World Council for Health hosted an emergency hearing on 27 November 2023 featuring Julian Gillespie and seven other leading experts to address the legal implications of DNA contamination in Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. This was a follow-up to the 9 October 2023 panel seen by hundreds of thousands. Register below to receive exclusive updates about #Plasmidgate as more information becomes available. Please note by completing this form you will be subscribed to the free WCH email newsletter.

Watch this important video on Rumble, Facebook, Bitchute & Spotify.

Download the slides from this presentation.

Comparing the GMO Acts of Australia & Other Countries

Julian Gillespie, a retired lawyer and former barrister from Australia, has been researching opportunities for legal recourse to the mRNA shots in various jurisdictions. By October 2022, he had determined that they could be defined as being or containing GMOs.

Very similar definitions are found in GMO Acts around the world and have been in existence for approximately two decades. The LNP-modRNA (and the recently discovered LNP-modDNA) complexes fulfil the definition of GMOs. In the UK regulation, for example, the term ‘micro-organism’ is defined as an “entity, cellular or non-cellular, capable of replication or of transferring genetic material”.

Essentially, these complexes are a new form of synthetic virus “capable of transferring genetic material.” The LNP part of these complexes carries the genetic material throughout the human body and transfers the genetic material across the cell membrane of all cell types. Finally, these complexes fulfil the part of the definition which requires that they must be artificially modified.

As pointed out by fellow panelist Katie Ashby-Koppens, Australia’s Gene Technology Act requires that a licence be obtained to approve the importation, transport, and marketing of a GMO. This requires a significant risk assessment to prove no environmental damage, as well as consent from the Secretary of State. However, Julian discovered that in the UK the manufacturers managed to avoid having to obtain a licence by instead applying under the Human Medicines Regulation 2012, which did not require this information.

Julian comments on the absurdity of this loophole:

“So we’ve got a situation where, in the UK, if you wish to get marketing approval for a GMO that you’re going to spray on plants everywhere, you have to go through this extensive risk assessment process and receive consent. But If you’re going to inject it into humans you don’t have to disclose it, which is absolutely remarkable.”

In a case of regulatory complicity, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) required a GMO risk assessment but flouted their own regulations by not disclosing that the shots were GMOs. They therefore allowed Pfizer and Moderna to avoid the obligation to disclose to the public.

The USA also used a technicality to avoid an environmental assessment, as a manufacturer does not have to provide an environmental assessment with respect to the GMO aspects of the drug in a new drug application if the action does not increase the use of the active ingredient.

After all the chaos caused by the injection of these GMOs into billions of people around the world, Julian points to a comment on X from a thread by Kevin McKernan that questions why it was necessary at all to use GMOs in the Covid shots:

“I’ve yet to see a reason why Spike wasn’t created in vitro then injected. Why was gaining access to the cellular machinery so important?”

Kevin McKernan replies that had this been the case, vaccines would not have been needed at all, as this could have been delivered by a nasal spray.

Don’t forget to sign up below to receive exclusive email updates as more information becomes available!

This article was written by World Council for Health Correspondent Alice Ashwell, PhD.

About Julian Gillespie

• Julian Gillespie is a retired lawyer and former barrister from Australia. You can follow him on his Substack.

• He serves as a director at Children’s Health Defense Australia.

• Julian researches extensively on all matters connected to Australia’s response to SARS-CoV-2, sharing publicly his findings concerning the legislative framework for how the Commonwealth and States and Territory governments centrally organised the response to SARS-CoV-2 from Canberra, drawing attention to the fact Australian governments collectively jettisoned years of scientific research amassed for correctly responding to a pandemic, to instead follow unscientific WHO recommendations which favoured big pharmaceutical interests.