Nov. 12 2021 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals OSHA no 21-60845 pg 1 screenshot

Court cases reject FDA and DOD Claims that Pfizer FDA Approval of Comirnaty is interchangeable with Pfizer’s EUA COVID Vaccine

Pfizer FDA Approval of Comirnaty is not interchangeable with Pfizer's EUA COVID Vaccine, says Judge, and mandating an EUA drug breaks US law.
December 5, 2021

A federal district court judge rejected a claim by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), that the Pfizer FDA Approval of Comirnaty, means that vaccine is interchangeable with Pfizer’s EUA COVID Vaccine, being administered under Emergency Use Authorization.

Americans have been told by Pfizer, the FDA and the Media, that the Pfizer COVID vaccine was licensed; they therefore assumed that COVID vaccine mandates are lawful, but the Pfizer’s EUA-authorized Vaccine is legally distinct from Pfizer FDA approval of the Comirnaty COVID Vaccine.

In a court case Doe et al. v. Austin, on Nov. 12 In an order, U.S. Federal District Judge Allen Winsor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, denied a preliminary injunction requested by 16 service members against the U.S. Military’s COVID vaccine mandate. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 14, 2022.

Table of Contents

However in court documents Judge Allen Winsor acknowledged that EUA vaccines can not be mandated by the Department of Defense (DOD).

“the DOD cannot mandate vaccines that only have an EUA”

Judge Allen Winsor in Doe et al. v. Austin

Judge Allen Windsor’s ruling rejected a mandate of Pfizer’s EUA COVID vaccine, and in that court case, stated that Pfizer FDA Approved Comirnaty is different from the EUA licensed Pfizer COVID vaccine being administered and the two are not interchangeable. Therefore the DOD can’t mandate the EUA product, it must be the Comirnaty version, which according to a court order must have on the vaccine vial label “Comirnaty”; otherwise it’s not the fully FDA Approved treatment. There are two reasons the DOD can’t legally mandate Pfizers EUA Vaccine:

  1. There are differences in both the ingredients and manufacturing process between Pfizer’s EUA vaccine and the approved Comirnaty vaccine.
    1. Drugs must chemically match the approved BLA product
    2. Drugs must be produced at BLA-compliant facilities
  2. There are legal implications and differences between an Emergency Use Authorized drug and a fully FDA licensed drug.

FDA Public Statement Says Pfizer FDA Approval of Comirnaty is Interchangeable with Pfizer EUA Vaccine

In a press release, the FDA stated Pfizer FDA Approval of the Comirnaty, meant the Pfizer EUA COVID Vaccine being administered was also FDA approved. It indicated to the public that Comirnaty was interchangeable with Pfizer’s EUA vaccine; Judge Allan has clearly stated that is simply not true.

“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”

FDA In public statement

The FDA provided no explanation as to how the licensed Comirnaty vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine could “be used interchangeably” despite having “certain differences” that make them “legally distinct.”

EUA products are experimental under U.S. law. Both the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations provide that no one can force a human being to participate in this experiment. U.S. laws, however, permit employers and schools to require students and workers to take licensed vaccines.

Liability for Injuries caused by EUA drugs

One of the key legal differences between an EUA vaccine and fully FDA licensed vaccine is liability…EUA indemnifies a vaccine manufacturer like Pfizer, from injuries caused by their vaccine.

This is according to the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which states EUA vaccines are accompanied by a far-reaching liability shield, which protects all parties involved with the product from lawsuits.

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation program (CICP)

The only way to claim damages and receive compensation is to apply to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), an administrative process under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which authorized the vaccines.

Some lawyers have called the CICP a “black hole”, stating you have the “right to file a CICP claim” and the right to “have it rejected”. In other words it is exceedingly difficult to receive any form of compensation from the CICP.

Notably, under 4% of claims made through this program have been compensated. To date, CICP has not compensated any claims for COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

Even if you do managed to have a CICP claim approved, it potentially only covers some unpaid medical expenses and lost wages, but it also has stipulations that make it difficult for you to file a vaccine injury lawsuit.

