We continue to collect material for the international tribunal Nuremberg 2-0. 

For U.S. citizens 🇺🇸 a legal way is possible, it is quite logical to do in parallel with the work of FBI investigators and sue Faiser, in the U.S. (New York State) for false advertising. 

The essence of the lawsuit may be:

COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations are not officially vaccines.

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercol

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE STORY. 

✔️Insivet on COVID-19 vaccines as a "vaccine" rather than a gene therapy, the U.S. government violates Section 41 of the U.S. Code 15 (15US section41), which regulates deceptive actions in medical statements.

✔️Injection of mRNA is a gene therapy that does not meet any criteria or definition of a vaccine.

✔️ "Vaccines" COVID-19 do not give immunity and do not prevent the transmission of the disease. They are only designed to reduce symptoms of infection if you become infected. Thus, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of the vaccine.

✔️After the vast majority of people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, they did not even have a causal link between the virus and the clinical disease.

✔️ Calling this experimental gene therapy technology a "vaccine," they are liable for damage that would otherwise be applied. 

Did you know that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are not vaccines in the medical and legal definition of a vaccine? They do not prevent infection and spread. I discussed this disturbing fact in a recent interview with molecular biologist Judy Mikowitz, Ph.D. Although moderna and Pfizer mRNA injections are labeled as "vaccines", news agencies and policy leaders 

In real patents for injections, Pfizer and Moderna more truthfully describe them as "gene therapy" rather than vaccines.

Interview:

 https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/01/31/covid-19-vaccine-gene-therapy.aspx

DEFINITION OF VACCINE

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

A vaccine is "a product that stimulates a person's immune system by producing immunity to a particular disease, protecting a person from the disease." Immunity, in 

is defined as "protection against infectious diseases 

"If you are immune to the disease, you may be exposed without contracting it."

Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claim that this applies to their "vaccines" from COVID-19. In fact, in their clinical trials, they 

indicate that they won't even check immunity.

Unlike real vaccines that use antigen 

diseases you are trying to prevent, COVID-19 injections contain synthetic fragments of RNA encapsulated in the nanolipid compound, the sole purpose of which is to reduce the clinical symptoms associated with S-1. spike protein, not the virus itself.

In fact, they do not give immunity and do not prevent the transmission of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to prevent 

SARS-CoV-2 infection; they should only reduce the symptoms of your infection if you do get infected.

Thus, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of the vaccine, and as David Martin, PhD, noted in the video above: "The legal implications of this 

the deception is huge."

15 U.S. Code, Section 41

As Martin explained, Section 15, Section 41 of the U.S. Code of Laws 

Law 2 of the Federal Trade Commission is a law regulating the advertising of medical practices. This law that dictates that you 

can and cannot do in terms of promotion of goods, for many years usually used to close practitioners of alternative medical professionals and companies.

"If this law can be used to shut down people of goodwill who are trying to help others," says Martin, "it should certainly be applied equally when we know that deceptive medical practices are used in the name of 

public health."

Under this law, it is illegal to advertise:

«... What a product or service can prevent, treat or 

cure a person's illness if you don't have competent 

and reliable scientific evidence, including 

need, well-controlled clinical trials 

people confirming that the allegations were true at the time of their 

Views. ” 

What is the "higher good"?

Martin points to the 1905 Supreme Court decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which essentially found that collective benefit replaces individual benefit. 

Frankly, he argued that public health directives are acceptable to people if it benefits the collective. So, if vaccination is a public health measure, 

which should protect and benefit the collective, then it must:

 (a) Ensure that the vaccinated person is immune from the disease in question; And 

b) The vaccine suppresses 

transmission of the disease.

Only if these two results can be scientifically proven, you can say that the vaccine benefits the entire "collective". Here we are faced with problems with mRNA "vaccines."

The Securities and Exchange Commission's documents, which Martin claims have been scrutinized, clarify and emphasize that its technology is "gene technology 

therapy." Initially, his technology was created to treat cancer, or rather, it is the technology of gene therapy chemotherapy.

As Martin pointed out, who will raise his hand to get 

preventative chemotherapy for cancer that you don't have and will never risk? Most likely, few 

will take advantage of such an offer, and for good reason.

