The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids. “Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability”

“The reason they did 16 is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children’s vaccination schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection.”

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca

Original article written by Dr. Joseph Mercola and Alix Mayer
on Mercola 9 January 2022

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The reason our children are being targeted by COVID mandates is because vaccine makers want to get the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule.

Once a vaccine is added to the childhood schedule, the vaccine maker is shielded from financial liability for injuries, unless the manufacturer knows about vaccine safety issues and withholds that information

Products must satisfy four criteria in order to get emergency use authorization:

    1. There must be an emergency;
    2. a vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective;
    3. the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product;
    4. and there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). Unless all four criteria are met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained

According to a U.S. federal court decision, the Pfizer shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are not interchangeable

Comirnaty is not fully approved and licensed. It’s only “ready for approval.” Comirnaty is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it’s not licensed to be given to anyone, and it’s not yet available in the United States. They’re waiting for it to be added to the childhood vaccination schedule, to get the liability shield

*


In this interview, Alix Mayer explains why our children are being so aggressively targeted for the COVID-19 injection even though they’re not at risk of serious SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clarifies the status of Comirnaty.

Mayer, board president of Children’s Health Defense — California Chapter, is herself vaccine injured; not from the COVID jab, but from a series of vaccines she received 20 years ago. (Incidentally, Mayer grew up in the Oscar Mayer family in the 5th generation descended from the original Oscar Mayer, a German immigrant who started as a butcher boy. Despite Mayer’s vaccine injury, her family does not share her views on vaccine safety issues.)

Mayer graduated from Duke University with a BA and from Northwestern University with an MBA in finance and management strategy. She worked for Apple in the mid-1990s. When she was 29, Apple promoted her to acting manager of worldwide customer research.

In preparation for a family trip to Bali, her doctor recommended getting six vaccines: hepatitis A vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, diphtheria, tetanus, polio and oral typhoid, which she did. Eventually, 13 years later, she finally realized it was these shots that triggered her health problems.

“They gave me brain damage and total disability,” she says. “I spent three years in my early 30s being 80% housebound, and I really I didn’t know if I was ever going to get better.

I went through a whole bunch of diagnoses: lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease. Ultimately, none of those made sense and none of the treatments made me any better, until we put the pieces together and figured out that I was actually vaccine injured.

It’s literally just a cause and effect. If you look back at my history and lay out my vaccine schedule, you can see that my health declined two weeks after I got the vaccines.

I had encephalitis and encephalopathy … digestive issues, hypersomnia — sleeping 16 hours a day — flu-like symptoms, a 24/7 migraine, joint pain. I really had no life at all in my early 30s until I went on a gluten-free diet. That started my health recovery.

I then became an award-winning medical journalist with a bunch of different blogs, and then a health consultant. In 2018, I retired from all that and joined Children’s Health Defense.”

The COVID Jab Tragedy

While many vaccines have a questionable safety profile, especially when combined, data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) suggest there’s never been a vaccine as dangerous as the experimental mRNA gene transfer injections for COVID.

What’s more, while lack of transparency and accountability has been a chronic problem within the vaccine industry, the obvious hazards associated with vaccines are really being highlighted by the COVID jabs.

Many now know of someone who has been injured by the COVID jab, and most were injured so shortly after the shot that it’s hard to deny a correlation. The staggering number of injuries reported among adults who have received the COVID shot in turn highlights the insanity of rolling it out to young children.

According to Mayer, the reason they’re trying to mandate the COVID shot for children is to evade liability for injuries, because once a vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, vaccine makers have immunity against lawsuits for injuries.

Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability

The COVID shots currently have legal immunity against liability because they’re still under emergency use authorization (EUA). If you think BioNTech’s Comirnaty has been fully licensed, you’d be mistaken. Mayer explains:

“I put together a slide deck about Emergency Use Authorization (which you can see in the video interview above) because there is so much confusion over this and what’s really going on. Once you understand the genesis of EUA and the standards they have to meet in order to keep these products on the market, then you understand the behaviors [we’re now seeing].