EUA vs Fully FDA Approved Drugs and the PREP Act

A fully FDA licensed drug or vaccine on the other hand, holds the pharmaceutical company responsible, financially and legally for injuries caused. This is especially important for you as an individual…EUA-approved COVID vaccines have an extraordinary liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act; with an EUA vaccine Pfizer gets off scott-free.

The only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.

At this time, the Pfizer FDA approval of Comirnaty, means it may have no liability shield, and is subject to product liability laws that allows the vaccine injured to potentially sue for damages… although Pfizer alleges that the vaccine is protected under the PREP Act as well.

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention includes a fully licensed vaccine on its recommended vaccination schedule, the vaccines similarly enjoy generous liability protections, but those protections are not as complete as under the PREP Act.

However it is impossible for a vaccine to be both FDA approved and simultaneously to receive the legal protection from liability, that Emergency Use Authorization provides.

EUA licensing is no longer valid if a fully licensed alternative exists

Pfizer says that EUA will end only once it is no longer required:

“This EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and COMIRNATY will end when the Secretary of HHS determines that the circumstances justifying the EUA no longer exist or when there is a change in the approval status of the product such that an EUA is no longer needed.”

FDA Fact Sheet

However that directly contradicts established black-letter laws, which state that EUA is considered illegal and invalid, if there is a fully licensed alternative available; which would apply to Pfizer’s licensed Comirnaty, while its EUA Pfizer-BioNTech is still on the market.

“The black letter law is clear. There can be no biologic license approved to a medical product for diagnosing, preventing or treating COVID-19 if there is also still an Emergency Use Authorization for the same medical product serving the same purpose.”

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) in its lawsuit against the FDA and Dr. Janet Woodcock, acting commissioner

Fact Checkers join the FDA in pushing propaganda and Lies to confuse the public with lies

A recent USA Today “fact check,” also tried to claim the Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are the same

“The FDA authorized Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine for emergency use in December. Eight months later, the agency fully approved the shot for most Americans…The authorization changed, but the vaccine didn’t. Comirnaty is simply the brand name for Pfizer’s shot.”

USA Today “fact check,”

“The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty”

FDA Statement

“I can confirm that our vaccine has been granted FDA approval and that Comirnaty is available,”

Kit Longley, a spokesperson for Pfizer – cited in Fact Check

We know these are outright lies! In the FDA approval letter for Comirnaty it clearly states that that the vaccines are to be labeled with “Comirnaty on the Vial” (don’t take my word on it, click the link and read the document on the FDA website) here it is:

“You may label your product with the proprietary name, COMIRNATY, and market it in 2.0 mL glass vials, in packages of 25 and 195 vials”

FDA approval letter for Comirnaty

In other words, if it doesn’t have Comirnaty on the label, and/or If it says “Pfizer-BioNTech,” it’s an experimental product, and under 21 U.S. Code 360bbb, and you have the right to refuse. The fact that the FDA, Pfizer and Fact checkers are lying to the public, certainly calls into question the credibility of the FDA and fact Checkers alike.

In a previous article we discussed how is funded by a company with nearly $2billion stocks in vaccine manufacturer Johnson and Johnson, which shows a clear conflict of interest and bias, driving fact checking organizations narrative.

FDA Pfizer Approval Letter for Comirnaty COVID Vaccine

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voices concerns over speedy FDA Pfizer approval of Comirnaty

Robert F. Kennedy Jr tweeted about his concern over the speedy FDA Pfizer approval of the Comirnaty COVID Vaccine; asking why the approval was based on only 6 months of data, despite clinical trials being designed to be preformed for 2+ years.

Vaccine Mandates violate the US Constitution, Canada Bill of Rights, and the Nuremberg Code

To make it very clear, it is unlawful to mandate Emergency Use Authorized vaccines. However what governments and health agencies are doing to work around this legal hurdle, is to use “Coercion”; by permitting employers to fire employees based on voluntary consent of an experimental EUA medical treatment. Which means either you lose your job and the ability to feed your family, or volunteer to receive the experimental vaccine; not much of a choice.

“Even one American being forced by their government to receive a vaccine that they do not want out of fear of losing their job is an irreparable injury and a stain on defendants’ records.”

