "gene therapy" only changes your genes to straw man the argument.

Expand full comment

Only because they had to. The Moderna filing said that the "gene therapy" was the FDA's classification, with the implication that they didn't like it (but had to disclose it to investors, the only people in America entitled to informed consent).

Expand full comment

Would the answer (and I'm quite sure there is one) be buried in any of the DOD and BARDA docs that Sasha Latypova has been digging up?

https://sashalatypova.substack.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=reader2&utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fsasha%2520latypova&utm_medium=reader2

Expand full comment

“Gene therapy” because “bio weapon“ (directed at the human population) may cause suspicion! Sasha is amazing!!

Expand full comment

Right?

Expand full comment

Snap, I just wrote the same. They also called them a “new class of drug.”

Expand full comment

The Pfizer concoction HAS been shown to reverse-transcribe itself into the DNA in a human liver cell culture (in vitro).

https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73

Does it do it in vivo, too? No reports, yes or no, likely because no one has tested it.

Expand full comment

Yes, because that is what made me know quicko that I wasn't having any.

Poor marketing for my category of sucker.

Expand full comment

Per se, no, but they are transfecting agents. Novel, and potentially dangerous.

Expand full comment

They are poisons like all "vaccines."

Many who consider themselves “in the know” still can't grasp the scale of the deception and remain trapped in some version of the "Covid" merry-go-round.

Arguing over the exact nomenclature of a poisonous injection produced by a serial felon is akin to debating the idiosyncracies of a mass murderer. "I hear John Wayne Gacy's favorite color was mauve."

"Covid" itself is a fictional construct. No one has "died from Covid" as “Covid” is nothing more than a fraudulent PCR result plus a nebulous clinical re-branding of cold, “flu” and many other disease conditions.

Put simply, Covid-19 was not a widespread medical emergency it was an Intel operation, a money laundering scheme, a massive psychological operation and a smoke screen for a complete overhaul and restructuring of the current social and economic world order.

We are living through the biggest worldwide organized crime since WW2.

Expand full comment

My limited understanding was there classification are "novel gene therapy products" (inoculations) and come under "Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products" ATMPs in the UK

There not vaccines in any normal sense of the word.

Expand full comment

Can you do a Substack explaining this in more detail? Why they are not gene therapy and what exactly they are?

Expand full comment

Semantics in a killing field.

Expand full comment

My tuppence, for what it's worth: Last summer, when a friend who was about to start a (non-scientific) position with Moderna vehemently refuted my use of the term "gene therapy", I did some searching for my response to him. Below are some sources that mention or discuss the term. The use of the term for the experimental mRNA products marketed as protecting against SARS2 does sound like it comes somewhat down to semantics. The search string I used was "gene therap".

Moderna's annual reports state that US and EU agencies classify mRNA as gene therapy:

2020 annual report, pp 106, 107, 116:

https://www.annreports.com/moderna/moderna-ar-2020.pdf

2021 annual report (referred to as "10-K"), pp 63, 65:

https://www.annreports.com/moderna/moderna-ar-2021.pdf

FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), second set of bullet points with categorizations:

https://www.fda.gov/combination-products/jurisdictional-information/transfer-therapeutic-biological-products-center-drug-evaluation-and-research

A 32-page document, apparently submitted to an FDA meeting by two researchers, discusses the term at length:

https://downloads.regulations.gov/FDA-2022-N-0336-2500/attachment_1.pdf

A "vaccine" press release posing as an informational article, from the American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy (ASGCT):

https://asgct.org/research/news/august-2021/pfizer-vaccine-approved-by-fda

Expand full comment

Still your friend?!

Expand full comment

I do get the sense he and his wife have downgraded my status with them. But he and I have been friends for almost 50 years, and he knows firsthand that I beat the other kids in the class in science and math, so he must have doubts about his dim views of my dim views, so to speak. I will always be a friend to him, whatever happens.

He did declare himself corrected when I sent him those links, but then added that he could not comment further, given his position with the company. Both he and his wife are highly intelligent--which we know does not immunize them against propaganda--but it may help them to wake up one day.

Expand full comment

Sorry to stick my nose in here...

But I’m surprised that your friend ‘declared himself corrected’.

That’s certainly a plus.

Most wouldn’t do that....

Expand full comment

No apology necessary! Yes, he ain't no dummy, but he has long-held political adherences that I presume would impede his ability to assess the objectivity of the current administration's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. Plus, he very likely did nothing to dissuade his three daughters from offering themselves up as subjects in the Safe and Effective™ experiment, in which case he will have been compelled to construct a robust cognitive dissonance to protect himself from concluding that he has abetted the psychopaths who injected them.

Expand full comment

All we need do is respond with the video of Bayer Pharmaceuticals executive, Stefan Oelrich, addressing the World Health Summit in Berlin back in October 2021 stating that these injections are indeed a gene editing technology.

Expand full comment

"Public Health", if it means anything at all, should be to protect us from what is happening.

Instead, it seems that they've been training for years to actually do this: force these injections into as much of the population as possible.

