https://en-volve.com/2022/02/22/cdc-is-refusing-to-publish-their-data-on-booster-shots-because-they-fear-public-will-find-out-they-arent-effective-and-no-one-will-get-them/

1. the CDC represents that the mRNA COVID treatments are “safe and effective”

2. the mRNA COVID treatments causes death, heart problems, etc.

3. the CDC’s representation of the mRNA COVID treatments is substantively important to the administration and acceptance of the mRNA COVID treatments

4. the CDC knew the mRNA COVID treatments causes death, heart problems, etc.

5. the CDC intended the public to take the unsafe mRNA COVID treatments based on the CDC’s representations

6. the public did not know of the adverse effects of the mRNA COVID treatments (because the CDC hid the information and lied about it)

7. the public relied upon the representations about the mRNA COVID treatments in order to accept being treated with the mRNA COVID treatments

8. the public has a right to rely on the CDC as it is a public agency tasked with providing truthful information to the public to make healthcare decisions

9. persons have been injured by the vaccine (each case of death, hospitalization, myocarditis, etc.)

Elements of Fraud:

(1) a representation of fact;

(2) its falsity;

(3) its materiality;

(4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth;

(5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated;

(6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity;

(7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth;

(8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and

(9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury.

See, e.g., Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp., 666 F.3d 1197, 1210 n.3, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175, at *25 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Staheli v. Kauffman, 122 Ariz. 380, 383, 595 P.2d 172, 175 (1979)); Rice v. McAlister, 268 Ore. 125, 128, 519 P.2d 1263, 1265 (1975); Heitman v. Brown Grp., Inc., 638 S.W.2d 316, 319, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3159, at *4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982); Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68, ¶ 41, 56 P.3d 524, 536-37 (Utah 2002).