Texas Attorney General Paxton

Leaders around the world have made public statements showing their disdain for those unwilling to engage in this experimental medical procedure and their desire to vaccinate the public with this gene based concoction, against their will:

However in the words of Texas Attorney General Paxton “the federal government does not have the ability to strip individuals of their choice to get a vaccine or not”:

“The Biden administration has repeatedly expressed its disdain for Americans who choose not to get a vaccine, and it has committed repeated and abusive federal overreach to force upon Americans something they do not want … The federal government does not have the ability to strip individuals of their choice to get a vaccine or not. If the President thinks his patience is wearing thin, he is clearly underestimating the lack of patience from Texans whose rights he is infringing.”

Texas Attorney General Paxton ABC News Report

Many other officials joined in their criticism of the US vaccine mandate:

“unprecedented expansion of emergency regulatory powers by a federal agency.”

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery III statement

“[w]e will not allow the Biden administration to circumvent the law or force hardworking Georgians to choose between their livelihood or this vaccine.”

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp in a statement

“President Biden has arrogated to the Executive Branch the unilateral power to mandate that all employees of federal contractors be vaccinated. This power grab is sweeping in its scope. Employees of federal contractors constitute one-fifth of the total U.S. workforce. And the mandate goes so far as to demand vaccination even from employees who work entirely within their own home. That is unconstitutional, unlawful and unwise.”

 joint filing by Missouri, Nebraska, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming

“ … astonishing — not only for its tremendous breadth and unworkably short deadline, but also because so little care has been given to how it will work in the real world. The mandate, as the federal government has conceived, and thus far implemented, applies not only to contractor employees working on federal contracts, but also any employee that may have contact with someone working on a federal contract (even if that contact is nothing more than walking past them outside, in a parking lot). There are no exceptions for employees that work alone, outside or even exclusively remotely.”

lawsuit jointly filed by the states of Georgia, Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia

“Those mandates — one relating to federal contractors and subcontractors (“Contractor Mandate”) and another relating to all federal employees (“Employee Mandate”) — transgress numerous constitutional and statutory requirements. They are, in other words, patently unlawful. But if they are permitted to go into effect, contractors and employees will rapidly be forced to comply with these illegal mandates and this Court’s power to prevent harms resulting from those illegal mandates will rapidly diminish into near-nothingness.”

Mandating Vaccines is against The Nuremberg Code

Τhe Nuremberg Code, as well as federal law, provide that no human being can be forced to participate in a medical experiment. Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), “authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,” it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject.

This is also made clear in the FDA fact sheet provided to patients receiving any Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. It states:

“Under the EUA, it is your choice to receive or not receive the vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.”

FDA fact sheet 

However, U.S. law does allow employers and schools to require students and workers to take licensed vaccines.

Other Lawsuits Against COVID Vaccine Mandates

  1. The Republican National Committee has also filed a lawsuit against the federal vaccine mandate.
  2. 10 states — led by Missouri — launched a separate lawsuit against the Biden administration’s vaccine mandates for healthcare workers.
  3. Arizona filed one of the strongest lawsuits.
  4. Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dep’t of Health (1990) found that “[A] competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.”
  5. Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997 – Arizona’s lawsuit states this right is rooted in “the common-law rule that forced medication was a battery, and the long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment”
  6. Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 40 Cty. of Yamhill 1997 – found individuals have a “constitutional right to be free from state-imposed violations of bodily integrity.”
  7. Benson v. Terhune 2002 – found “[D]ue process … substantively protects a person’s rights to be free from unjustified intrusions to the body, to refuse unwanted medical treatment and to receive sufficient information to exercise these rights intelligently.”
  8. Perry v. Sindermann 1972 – referenced the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, where the government may not coerce people into giving up their constitutional rights nor condition employment “on a basis that infringes [an employee’s] constitutionally protected interests,”
  9.  Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist 2013 – ound that “[T]he unconstitutional conditions doctrine forbids burdening the Constitution’s enumerated rights by coercively withholding benefits from those who exercise them …”

CHD Lawsuit states EUA devices “cannot be mandated at all”

The legality of mandates was called into question in a CHD lawsuit, pertaining to mask mandates for school children issued under an EUA.

“[i]t is black-letter law that EUA devices … cannot be mandated at all.”