They’re falling all over themselves to protect the EUAs for these products and also introduce other very confusing kinds of approval to get away with stuff. So, let me just start to clarify it right now.

This presentation is all about these three strangleholds that the vaccine makers and our government are never going to let go of … These are the things they’re guarding with their lives.

First of all, they need to guard the emergency … so they cannot have any early treatments. Those cannot exist. They’re also going for full liability protection, and children will be used as pawns to get them full liability protection.

Vaccine makers love EUA products because they have this huge liability shield. If you’re injured by an EUA vaccine, you can’t sue the manufacturer, you can’t sue the person who gave it to you, you can’t sue the institution where you got the shot.

You have to go through something called the CICP, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, where they’ll only cover unpaid medical expenses, and probably only for pharmaceuticals and lost wages.

Now, if you’re vaccine injured, let me tell you right now, you are not going to be using pharmaceuticals because they do not work for vaccine injury. They will make you sicker. You’ll be on two dozen pharmaceuticals before you know it and you’re going to be sick from those. They do not work. The only thing that’s going to get you better if you’re vaccine injured is natural treatments …

That’s the kind of treatment you’re going to need, and that’s not even covered, even if you were to get compensation. Everybody I know with chronic illness, whether it’s a child or an adult who has chronic fatigue syndrome, vaccine injury, Lyme disease, they’re paying $50,000 out of pocket per year.

If you can’t work and you have to pay for your treatment out of pocket, I don’t know how you ever get by. People suffer like crazy, they lose homes, they go into bankruptcy.”

Since its inception, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which pays for injuries caused by vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, has paid out about one-third of claims. It’s a long, arduous process that oftentimes takes years and in the end rarely provides adequate compensation.

“If you do end up getting compensation … they don’t pay it out in one lump sum, they pay it out year by year, and they pretty much hope that whoever is injured is actually going to die of their injuries before they get compensated.

That’s been said to me a bunch of times by people who’ve been through this horrible process. Now, the CICP has only compensated 3% of claims. And so far, there have been no approvals for [compensation] for COVID shot injuries,” Mayer says. [Editor’s note: The first COVID case was recently determined “eligible” for compensation, but the case has not yet been adjudicated.1]

Stages of Liability: EUA

In her slide show, Mayer reviews each of the stages of product liability, and whether the mRNA shots can be mandated. As mentioned, vaccine makers have no liability as long as their product is under EUA, as the product is investigational.

“Investigational is a synonym for experimental,” Mayer says. “And the word experimental ties it directly into the Nuremberg Code, which says that we cannot be experimented on [without consent]. We always have the right to accept or refuse a medical treatment.

[The Nuremberg Code] is not a law, but it’s a code under which the whole world is supposed to be operating by. And it is actually codified into some local and federal laws as well … So, what everybody needs to know is that coercion and duress are considered de facto mandates and illegal. De facto means that it’s basically the same as an outright mandate.

It’s illegal medical segregation, medical apartheid [because that is a form of coercion or duress.] So, if you go to a restaurant and they demand your vaccine passport, only let you eat outside, and they might not let you use the bathroom, that’s medical segregation.

That is illegal and I do not support businesses that do that and you shouldn’t either. Any access privileges that are different between the vaccinated and unvaccinated are illegal, and any visual indication of vaccine status like a sticker or a bracelet … that’s also illegal because that creates segregation and medical apartheid, [since they are all forms of coercion or duress.]”

Importantly, mass violation of the law does not make something legal.

“If we all drove 100 miles an hour on Interstate 80, would we watch the speed limit signs suddenly changed to 100 miles per hour? No, it’s not going to happen. Mass violation of the law has never made anything legal. And just because schools and businesses and our government are mandating these shots, it doesn’t make it legal. It’s all illegal …

Now, they know full well that it’s illegal to mandate these [COVID shots]. President Biden knows it’s illegal. But what they’re counting on is that the court cases overturning their illegal mandates will take a while, and in that interim, people are going to be scared enough to get the shots. And unfortunately, it’s worked.”

