This one paragraph in abstract of the Mead, Wolfinger, Rose, Seneff, Kirsch et al. paper and these 3 words indicate why this abstract MUST be rewritten (paper taken down): 1)'modified' is a Malone

construct absolving him, Weissman, Kariko et al. as inventors of this deadly underpinning technology, he/they must be accoutable 2)'until', there is NO until 3)'moratorium' suggests temporary stop; NO

‘Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.’

Moratorium means a temporary prohibition of an activity. Is this what the authors meant? Temporary? Stop the mRNA vaccines temporarily? You think the Malone, Weissman, Bourla, Bancel et al. mRNA vaccine is to be halted temporarily? This is not what they were saying before, at least Rose, McCullough, Seneff etc. So why this language change and I find very problematic and I am convinced McCullough, Seneff et al. did not read this paper before going to print.

You need to be open, clear, explicit, transparent with the reader and explain why this change.

There is no temporary stoppage, and this article raises questions as to softening of the proper stance against mRNA technology that was never properly safety tested and these deadly COVID vaccines. There is no amnesty or softening. This abstract and paper is to be rewritten or removed. Moreover, suggesting it was written in this manner to get it published is very concerning. I know we are blacklisted, I know they won’t publish our work but we keep trying and we take it to the streets. In this way, we bacame the other side. No. Write it how it should be written. The public seeks truth, ONLY! No games.