Judge Windsor in CHD lawsuit

In the court case, CHD  Board Chair Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and General Counsel Mary Holland filed a motion for emergency relief in Federal Court against the Franklin Square Union Free School District and New York Health Commissioner Howard Zucker.

The lawsuit was launched on behalf of parents for 11-year-old “Sarah Doe” who suffers from asthma and other serious underlying conditions. Sarah’s pediatrician determined it is unsafe for Sarah to wear a mask all day and wrote her a medical exemption. On September 2, the School District rejected it.

“This denial violates Sarah’s fundamental constitutional rights…It is well established that the state cannot condition acceptance of a medical exemption written by a state-licensed doctor on consent of the state or any third party.”

Gibson – Legal council for “Sarah Doe”

“Masks are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are only allowed for use by children pursuant to Emergency Use Authorization…It is black letter law that EUA devices, including masks, cannot be mandated at all, let alone mandated for children with medical exemptions from their doctors.”

Mary Holland, co-counsel on the case

In other words any employer or school that is mandating masks or EUA vaccines is essentially breaking the law. In fact the public health orders to launch the mandates and lockdowns, completely bypass the democratic process; they are signed off and launched by Public Health authorities, without having to endure any of the rigors or debate process that a bill normally would. Essentially Public Health authorities have become President/Prime Minister, Judge, Jury, and Executioner of their public health directives.

By law the Government can’t mandate you to take an EUA vaccine, but coercion accomplishes the same thing by other means

When governments state you can “opt-out” of receiving the experimental COVID vaccine, technically they are telling the truth. However coercion; by threatening someone’s ability to feed themselves and have shelter, is just a workaround the law to force people to consent to this experimental medical procedure, and that is a breach of the Nuremberg code, which clearly outlines the legality of using coercion, specifically to subject citizens to an experimental medical procedure.

However Pfizer, the FDA and the media’s attempt to trick the public into believing Pfizer’s EUA vaccine, is the same vaccine as the Pfizer FDA Approval of Comirnaty, is an outright lie; from a company with a history of lies, and deception.

CHD through its lawsuit against the FDA, argues that Comirnaty’s licensure was a classic “bait and switch,” and that there is no legal basis to retain the EUA status for other COVID vaccines once the FDA has fully licensed a COVID vaccine.

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. confirms EUA statute confers the right to refuse the covid vaccine

In a 2013 Decision Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. found that mandates were a violation of the US unconstitutional conditions doctrine:

“[T]he unconstitutional conditions doctrine forbids burdening the Constitution’s enumerated rights by coercively withholding benefits from those who exercise them …”

 “[w]hen Congress adopted the EUA statute, it interpreted the statute as conferring “the right … to refuse administration of a product.”

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist

The lawsuit further argued that the EUA statute, under which all COVID vaccines are available in the U.S., expressly requires disclosure to the patient of their right to refuse it:

“the option to accept or refuse administration” of a product approved only under an EUA, further arguing that legislative history and prior agency interpretation of the statute has created a precedent where there is a right to refuse EUA products.”

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist

Arizona Attorney General blocks Biden vaccine mandates and Confirms ‘Comirnaty’ is not interchangeable with EUA Vaccine

On Nov. 12, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals barred the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from enforcing — “pending adequate judicial review” of a motion for permanent injunction — the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandate for private businesses with more than 99 employees.

“[u]nder the EUA statute, recipients of EUA drugs must be ‘informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

22-page ruling

In the 22-page ruling, the court called the mandate, which was supposed to take effect Jan. 4, “fatally flawed” and said OSHA shall “take no steps to implement or enforce the mandate until further court order.”

“The mandate is a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly ‘grave danger’ the Mandate purports to address.”

“Before the court is the petitioners’ emergency motion to stay enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s November 5, 2021 Emergency Temporary Standard (the ‘Mandate’) pending expedited judicial review.

“Because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate, the Mandate is hereby STAYED pending further action by this court.”