Stages of Liability: Full Licensure and Childhood Scheduling

The next stage is full licensure (FDA approval). Once a product is fully licensed, the company becomes liable for injuries. At that point, the product can be legally mandated. Of course, knowing how dangerous the COVID shots are, no manufacturer wants to be financially liable for injuries. They’d be sued out of business.

This is the holy grail if you’re a manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put on the market until you get it on the children’s schedule. ~ Alix Mayer

To get immunity against liability again, the vaccine manufacturers need to get their product onto the childhood vaccination schedule. This will also allow government to mandate the shots. As noted by Mayer:

“This is the holy grail if you’re a vaccine manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put it on the market until you get it on the children’s schedule.”

DOJ Redefines Medical ‘Consequence’

In Doe v. Rumsfeld,2 the court held that service members could refuse an EUA product without punitive consequences such as dishonorable discharge or other punishments. Therefore, there were no consequences to refusing an EUA product, other than the natural consequence of possibly getting the disease.

However, in July 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice attempted to redefine the term “consequences” just for the COVID shot, to suggest that punitive consequences, like job loss or being separated from your working or learning location, are legal when a person refuses an EUA vaccine.

“But this type of consequence, a punitive consequence, has never been adjudicated,” Mayer says. “That’s not in any law. This is just an opinion from the DOJ. And it absolutely means nothing, except it came from our DOJ, so people give it a lot of authority.

They also stated twice — and this is so hard to understand because it’s just beyond reason — that the right to accept or refuse an EUA product is ‘purely informational.’

Literally, you can read that you could die by taking it, but it’s purely informational. You cannot act on it. That’s what the DOJ says. Again, it’s not adjudicated, so it doesn’t mean anything. It’s an opinion. It holds no legal weight at all. So, as we said before, these mandates are starting to be overturned.”

Four Standards for EUA

There are four standards that must be fulfilled for an EUA. If any of these criteria are not met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained. First, the secretary of Health and Human Services has to declare and maintain a state of emergency. If the emergency were to go away, all EUA products would have to come off the market. And that doesn’t just mean vaccines. It also includes the PCR tests and even surgical masks.

The second standard is evidence of effectiveness. Historically, vaccines had to show a 70% or greater effectiveness, as measured by a fourfold increase in antibody levels, in order to qualify. For an EUA vaccine, the efficacy threshold is only 30% to 50%. In another departure from prior vaccine approvals, the COVID vaccine clinical trials relied on the RT-PCR test, not antibodies, to demonstrate effectiveness in the small “challenge phase” of the trials.

Now, you probably heard that the Pfizer shot was 95% effective when it first rolled out, but that was relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction. Confounding these two parameters is a common strategy used to make a product sound far better than it actually is. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was just 0.84%.3

For example, if a study divided people into two groups of 1,000 and two people in the group who didn’t get a fictional vaccine got infected, while only one in the vaccinated group got infected, the relative risk reduction would be reported as 100%. In terms of absolute risk reduction, the fictional vaccine only prevented 1 in 1,000 from getting the infection — a very poor absolute risk reduction.

The take-home message here is that even though the minimal threshold for effectiveness is ludicrously low, in terms of absolute risk reduction, these shots still don’t measure up. Within six months, even the relative risk reduction bottoms out at zero. What’s more, there’s evidence that the clinical trials were manipulated as well.

“I remember an analysis very early in lockdowns [that showed] if you added back all the probable cases of COVID to the clinical trial [data], the effectiveness went from 90% to between 19% and 29%,”4 Mayer says.

The third standard is that the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In the case of COVID shots, there’s overwhelming evidence showing they do more harm than good.

The fourth and last standard that must be met is there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). “This is why hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were quashed,” Mayer says. This is also another reason Comirnaty is not treated as a fully approved product in the U.S., because if it were, then all the other COVID shots that are under EUA would have to be removed from the market.

“This is a four-legged stool,” Mayer says. “If any one of these legs goes away, you have to take your EUA products off the market … by law. I put [state of] emergency and [treatment] alternatives in red, because those are two of the things that they have a stranglehold on; those are things they are guarding like crazy.

This means that every variant that comes out, they have to make it sound super scary to keep the emergency going. So, the variants serve a purpose. You have to think about these variants in the context of this crime, where they have to keep the emergency going to keep their products on the market.

