Butterfly of the Week, 11 Jan 2021 Hidden in Plain Sight<br /><br />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. <br /><br />On the menu this week - discussing the legal definitions of vaccines, and whether the products currently being marketed as such meet this definition.<br />_____________________________________________________<br />Link to sources:<br /><a href="https://www.davidmartin.world/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BotW_slides_01112021.pdf​" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.davidmartin.world/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BotW_slides_01112021.pdf​</a><br /><br />Link to transcript:<br /><a href="https://www.davidmartin.world/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BotW_transcript_01112021.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.davidmartin.world/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BotW_transcript_01112021.pdf</a><br /><br /><br />In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the court held that the context for their opinion rested on the following principle: <br /><br />“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…”<br /><br /><br />___<br /><br />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.