 22-page ruling

The petitioners who brought the case argued the Biden administration’s mandate, or Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) under OSHA terminology, exceeds OSHA’s legal authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

“[i]n an attempt to impose a nationwide vaccination mandate without approval from Congress, the executive branch has couched its COVID-19 vaccine mandate as an emergency workplace rule affecting nearly 100 million Americans. But the ETS is neither a workplace rule nor responsive to an emergency.”

emergency motion, lawyers for the petitioners 

In that lawsuit they confirmed that none of the current COVID vaccine from Pfizer, was the FDA approved ‘Comirnaty’ product:

“…the whole point of the mandates is to deny any such ‘option’ to those governed by them. Notably, only the Pfizer vaccine has received [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] approval, and none of the stock of it in the U.S. is actually the FDA-approved version (and instead is entirely under the EUA label subject to the EUA-mandated conference of choice).”

 lawsuit filed by Arizona’s attorney general

Department of Defense (DOD) Guidance Documents and Mandating vaccines in the US Military

In the DOD Guidance documents it explicitly states that only FDA licensed COVID-19 vaccines are mandated; which Judge Winsor pointed out:

“DOD’s guidance documents explicitly say only FDA-licensed COVID-19 vaccines are mandated.”

Judge Winsor

The judge further clarified that vials not labeled Comirnaty are not the fully FDA licensed product and can’t be mandated:

 “the plaintiffs have shown that the DOD is requiring injections from vials not labeled ‘Comirnaty.’ Indeed, defense counsel could not even say whether vaccines labeled ‘Comirnaty’ exist at all.”

Judge Winsor

The Department of Defence stated that in their minds they can mandate EUA labeled vials because they are chemically identical:

“it was mandating vaccines from EUA-labeled vials,” adding that “[i]n the DOD’s view, this is fine because the contents of EUA-labeled vials are chemically identical to the contents of vials labeled ‘Comirnaty’ (if there are any such vials).”

DOD statement

However that’s simply not how FDA licensing works and Judge Winsor didn’t seem to think so either calling the argument “unconvincing”

“FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before BLA approval.”

Judge Winsor

Judge Winsor further stated that drugs must not only be chemically similar to the BLA-approved drug, but must also be produced at BLA-compliant facilities:

“there is no indication that all EUA-labeled vials are from BLA-approved facilities…the DOD cannot rely on the FDA to find that the two drugs are legally identical.”

Judge Winsor

Despite the federal judge’s opinion in Doe et al. v. Austin, no court has yet issued a final, definitive ruling that an institution may not mandate a COVID EUA product.

It is important to note that specifically regarding the US Military.. an EUA drug can be mandated if the President signs a special order to do so; if that occurs then the DOD would have legal precedence to mandate EUA vaccine COVID Vaccines, on the US military.

Judge’s ruling halts federal vaccine mandate for health care workers in 10 states | USA

Expert Testimony Against Mandates

Lawyer David Kallman Discusses What Sort Of Procedures Could Be Used To Challenge Invasive Vaccine Mandates-1

Senator Rand Paul on Vaccine Mandates vs Sec. Becerra | USA

Paul attacks Sec Becerra on vaccine mandates

Dr. Jesse Lopez on Vaccine Mandates | USA

Dr. Jesse Lopez TEARS APART Arguments for Vaccine Mandates

Lawyer breaks down vaccine mandates vs decisions from federal judges

Lawyer breaks down vaccine mandates vs. decisions from federal judges

SC AG Wilson Discusses Vaccine Mandate lawsuits | USA

Other Court Cases that provide precedence against mandating EUA vaccines

DOD’s anthrax vaccine immunization program (AVIP) 1997

Excerpt from Federal Judge Rejects DOD Claim That Pfizer EUA and Comirnaty Vaccines Are ‘Interchangeable’

“The DOD’s anthrax vaccine immunization program (AVIP), established in 1997, sought to mandate a vaccine previously used for cutaneous anthrax, to protect service members against inhalation anthrax. This alternate use was legally considered off-label usage, requiring informed consent from each individual or a presidential waiver of informed consent.

Service members filed a lawsuit in 2003, seeking to halt the AVIP. Later that year, a federal court, in response to the lawsuit, halted AVIP, due to the DOD’s failure to adhere to informed consent requirements.

The FDA, eight days after this decision, expanded the vaccine’s label to include inhalation anthrax. This decision was challenged by service members on procedural grounds, based on the claim that the FDA did not follow its own regulations regarding label amendments.

