Constitutional Attorney Robert Barnes Offers Striking Revelation About Government’s Handling of ‘Vaccines’

Share to the world...



For the majority of most of our lives, a vaccine was defined as an “injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.” As Representative Thomas Massie noted on Twitter yesterday, the definition has evolved.

Constitutional attorney Robert Barnes took this thinking a step further and analyzed what our government is now presenting as a “vaccine.” Based on his interpretation, which is the plain interpretation prima facie, there is a challenge the government hasn’t addressed with what they’re now calling “vaccines.”

“If a vaccine is ‘a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases,’ then lots and lots of vitamins & natural supplements are now ‘vaccines’ according to that definition,” he Tweeted.

Regardless of which definition we use, the ones currently being pushed by our government leaves it wide open to be, well, just about anything therapeutic. The reason they had to widen the definition to the point that pretty much anything can be counted as a “vaccine” is because by the old (as in earlier this year) definition, the Covid-19 injections are not vaccines.

They do not prevent the disease from causing infection, symptoms, or death as can be seen by the astounding number of breakthrough cases. They do not offer immunity; even the CDC gave up on selling that lie months ago. Therefore, they must be considered protection which means anything can be a vaccine.

Reactions were logical:

Let’s call it what it is. Our government is setting the lowest possible expectations for the vaccines while demanding universal vaccinations because it just hasn’t done what they’d hoped… or has it?

Share to the world...