You would think this emergency would stop maybe when we get to herd immunity, maybe if we get 90% vaccination uptake, maybe COVID is just going to go away, like smallpox did in the early 1900s [even though] only 5% of people were vaccinated. [But it won’t] go away [until] the shots get full approval and the manufacturers get a full liability shield.”

Comirnaty’s Quasi Approval

With regard to Comirnaty, is it or is it not fully approved and licensed? The answer is more complex than a simple yes or no. Mayer explains:

“Comirnaty’s quasi approval is just for BioNTech. It doesn’t have to do with Pfizer, and this is why I’m doing this presentation because I’m going to explain what’s going on with that.

This is the race to get liability protection. Remember, that’s the other stranglehold that they want. They really want to get this liability protection. Once the COVID shots are fully approved, the manufacturer has full liability.

There’s all this confusion about Comirnaty. Was it fully approved? Is it on the market? Is it interchangeable with the Pfizer shot? And does it make the COVID shot mandate legal? It’s all the same answer. No, no, no, no.

The FDA issued an intentionally confusing biological license application approval for Comirnaty. It was an unprecedented approval to both license the Comirnaty shot, saying it’s ‘interchangeable’ with the Pfizer shot. But they also said it’s ‘legally distinct.’

In that same approval, they retain the vaccine’s liability shield by designating it EUA as well. They want it to be fully approved, but they want the liability protection, so they did this BS dual approval.

So, [Comirnaty] is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it’s not licensed to be given to anyone, and it’s not available in the United States. It’s available in the U.K., New Zealand and other places, but it is not available in the United States because they’re really scared of liability.

Now, are you ready for this one? The BLA actually states that Comirnaty is only ‘ready for approval.’5 It doesn’t say it’s approved anywhere in the document. And they buried this language in a pediatric section to confuse people even more.

Here’s what they said; ‘We’re deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages younger than 16. For this application, because this product is ready for approval for use in individuals 16 years of age and older, as pediatric studies for younger ages have not been completed.’

Why did they do this? Sixteen is a very important number. You would think the age break would be 18. That’s a very typical age break for everything else that we do in this country. Why 16?

The reason they did 16 is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children’s vaccination schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection. That’s why this is ready to be approved for 16 and up, not 18 and up.”

Comirnaty Is Not Fully Licensed

This confusion is clearly intentional. On the one hand, the FDA claims Comirnaty is interchangeable with the Pfizer shot, yet it’s also legally distinct. Courts have had to weigh in on the matter, and a federal judge recently rejected the DoD claim that the two shots are interchangeable. They’re not interchangeable. That means Comirnaty vaccine is still EUA. It doesn’t have full approval and it’s not on the market.

“Military members involved in lawsuits are challenging the military’s COVID vaccine mandate. They filed an amended complaint seeking a new injunction after the judge last month rejected the assertion that the Pfizer COVID shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are interchangeable. So, we’re still hammering on this legally, but a court has ruled that they’re not interchangeable.

[Editor’s note: This information is accurate at the time of the interview, but legal challenges are ongoing and courts may issue new rulings. December 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced6 it has slated January 7, 2022, to hear arguments challenging Biden’s vaccine and testing mandates.]

So, how do we know that Comirnaty is not being treated as fully approved? First, the approval states you have the right to accept or refuse the product. That means it’s an EUA. Second, it’s not available in the U.S. because Comirnaty doesn’t have liability protection. Third, if it were available, it’s an alternative [treatment] and all other EUA shots would have to come off the market.

No. 4, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) would have to recommend it for ages 16 to 18 and the CDC would have added it to the children’s recommended schedule. That’s how we know it’s not fully approved and on the market.

Here is the label for Comirnaty. It says it’s emergency use authorization. It doesn’t say it’s fully approved, because it’s not. But look at the safety information they are recognizing: Myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred in some people who’ve received the vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among females and older males.

So, this is saying that young men are getting heart inflammation. And what we know from all the anecdotal reports is 300 athletes have died or collapsed on the field, and children in schools have died of heart attacks. That’s what’s going on here.