In October 2004, a federal district court sided with the service members, vacating the FDA’s decision. Subsequently, then-President Bush signed the Project BioShield Act into law, which amended the Public Health Service Act to “provide protections and countermeasures against chemical, radiological or nuclear agents.”

Following this, the FDA, in December 2004, filed for an EUA for the anthrax vaccine, which was issued within weeks. The new EUA encompassed inhalation anthrax. Vaccinations of service members resumed, but only on a voluntary basis.

It was not until December 2005 that the FDA formally approved a label expansion for the anthrax vaccine, and only after this did mandatory vaccinations resume for certain categories of service members.

This prior precedent seems to lend legal credence to the argument that EUA vaccines cannot be mandated, at least for military service members, based on a narrow interpretation of the relevant case law.”

What is my chance of dieing from COVID-19?

The average survival rate for those under 40 without pre-existing health conditions is 99.98%. That translates to less than a 0.02% chance of dieing from COVID-19.

Infection fatality rate of COVID-19

Take Action against COVID Vaccine Mandates

  1. Canadians can visit StandupCanada or Freedom Rising, where you can get resources and donate to those legal initiatives. Write to your local Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) regarding your concerns; that only takes 5 minutes and makes a huge difference.
    1. Visit
    2. Visit
  2. Americans can visit this page with an extensive list of hundreds of legal resources you can visit to fight back against vaccine mandates
    1. An employment law attorney answers your vaccine mandate questions
    1. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
    3. America’s Frontline Doctors – Legal Eagle Dream Team Lawyers can sign up to help and everyone else can donate.

If you know of any other legal resources, leave a comment with links and after being vetted, they will be added to this post. Thanks for your help!

Conclusion on Pfizer FDA Approval of Comirnaty COVID Vaccine

It is clear that despite what, Pfizer, the FDA, DOD, or Media claims…Pfizer’s EUA Vaccine is a separate product from the fully FDA licensed ‘Comirnaty’ vaccine; weather or not it is chemically similar. It must also be produced in BLA-complaint facilities, and be clearly labeled with ‘Comirnaty’ on the vial label, for there to be any talk of mandating it, either on the public or the US military.

Despite all this, no court has yet issued a definitive ruling that an institution may not mandate a COVID EUA product; it’s still being deliberated in court. In some cases judges have upheld mandates of EUA drugs, for example Bridges et al. v. Houston Methodist Hospital, which upheld EUA mandates for employees in a case where 116 hospital employees filed a lawsuit disputing their employer’s vaccine mandate on the grounds the vaccines were being administered under an EUA; was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and is far from a final decision.

There are multiple high profile court cases that verify the illegality of mandating an EUA drug. Even in the the EUA statutes it states that recipients must be given the option to refuse treatment. In addition, International Law outlined in the Nuremburg Code, clearly states that both mandates and coercion of citizens, to participate in an experimental medical procedure is illegal; this isn’t just US law, it’s International law. Regardless it is yet to be decided in court if mandating EUA vaccines will be largely allowed, or instead blocked. You can take these mandates to court, and potentially win…but it will be a long and arduous legal battle, and a budget that many people simply don’t have.

However as the legal war wages against these mandates, organizations like the FDA, and many News publications have tried to push ahead with their COVID vaccine mandates by other means: using lies to try and deceive the public into believing that FDA Approved ‘Comirnaty’ is the same as Pfizers EUA COVID vaccine, when it is not…this has been confirmed by multiple Judges.

Personal Thoughts on Pfizer FDA Approval of Comirnaty, COVID Vaccine Mandates and Lockdowns

Governments around the world and these regulatory agencies such as the FDA, seem hell bent on pushing through mandates and public health measures, to force the public to take an experimental medical procedure. Furthermore these authorities are calling for ‘vaccine passports’ requiring citizens to participate in this experimental medical procedure or be excluded from entering public spaces, retaining a job or earning a living living, and even travelling; a segregation and discrimination that is reminiscent of an American past time, when racism against African Americans was rampant, including segregation in public venues, across the United States. Some may even go as far as to draw parallels between vaccine passports and Jewish ID papers, used by the Germans during Hitler’s rein; and though there are differences, there are also similarities.

