Legally, most COVID-19 vaccines are GMOs - the EU seemed to have known about it before June 2020

According to Australian lawyer Julian Gillespie, the “vaccines” are legally defined as GMOs in most jurisdictions globally. This was long known to regulators but concealed from the public

Some of this article is based on John Campbell’s most recent video, titled “Organisms” (I encourage everyone to watch this sobering discussion with Julian Gillespie while it is still up). Below, I will raise a specific issue also regarding the EU.

Background

The important issue is that most of the Covid-19 vaccines fulfill the definition of a GMO.

Previously, many of us have been concerned that the mRNA injections, in particular, may turn recipients into GMOs (as I analyzed in detail in my book, and so have many others). Yet, here, the emphasis is on those products themselves – as GMOs.

Already in October 2023, the World Council for Health organized an emergency panel of nine international experts to examine reports of DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines. There, starting at approximately 33 minutes, the Australian lawyer Katie Ashby-Koppens, first revealed the Dr Julian Fidge v. Pfizer Australia court case. The case is based on the fact that according to Australian law, the mRNA “vaccines” are in fact GMOs. They fulfill the legal definition as depicted in the figure below.

Source: https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/expert-hearing-plasmidgate/

On October 28, 2023, Senator Rennick from Australia managed to get the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) entangled in some apparent contradictions. The hearing has been shared by many on different social media platforms and I encourage everyone to make up their mind as to how clear the arguments, or excuses, were. However, what was revealed strongly suggests that the OGTR knew the mRNA “vaccines” were actually gene therapies. But the hearing also provides strong evidence they would have known these products are GMOs. 

Campbell’s video is a deep dive into this damning issue and gives detailed information about who seemed to know what in Australia, including official admissions that both the Pfizer and Moderna products are legally GMOs.

The definition of a GMO and how this is satisfied by the mRNA “vaccines.”

Campbell’s guest, Dr Julian Gillespie, a lawyer from Australia, lays out three criteria (and how these are satisfied by the mRNA “vaccines”). According to Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000, a GMO is (inter alia)

• “Any biological entity...” (note that some regulations specifically emphasize the need for such an ambiguity, see below).

• “...capable of transferring genetic material...” (this is at the heart of those drug biologics – without transfection, the mRNA vaccines would not work).

• ... “that has been modified by gene technology”, especially via recombinant technology (that’s exactly what the manufacturing of the synthetic mod RNAs relies on).

Dr Gillespie also emphasizes that many of the other major jurisdictions use very similar definitions of a GMO. The important implication is that in all these, COVID-19 vaccines satisfy the legal definitions for being properly classified as GMOs  These include the UK, the EU, and the US. For example, for the UK, the corresponding legal framework is as depicted below:

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/106

In the EU, the building blocks of GMO legislation involve several components. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament regulates the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and details the definition of a GMO (figure below). Note that such a “deliberate release” also applies to the COVID-19 injections, and importantly, as highlighted by Julian Gillespie,

“‘environment’ does not refer exclusively to the great outdoors . . . forests, lakes, creeks, and streams . . . significantly, the term also includes the human body.”

Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1381/oj

In the EU, this directive lists strong obligations involving the environmental release of GMOs:

Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1381/oj

GMOs also require a rigorous risk assessment

Legally, if a substance is classified as a GMO, manufacturers need to provide extensive dossiers demonstrating the lack of environmental risks and those to humans.

Yet, as only recently exposed by Dr. David Wiseman, because these drug biologics were rolled out under an EUA, the high standards of “safe and effective” meant the opposite of rigorous proof of that legal definition. He clearly showed that in the US, all that was needed was the belief they “may be,” and other forms of unscientific “evidence” which may also involve speculations. Even though this issue first emerged during a Congressional hearing, there is no official acknowledgment or public awareness of this. Since there is no proof of “safe and effective” anywhere, this sham that the COVID-19 vaccines did not meet the official standard likely played out elsewhere.

Thus, neither was there any proof of “safe and effective” drug substances as legally defined and publicly understood, nor was there a manufacturer-provided dossier to demonstrate the safety of these products as GMOs, nor any assessment of such a claim. The formal risk assessment of GMOs involves detailed and year-long procedures and legally must be open to public scrutiny and input from independent subject matter experts. Julian Gillespie is certain, and I agree, if the public had known about the true nature of the “vaccines” as GMOs (and also as gene-therapy processes, for that matter), there would have been a huge outcry and all would have come to a screeching halt.

The public has been deliberately denied any information regarding the GMO classification and the actual nature of the “vaccines.”

People have been accused and blamed for “vaccine hesitancy.” However, Julian Gillespie correctly emphasizes we are rightfully entitled to “GMO hesitancy.” Who would want to be injected with an untested GMO?!

Ironically, in recent years, the EU has been pushing the narrative that the technology of modern GMOs is so advanced that most GM plants should automatically be exempted from regulation. Nonetheless, thanks to qualified input from numerous scientists and experts, we now know of numerous risks that have gone underappreciated. On the other hand, there has never been any debate nor an unbiased analysis of GMOs injected into humans. Such forms of “GMOs” add another level of complexity, which, had it been known, would likely have shaken researchers and scientists who fell for the “they are just vaccines” narrative.

That COVID-19 vaccines are classified as GMOs in several legislatures could demolish the manufacturer’s indemnity and I am truly grateful to Julian Gillespie and his team for alerting the public about this.