And the reason they have to declare this is because they know it. They know it’s happening. And the only way they can be sued is if they know there’s a problem with their vaccine and they don’t declare it. So, they declare it here, in very mild language as if it’s not that big of a deal, but it’s a very big deal. Young people are dying [from the shots] who have a 99.9973% chance of recovering from COVID …

The holy grail is to get the shot on the CDC recommended schedule for children, because then it gets full liability protection according to the 1986 Act. This is why they’re going after our children when they have a 99.9973% recovery rate …

Every medical intervention is a risk benefit equation, and it doesn’t calculate for kids at all. They should never be getting COVID shots. The shots don’t prevent transmission. They don’t prevent cases. They don’t prevent hospitalization or death.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 Reuters October 19, 2021

2 Biotech Law December 22, 2003

3 Maryannedemasi.com November 11, 2021

4 The BMJ Opinion

5 FDA BioNTech BLA Approval

6 USA Today December 22, 2021

NOTE FROM EXPANDING AWARENESS RELATIONS:

How egregious that the big pharmaceutical companies are trying to use children as a liability shield to protect their criminal organization. Even worse, however, are the governments/politicians and health officials/institutions that are letting them. No amount of “contracts” should ever protect criminal activity, which is what we’re seeing right now in what is quite possibly the largest racketeering scandal in the history of humankind.

(And in my opinion, this isn’t even covering the ACTUAL REAL reason that they want to vaccinate children so much. This is only the watered-down, “scientific”, realistic version…)

Any documents/legal dealings (keyword here: LEGAL – although, what does that matter when corrupt enterprises are able to re-define terms according to their purpose?) and NDA’s should automatically become null and void if there is fraudulent activity happening.

However, when those “in charge” are allowed to investigate themselves, they, of course, end up finding no wrong-doing. And when there are multiple conflicts of interest, all for the purpose of financial bribery and protecting each other, there needs to be effective systems in place to address this obvious malfeasance.

It would seem, the “law” (and even us, everyday/ordinary people) literally needs to take matters into its own hands, and stop catering to enforcing illegal mandates and nonsensical “policies”. When will they go after the REAL criminals, instead of innocent civilians who are simply trying to defend not only their rights and freedoms, but everyone else’s as well? Including law enforcement?

We all need to pick our side in history. Let’s hope we’re picking the right one.

Walensky and Fauci Fumble in Their Responses to the Senate Committee, with Rand Paul’s Call for Fauci to Resign – But is the Senate Culpable as Well?

Rand to Fauci: “You won’t admit that it’s dangerous, and for that lack of judgement, I think it’s time that you resign.”

This post is not meant to convey whether or not there is an existence of a “deadly virus” or not. But it is to point out the suspicious nature of experiments that the NIH has funded/endorsed in regards to gain-of-function research, and also to show the indirect and dishonest responses from two individuals who have been spear-heading the shady “coronavirus/vaccine” situation.

The spotlight is on CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, and NIH/NIAID Infectious Disease “expert” Anthony Fauci.

Now, I want to first preface by saying that I am withholding judgement on the legitimacy of Senate hearings to begin with. While I would love to believe that there are indeed good politicians in high places that can make real change in ousting corruption in big establishments, many are speculating that psyops have been put in place to prolong certain narratives while keeping people’s hopes alive that something will be done about it. And of course we can’t ignore the possibility that even if there are those who are trying to make a real positive change, they may be set against a huge criminal organization who will stop at nothing in order to drive their own agenda forward.

Case in point: Walensky, the FDA, Pfizer, etc. have already gone ahead with their atrocious approval of these dangerous COVID “vaccines” on children, in which this agenda should never have gone on so far to begin with since there is ample evidence that the vaccines have nothing to do with our health and are definitely NOT “safe and effective”.

So to continue witnessing this farce without arrests being made casts a dubious look into the justice system as it is. Not only do Fauci, Bourla, Gelman, Daszak, Walensky, Gates, their agencies, as well as complicit governmental bodies, including Joe Biden, etc. have immense crimes to answer for, but the whole legal/legislative systems seems to be right behind them if this is allowed to continue further.

