The GMO Law Suit Against Big Pharma By Brian Simpson
The latest Australian law suit relevant to the Covid vaxxes relates to a suit against Pfizer, Moderna, and others: Julian Fidge v. Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd & Anor, filed in Australia’s Federal Court on July 6, 2023. The claim is that the mRNA vaccines are a genetically modified organisms, or GMO, and that regulations about such products have not been followed, “they have failed to apply for the necessary licenses.” This is allegedly in violation of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (GT Act). Central to the case will be the argument that the mRNA vax satisfies the definition of genetically modified orgasm under that Act. A genetically modified organism (GMO) is:
- a plant, animal or other organism that has been modified using gene technology
- an organism that has inherited modified traits from a GMO.
The issue would be if the mRNA vax itself is genetically modified, which I think it is, and is an “organism” which does not seem to be so. It is a biological substance, but will that be covered by the Act? That is what the case will be about. It will be significant since it will show that the mRNA vax is substantially different from previous vaxxes.
“Back on April 27, TrialSite reported on a class action suit against Australian regulators and officials by 500 folks allegedly injured by the COVID-19 vaccines. On July 6, another major suit was launched by attorneys including Julian Gillespie, LLB, BJuris. According to email communication from Gillespie, one of the attorneys for applicant Dr. Julian Fidge, the suit against Pfizer, Moderna, and others includes that the mRNA products are a genetically modified organism, or GMO, and that regulations about such products have been trampled upon. The liquid nano-particle and its payload, or LNP-modRNA complex, made by these two firms meet the legal definition of “GMO” under Australian law. Also, Gillespie alleges that scientist Kevin McKernan has found “grossly excessive synthetic DNA contamination” in both companies’ vaccine vials. And this “mod DNA” also fits the GMO regulation definition. In that nation, it is criminal to put GMOs on the market without a license from The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR).”
“A lawsuit was filed in Australia’s Federal Court on July 6, 2023, accusing pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Moderna of dealing with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) without the requisite licenses. The court case, identified as Julian Fidge v. Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd & Anor, marks a milestone in the ongoing global discourse around the risks of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.
From the news release:
“To paraphrase a line about the devil:
.. the greatest trick Pfizer and Moderna ever pulled was to convince the world their products don’t enter the nucleus, and alter chromosomal DNA, forever
With a heavy heart I can now share with you the new legal proceedings we launched on 6 July, naming Pfizer and Moderna as the Defendants; our planet’s new IG Farbens producing a more subtle Zyklon B (said with respect to those affected by the latter).
The Letters of Demand we sent to Pfizer, Moderna, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, and the TGA, contain an abundance of references referring to the long established science surrounding the real dangers these transfection products were always known to pose to humanity.”
The lawsuit led by Julian Gillespie LLB, B Juris, with instructing solicitor Katie Ashby-Koppens argue that the vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna, including both monovalent and bivalent vaccines, are or contain GMOs, and “that they have failed to apply for the necessary licenses.”
Central to this argument is the assertion that the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) -modRNA and -modDNA complexes present in the vaccines fulfill the Australian legal definitions of a genetically modified organism, pursuant to the Gene Technology Act 2000 (GT Act).
In a nutshell: the LNP-modRNA complexes produced by Pfizer and Moderna satisfy Australian legal definitions for being properly deemed Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs. Almost identical legal definitions are found in many other countries, including the EU. There are over four decades of science acknowledging how easily synthetic and natural RNA can integrate with genomic DNA.
The subsequent discovery by Kevin McKernan of grossly excessive synthetic DNA contamination in the vials of both companies only makes a very bad situation much worse, as that modDNA also satisfies the same legal definitions for being yet another form of GMO, while possessing superior traits for effectively undergoing genomic integration, and DNA disregulation.
In Australia it is a serious criminal offence to ‘deal’ with GMOs without a GMO licence first being granted by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.”
Both Pfizer and Moderna have been accused of a ‘willful blindness’ to the legislative requirements. The lawsuits accuse the companies of bypassing the necessary processes to seek a GMO license from the Australian Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) before pursuing provisional approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
AstraZeneca, another vaccine producer, is cited as a contrast, having properly sought a GMO License before seeking TGA approval for its COVID-19 vaccine.
“This constituted a gross and heinous failure by Australia’s Gene Technology Regulator, assisted by the Secretary of Health not pausing to ask whether these drugs were not always meant to be first regulated by the OGTR, prior to being possibly cleared to proceed to apply for provisional approval with the TGA.
This utter failure by GMO regulators occurred about the globe when the C19 drugs were hustled to the front of approval ques, where now thanks to their transparent failures we can thank them for ensuring the Human Genome has been irreparably poisoned.”
https://www.maatsmethod.com.au/post/we-are-suing-pfizer-and-moderna-directly
Comments