Skousen: MEDICAL DECEPTION – Moderna and Pfizer Vaccines not really Vaccines

World Affairs Brief, January 15, 2021 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.

Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (


In this bombshell video, (also here in case it gets censored) Dr. David Martin methodically and accurately takes apart the phony story that Moderna and Phizer are delivering vaccines. He reveals that Moderna admits that their patents say “gene therapy” not “vaccine.” They put a synthetic RNA fragment embedded into a fat carrier, whose only purpose is to lessen the symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.

He proves by referencing the official definition of a vaccine that these are not vaccines. He says you cannot have a vaccine that doesn’t claim to result in either immunity or blocking transmission.

The WHO admits that with these shots don’t do any good. In a virtual press conference earlier this week, WHO chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan was specific: “I don’t believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on.” By their own patents and reference material, neither Phizer nor Moderna claims this. Rather they only claim their devices are “gene therapy.”

If this isn’t a vaccine, why are they calling it a vaccine? To gain the broad immunity that only vaccines are given. The 1986 law on Vaccine liability provides an exclusion only for vaccine makers, not for gene therapy—so they would be liable. This is why states are keeping this state of emergency in place to help shield Moderna and Phizer and the states themselves. The state of emergency maintains the illusion of vaccine shield.

He then explains from a legal view that Moderna and Phizer qualifys as deceptive practices of making medical claims without clinic trial proof. 15 US Code, Section 41 of the Trade Commission act, is the law on deceptive practices. He shows why Moderna was never a vaccine company. In 2018, it was a gene therapy company, and still is.

The mentioned video:

Butterfly of the Week, 11 Jan 2021: Hidden in Plain Sight (for references click show more below)

Jan 12, 2021

David Martin World

25.5K subscribers


!Click show more for references!

Here’s the Butterfly of the Week, a weekly event where we go live on Facebook to break down and discuss a contemporary topic, with viewer participation greatly encouraged.

On the menu this week – discussing the legal definitions of vaccines, and whether the products currently being marketed as such meet this definition.


Link to sources:…

Link to transcript:…

In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the court held that the context for their opinion rested on the following principle: 

“This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that ‘persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state…”


The Moderna and Pfizer “alleged vaccine” trials have explicitly acknowledged that their gene therapy technology has no impact on viral infection or transmission whatsoever and merely conveys to the recipient the capacity to produce an S1 spike protein endogenously by the introduction of a synthetic mRNA sequence.  Therefore, the basis for the Massachusetts statute and the Supreme Court’s determination is moot in this case. 


From Iowa Code

Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen which, upon administration to a person, will result in immunity

“Vaccine” means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.

Pursuant to the authority of Iowa Code section 147.76, the Board of Pharmacy hereby gives Notice of Intended Action to amend Chapter 8, “Universal Practice Standards,” and to adopt new Chapter 39, “Expanded Practice Standards,” Iowa Administrative Code.


Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Further, misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material facts constitute deceptive acts or practices prohibited by this section of the Act. Notably, Section 12(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 52(a), prohibits the dissemination of any false advertisement in or affecting commerce for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, the purchase of food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics. Supple is a “drug” as “drug” is defined in Section 15(c) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 55(c).


Liberty Lockdown now streaming on demand:…

David’s book, Lizards Eat Butterflies, is now available on Amazon and Barnes and Noble:……

Tune in next Monday for the next episode, 5PM EDT.

Visit for more of David’s content.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.