Moreover, states and employers will not be able to oblige people to pass 

chemotherapy gene therapy to treat cancer they don't have. It would be just illegal. However, they offer 

to force all humanity to undergo gene therapy from COVID-19.

COVID-19 vaccines - a case of false advertising

So, if the COVID-19 vaccine isn't really a vaccine, why do they call it that? While the CDC defines "vaccines," is the CDC not an active legislature? It's an agency authorized by law, but it doesn't create a law! Interestingly, find a legal definition 

"vaccines" are more difficult, but there have been several cases. Martin gives the following examples:

Iowa Code - "Vaccine means specially prepared 

antigen administered to humans to ensure immunity." Again, COVID-19 vaccines do not claim to be 

Immunity. They are only designed to relieve symptoms in the event of infection.

Washington State Code: "The vaccine means a drug killed or killed 

weakened living microorganism or its faction..." Because 

Moderna and Pfizer use synthetic RNA, they clearly do not 

fit that definition.

Being an artificial synthetic substance, the RNA used is not derived from anything that has ever been alive, whether it is an entire microorganism or part of it. The law continues to state that the vaccine "after immunization stimulates immunity that protects us from disease ..."

So, in short, "vaccine" and "immunity" are well-defined terms that do not correspond to the end points specified in the 

COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary endpoint in these trials is COVID-19 symptomatic disease prevention. Is it the same as "immunity"? No.

Problems more than one

But there is another problem. Martin points out that COVID-19 disease is defined as a series of clinical symptoms. Moreover, there is no causal link between SARS-CoV-2, the virus, and a set of symptoms known as COVID-19. You ask, how is it? It's really simple. Because 

The vast majority of people with a positive Test for Sars-CoV-2 symtoms are absent, they have not been able to establish a causal link between the virus and clinical disease.Here's another problem: the primary endpoint of vaccine trials 

COVID-19 is not the actual end point of vaccine trials, 

because, again, the endpoints of vaccine trials are related to 

immunity and reduced transmission. Neither was measured.

What's more, the key secondary endpoints in the study 

Moderna include "Prevention of Severe Disease COVID-19 and 

preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection." However, by its own 

admitted that Moderna did not actually measure the infection, saying that 

it was too impractical.

This means that there is no evidence that this gene therapy 

affects the infection, for better or for worse. And if you don't 

evidence, you can't comply with the U.S. Code 

which states that you must have "competent and reliable 

Scientific evidence ... confirming that the allegations are true."

Why do they call them vaccines?

As Martin noted, you cannot have a vaccine that does not correspond to 

not a single definition of a vaccine. So, again, what would prompt these 

companies, U.S. health agencies and public officials 

health care, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, to lie and claim that 

these gene treatments are actually vaccines though, 

obviously, that's not true?

If they actually called it what it is, namely "gene 

chemotherapy," most people - sensibly - would refuse 

take it. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for their falsehood 

Vaccines. But there may be other reasons.

Martin is wrong here because we have no proof of their intentions. He suggests that the reason they call this 

experimental gene therapy technology "vaccine" 

is that in this way they can avoid 

liability for damages.

You're being lied to. Your own government is breaking its own laws. They have again and again shut down practitioners across the country for violating so-called "methods of deception in medical statements." Guess what? That's what they're doing. David 

Martin, Ph.D.

As long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like PCR tests and COVID-19 vaccines are allowed with emergency use permits. And while there is an emergency use permit, the manufacturers of these experimental gene 

therapeutics are not financially responsible for 

any damage caused by their use.

That is, provided it is a "vaccine." If these injections are NOT vaccines, then the protection of liability is no longer there, because there is no 

liability protection for the emergency medical countermeasure, which is gene therapy.

Thus, by maintaining the illusion that COVID-19 is 

although in fact it is not, government leaders are covering up these gene therapy companies so they can be immune from liability.

Under the guise of "Emergency"

As Martin noted, if the state governors lift the state of emergency, suddenly the use of RT-PCR will be a violation of 15 

U.S. FTC Code Act because PCR tests are not approved diagnostic tests.

"You can't diagnose a thing that can't 

it's a great thing," Martin said. "This is a distortion 

Facts. This is a hoax under the Federal Trade Commission Act. And they are responsible for the deception."