The entire apparatus is setup for this.

I really hope, that people start to recognize that "Public Health", as it is now, needs to be ripped down to its roots.

Expand full comment

Nothing public about health

Expand full comment

There's a video of one of the 2 big pharma companies openly calling the vaccines gene therapy...

Expand full comment

The fact checkers must be getting desperate to try and discredit Bridgen on what appears to be such an arbitrary point. They know that they can’t attack him on the reality of the death and damage these toxic shots are causing.

Expand full comment

Here is a definitive explanation as to the correct terminology vs the COVID-19 'vaccines' by Scientific and Technical writer Mark Pickles. (Fully referenced).

https://markpickles.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/gene-therapy-for-british-children.pdf

Expand full comment

Thank you: that article is so clear and helpful.

Expand full comment

Totally. Sent it to my MSP and still refused to acknowledge the reality. We just got to keep bombarding them with the facts !!

Expand full comment

I somewhere (CDC, FDA, ...) read the definition of gene therapy and, man, it matches the clot shot perfect! According to that a gene therapy does not modify your DNA, nothing to do with that.

Expand full comment

As medical doctor for 45 years who was struck from the medical register for my opposition to the pathogenicity Covid hoax and mRNA . I must respectfully disagree with Mike ,it is too early to say that the mRNA is not incorporated into the recipient DNA. There is also a question over the meaning of the words Gene Therapy. The mRNA utilizes the human DNA to produce a glycoprotein that surly is therapy using the recipient gene on a temporary basis if not a permanent basis . Definitions are now flexible and can be changed to facilitate any argument.

Expand full comment

I hope that your readers can help me put out the truth. I’m a Jewish woman. My husband and I lost relatives in the Holocaust. My Rabbi lost 4 siblings!! Yet we all feel that Holocaust comparisons are perfectly warranted. Please make my retweet of MP Bridgen’s words, and my article about the truth, go viral. https://twitter.com/BikurRofim/status/1613602714927104000 https://truth613.substack.com/p/as-a-jewish-woman-i-support-mp-andrew

Expand full comment

I always hated the word "therapy" in this context. Therapy implies healing. Healing is categorically not what these fake vaccines are about. Though it is awkward, I have called them gene manipulators.

Expand full comment

Mike Yeadon's early warnings were published in May 2020. Thank goodness for censorship or his concern about media presenting “vaccine hesitancy” as the "province of science-hating conspiracy theorists" might have gotten far more traction against these transfections.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200902094801/https://astutenews.com/2020/05/trumps-warp-speed-vaccine-czar-oversaw-an-infamously-botched-vaccination-why-a-third-of-americans-want-to-dodge-this-one/

Expand full comment

The possibility of incorporation of mRNA fragments from Covid19 jabs into Human DNA can't be ruled out just now, especially since they have been observed located near the cell nucleus. Check out my friend and former coworker Prof Ted Steele who shows you how we have evolved by taking up the genetic code of other life forms.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321258358_Reverse_Transcriptase_Mechanism_of_Somatic_Hypermutation_60_Years_of_Clonal_Selection_Theory

Expand full comment

The Definition of Gene Therapy (From Dr Mercola)

The FDA defined gene therapy in July 2018 and has not changed it since. Per the FDA's

website as of this writing:

"Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene

or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Genetherapy is a technique that modifies a person's genes to treat or cure disease …"

Here's where Asspciated Press/fact checkers went wrong. They only used ONE part of the FDA's definition of a gene

therapy — the part about modifying expression of a gene — in its debunking attempt. But

the full definition also includes the words "or to alter the biological properties of living

cells," which is precisely what the COVID shots do.

The mRNA in the COVID jab are molecules that contain genetic instructions for making

various proteins. mRNA COVID shots deliver synthetic mRNA with a genetic code that

instructs your cells to produce a modified form of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

Expand full comment

I recall reading a technical document which contained in the definition of gene therapy an "or" clause very much like the one you have cited Dr. Mercola as conveying. Unfortunately, I don't presently know where to look for the document I saw.

But I think Joel's statement in the headline is strictly false, according to my understanding of the US definition. A gene therapy includes any therapy which introduces foreign genetic material, whether DNA or RNA, to living cells, and regardless of whether the intervention is intended to change host DNA.

As for the statement in the fact checkers' tweet, it bears stressing that the key claim in the tweet, that the injections "do not change recipients' DNA" is nothing more than an outrageous falsehood, and has been from the start. The mRNA and DNA injections might not be _intended_ to alter recipients' DNA, it is certainly the case that we do not know that they don't. Reverse transcription has been know since the famous "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" was exploded in the 1970s, and it is certainly the case that no studies were done initially to characterize such risks associated with the mRNA and DNA vaccines. Since the roll-out, at least one in vitro study has demonstrated the possibility that host DNA can be affected.

Expand full comment

Great post! What is your source of "to produce a modified form of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein" what if they produce the very spike protein?

Expand full comment

It's taken from a Joseph Mercola newsletter.

Expand full comment