In addition to pursuing legal actions in the federal court in Australia, Julian Gillespie said that they had also advised lawyers in South Africa and UK MPs like Andrew Bridgen about their respective analogous situations. He argues that the health officials and governing bodies would have been aware of this issue but chose to keep it quiet. He then went on to say (starting at 35 minutes)

“We provided similar information to MEPs – members of the European Parliament – in the European Union to show them how the European laws very clearly captured these drugs but when they were being processed by the EMA – the European Medicines Agency similar to your MHRA – inexplicably, the section that needed to be filled out on GMOs is just blank. Just blank, John, no explanation! Moderna, I think, put an “N/A” there, not applicable. On what basis is it not applicable?! It was entirely applicable!”

Below, I will give some reasons why I believe they wrote “N/A.” This, however, just raises further substantial issues.

The EU deregulated COVID-19 vaccines from environmental risk assessment but at the same time, emphasized their GMO nature

Interestingly, as I previously described in my preprint, the EU exempted COVID-19 vaccines from environmental risk assessment. However, there is one aspect that deserves special attention. In their deregulation, the EU places a strong emphasis on those products being GMOs (emphasis added):

“Today, the Council adopted a regulation which aims to speed up the development and the deployment of a vaccine against COVID-19 in the EU. The act provides for a temporary derogation for clinical trials with such vaccines from the prior environmental risk assessment required in the EU legislation on the deliberate release in the environment and the contained use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In addition, it clarifies that this temporary derogation also applies when member states allow medicinal products containing or consisting of GMOs intended to treat or prevent COVID-19 to be used in certain exceptional and urgent situations defined in the pharmaceuticals legislation. The environmental impact of medicinal products (including vaccines) containing or consisting of GMOs intended to treat or prevent COVID-19 will remain part of the marketing authorisation process, respecting the environmental safety requirements set out in the GMO legislation.”

Additionally, the EU specifically notes that

“The regulation provides for a derogation from certain provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and Directive 2009/41/EC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms.” 

Furthermore, while the EU de-regulation in one sentence seems to say that “manufacturing of such products will however still be subject to all provisions in those directives,” the very next sentence waters it down.

“The regulation also clarifies that certain provisions of Directives 2001/18/EC and 2009/41/EC are not applicable when member states grant access to medicinal products containing or consisting of GMOs in certain exceptional and urgent situations.”

Recall that all of this was published in June 2020 already!

EU’s seeming pre-knowledge of “vaccines” containing or consisting of GMOs

Why did EU regulators know that future vaccines were likely to be GMOs? Previously, we never had such vaccines for public, let alone, global and mass application. Indeed, most would have thought  that the vaccines used for COVID-19 would be traditional ones.

Yet, at that point, it was already clear that for respiratory viruses such as influenza, existing vaccines had failed. During the fall of 2021, many of us circulated a video from the meanwhile infamous October 2019 discussion at the Milken Institute between health experts including Dr. Anthony Fauci, and panelists from the private and government sectors. Some social media platforms soon circulated some startling statements that were made. Not surprisingly, fact-checkers quickly rejected those revelations. For example, Reuters stated that the “Video is not evidence Fauci was plotting for a ‘new avian flu virus’ to enforce universal influenza vaccines.”

Agreed!

Ironically, Reuters, in their intent to fact-check circulating social media claims, tried to divert the attention from the flu vaccines, and got themselves into trouble by clearly stating

“The panelists do discuss mRNA vaccines and mention a potential virus from China.”

Yes, indeed! This is what it was all about. The panelists made it clear that the forthcoming universal vaccine would need to rely on innovative technologies. They were super-hyped about the mRNA vaccines they kept bragging about, which could easily be manufactured in case of a viral outbreak somewhere in China, using digital information of that novel pathogen alone.

This push for mass vaccination with those new technologies fits with Dr. Julian Gillespie’s account of Dr. Peter McCullough detailing a DARPA project ten years prior to 2020. In the video with Dr. Campbell, he paraphrases DARPA’s announcement as 

“We are going to develop modRNA products  which can be rolled out super-quick within one year as a medical countermeasure.”

Some may think all this gives plenty of evidence that the mass roll-out of the mRNA vaccines was pre-planned (others go even further arguing that the end goal would have been a radical reformation where the global population would be willing to surrender their rights to a totalitarian regime). 

Regardless, with the notable exception of China, the development and roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines all involved “innovative” genetic platforms. Virtually all of them are legally GMOs. Notably, as highlighted by Julian Gillespie, the AstraZeneca vaccine not only fulfills the Australian definition of a GMO but was originally also licensed as such.

Thus, when the EU determined the deregulation of COVID-19 vaccines from environmental risk assessment, it seems they expected that many of the new candidates would rely on novel, as opposed to traditional, platforms. And, given the hype about the mRNA vaccines, they may particularly have had those in mind.

GMOs are the focus of their deregulation document. In fact, if COVID-19 vaccines were based on traditional vaccines, such a policy document would not have been needed. This is strong evidence they would have known that the mRNA vaccines do fulfill the legal definition of GMOs. But to the public, they were portrayed as “vaccines.”

Summary

Julian Gillespie details several important points that strongly suggest the manufacturers and Australian regulators knew the COVID-19 vaccines legally were GMOs. As for the EU, it seems to me they brought themselves into a “catch-22” situation.

If they ignored the essential nature of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as GMOs, they would have violated their own GMO regulation.

On the other hand, if the section about GMOs during the evaluation of these products was left blank because the EU had anticipated this when exempting them from environmental risk assessment, their very deregulation document strongly indicates (fore)knowledge of their GMO characteristic.

In other words, the derogation from the prior environmental risk assessment required in the EU legislation of the “vaccines,” whilst overturning these requirements, may implicate EU regulators. It suggests they knew said products were GMOs but withheld that crucial information from the public and simultaneously dodged mandatory risk assessment policies.