It is important to note that there is no renunciation of responsibility in the case of deceptive acts, even under a state of emergency. It's also 

applicable to experimental gene therapy. The only way 

to protect these gene therapies from responsibility is to call them vaccines, 

developed in response to a public health emergency. There is no gene therapy for gene therapy 

immunity from liability.

The vaccine is promoted and administered by one company.

Martin picks up another curious moment. The mediator in 

Operation Warp Speed is a North Carolina defense contractor called ATI. It controls the spread of 

Vaccine. But ATI has another type of contract with the Ministry of 

defence, namely, propaganda management and the fight against 

Misinformation. Thus, the same company responsible for manipulating 

The media, with the aim of promoting state propaganda and censorship, is the same company that is responsible for the distribution of 

"vaccines" that are being promoted illegally.

"Look," Martin says. It's pretty simple. 

Situation. You're being lied to. Your own government is breaking its own laws... They have thrown this book to more people than we can expect.

They have again and again shut down practitioners across the country for 

violation of so-called "methods of deception in the medical 

statements... Guess what? That's what they're doing."

Martin urges listeners to send his video to the state's attorney, the governor, representatives and anyone else who can accept 

positive measures to address and correct this fraud.

Defense contractors violate Federal Trade Commission law, and gene therapy companies, not vaccine manufacturers, conduct experimental trials using deceptive medical practices. They claim to be 

"vaccines" without clinical evidence, and must carry 

responsibility for their deceptive marketing and medical methods. The CDC holds patents for coronavirusCstati, the CDC seems to be up to its ears in this pandemic of fraud and therefore completely unsuitable for researching the side effects of these experimental treatments COVID-19. As 

martin noted it's as if a bank robber was investigating 

own crime.

Details of this were published in the documentary 

'Plandemic', in which Martin explained how the CDC somehow 

violated the law related to the patenting of the SARS virus in 2003.

Martin is a national intelligence analyst and founder of the company 

Index, which developed linguistic genomics - a platform that can determine the purpose of communication. In 1999, IBM digitized 1 

million U.S. patents, allowing Martin's company to review all of these patents, sending him on the proverbial "rabbit trail" 

Corruption. In 2003, an outbreak of atypical 

Pneumonia. Almost immediately, scientists began to chase 

patenting the virus. Eventually, the CDC seized ownership of SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) from humans.

So the CDC actually owns all the genetic content of this 

SARS virus. It is patented under U.S. Patent 7776521. They also own patents for detection methods and a set to measure the virus.

U.S. Patent 7279327, 5, filed by the University of North Carolina in 

Chapel Hill, describes ways to get recombinant 

coronaviruses. Ralph Barik, Ph.D., Professor 

Microbiology and Immunology, known for its research on chimeric coronavirus, is listed as one of three inventors, along with 

with Christopher Curtis and Boyd Unte.

According to Martin, Fauci, Baric and the CDC "are at the center of coVID-19 history." "In 2002, coronaviruses were recognized as a mechanism that can be used for both good and harm,"

Martin says, "Between 2003 and 2017, they controlled 100% of the cash flow to build an empire around industrial plants. coronavirus complex."

How the CDC broke the law

Martin's key finding in "Plandemic" is that there is a clear problem with the CDC patent on SARS-CoV, allocated to humans, because, by law, natural segments of DNA are prohibited 

Patenting.

The law clearly states that such segments "are not subject to patents simply because they are isolated." So either SARS-CoV was created by hands 

a person that makes a patent legal, or it is natural, making the patent illegal.

However, if the virus was manufactured, it was created in violation of biological weapons treaties and laws. This includes the Law 

on biological weapons on counter-terrorism in 1989, passed unanimously by both houses of Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush, which states: 

"Whoever consciously develops, produces, accumulates, 

transmits, acquires, retains or owns any 

biological agent, toxin or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly p grave to a foreign state or any organization in this, must be fined or life imprisonment or for a term or both.

Here is the extraterritorial federal jurisdiction in 

a crime under this article committed against a United States citizen 🇺🇸 

I hope in my star reader began to dispel doubts about the feasibility and possibility of appointing a military tribunal with the design name Nuremberg 2-0 ? 

I feel your timid doubts in the distance, and therefore I will continue in the next part of the material . . .

ϒ𝔬𝔲𝔯 𝔍𝔬𝔨𝔢𝔯 🃏