For nearly two years the public at large has been subject to lockdowns, face mask mandates, and now mandates of an experimental medical gene-base treatment for a virus, COVID-19 that has a survival rate of 99.98% for those under 40 without co-morbidities. These lockdowns and mandates, based on very little science as to their efficacy against COVID-19, can not possibly prevent infections, but instead serve only to delay and stretch them out over a long time period; infections and deaths are going to happen as COVID-19 transitions from an epidemic to an endemic. Not only is the risk of death from COVID-19 infection exceptionally low, but there are alternative treatments and preventative medicines like Vitamin D, and Ivermectin; which are being used in countries across the world in the fight against COVID-19.

Perhaps if governments had utilized all the tools at their disposal, such as Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and budesonide; instead of censoring and banning these and other alternative medicines…tens of thousands of lives could have been saved. Why are alternative treatments being censored? When Remdesivir, a repurposed Ebola drug, was made the common COVID-19 protocol in hospitals across the US, based on a single study with inconclusive data regarding it’s effectiveness? Perhaps it’s because Emergency Use Authorization is dependent on there being no other effective treatments available? Not only could lives have been saved, but the detrimental impact of these mandates and lockdowns on: the economy, the mental and physical health of adults and especially children, could have been significantly reduced.

In the end we must ask ourselves…why are governments and regulatory agencies so concerned with injecting an experimental drug into adults and children, when their risk of mortality from COVID is so infinitesimally low; especially teens and children? Is it really about health, or is there some other agenda? Has the pandemic simply uncovered a rot inside governments and health agencies around the world, that has been there all along? A moral and ethical rot, present in the very foundations of society and the organizations that are responsible for protecting our health; which has made acceptable, placing profit before the health of citizens and wellbeing of humanity?

I think governments response to this pandemic will be one for the history books; similar to WW2…and many good laws will come out of this ordeal to prevent a re-occurrence. But as we’ve seen throughout this history of mankind…humans are destined to repeat their mistakes, because as a species we seem incapable of retaining knowledge and respect of our history beyond a few decades, to prevent indefinitely a repeat of our mistakes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

More Readings

Detection of microplastics in human lung tissue using μFTIR spectroscopy graphical abstract high res

Study finds microplastics in living lung tissue, mainly polyethylene and polyethylene, the main materials in n95 and surgical COVID face masks

Scientists Find Microplastics in Living Human Lung Tissue – The Potential Long Term Health Risks of Long Term Face Mask Use During the COVID 19 Pandemic – n95 and surgical masks
April 19, 2022
Official government of Canada data statcan Alberta and BC excess deaths in 0 to 44 year olds as of dec 2021

Official data from the Government of Canada Shows Over 70% of Excess Deaths are in Ages 0-44, the lowest risk demographic for COVID 19 death.

Official Government of Canada Data Shows Over 70% of Excess Deaths are in Ages 0-44
April 15, 2022
World Health Organization WHO Pandemic Treaty 2022

World Health Organization – WHO Global Accord on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response aims at global control of pandemic emergencies.

World Health Organization’s Pandemic Treaty – WHO Global Accord on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response
April 12, 2022
Moderna Industrial Engineer Whistleblower on 4Chan Post Screen Clip

Moderna Whistleblower exposes secret ingredients added to COVID 19 Vaccines which can effect fertility and sex characteristics in offspring.

Moderna Whistleblower – Industrial Engineer, Posts Anonymous Article Revealing Secret Ingredients Added to COVID 19 Vaccines
April 12, 2022
COVID 19 Vaccines inhibit DNA repair and can be reverse transcribed into human DNA

Two studies which show the COVID-19 spike protein which is also encoded in the mRNA of COVID-19 vaccines, impairs DNA repair, and can be reverse transcribed into human DNA.

COVID-19 Spike Protein Impairs DNA Repair and Can Be Reverse Transcribed into Human DNA According to Two Studies
April 7, 2022
Facebook Whistleblowers LEAK DOCS Detailing Effort to Secretly Censor Vax Concerns on Global Scale

Facebook Insiders LEAK documents detailing efforts to secretly censor COVID-19 vaccine injuries and scientific dissent on a Global Scale.

Facebook Whistleblowers Leak Documents Detailing Effort to Secretly Censor Vax Concerns on a Global Scale
April 1, 2022