(This is, of course, under the assumptions that the whole of the legal/legislative structure isn’t already completely corrupted/broken to begin with…)

With that being said, I would still like to point out the following two Senators that are at least calling out Walensky and Fauci for their complicity in keeping this ruse going. Senators Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy certainly seem as if they are trying to get to the bottom of these narratives. But could they be merely actors on a stage? Keeping us happily engaged in believing that the “good guys” are making progress? Or are they genuinely one of the few brave souls standing up to deceit and subterfuge?

I will say this: while Anthony Fauci is a known liar, how good is his acting? He certainly looks shaken up as Rand Paul questions him…

Senator Rand Paul@58:24: “Fauci, I don’t expect you today to admit that you approved of NIH funding for gain-of-function research at Wuhan. But your repeated denials have worn thin and the majority of Americans, frankly, don’t believe you.

Even the NIH now admits that EcoHealth Alliance did perform experiments in Wuhan that created viruses not found in nature that actually did gain in lethality.

The facts are clear. The NIH did fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan despite your protestations. You can deny it all you want, but even the Chinese authors of the paper, in their paper, admit that viruses not found in nature were created, and yes they gained in infectivity.

Your persistent denials though are not simply a stain on your reputation, but are clear and present danger to the country, and to the world. As Professor Kevin Esvelt of MIT has written, “Gain of function research looks like a gamble that civilization can’t afford to risk.” And yet here we are again, with you steadfast in your denials. Why does it matter? Because gain-of-function research with laboratory created viruses not found in nature, could cause a pandemic even worse the next time.

We’re suffering today from one that has a mortality of approximately 1%, they’re experimenting with viruses that have mortalities of between 15 and 50%. Yes, our civilization could be at risk from one of these viruses.

Experiments that combine unknown viruses with known pandemic causing viruses are incredibly risky. Experiments that combine unknown viruses with coronaviruses that have as much as 50% mortality could endanger civilization as we know it.

And here you sit. Unwilling to accept any responsibility for the current pandemic, and unwilling to take any steps to prevent gain-of-function research from possibly unleashing an even more deadly virus.

You mislead the public by saying that the published viruses could not be COVID. Well exactly no one is alleging that. No one is alleging that the published viruses by the Chinese are COVID. What we are saying is that this was risky type of research; gain-of-function research. It was risky to share this with the Chinese, and that COVID may have been created from a not yet revealed virus. We don’t anticipate the Chinese are going to reveal the virus if it came from their lab.

You know that, but you continue to mislead. You continue to support NIH money going to Wuhan. You continue to say you trust the Chinese scientist. You appear to have learned nothing from this pandemic.

Will you today finally take some responsibility for funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan?”

Anthony Fauci: “Senator, with all due respect, I disagree with so many of the things that you’ve said.

Gain – first of all, gain-of-function is a very nebulous term. We have spent, not us, but outside bodies, a considerable amount of effort to give a more precise definition to the type of research that is of concern that might lead to a dangerous situation.

You are aware of that. That is called P3CO.”

Senator Rand Paul: “We’re aware that you deleted “gain-of-function” from the NIH website.”

Anthony Fauci: “Well I can get back to that a moment, if we have time. But let’s get back to the operating framework and guide rails of which we operate under. And you have ignored them. The guidelines are very very clear, that you have to be dealing with a pathogen that clearly is shown and very likely to be highly transmissible in an uncontrollable way in humans and to have a high degree of morbidity and mortality, and that you do experiments to enhance that. Hence the word EPPP: Enhanced Pathogens of Potential Pandemic.”

Senator Rand Paul: “So when EcoHealth Alliance took the virus SHC-014 and combined it with WIV-1 and caused a recombinant virus that doesn’t exist in nature, and it made mice sicker, mice that had humanized cells, you’re saying that that’s not gain-of-function research?”

Anthony Fauci: “According to the framework and guidelines of – “

Senator Rand Paul: “So what you’re doing is defining away gain-of-function. You’re simply saying it doesn’t exist because you changed the definition on the NIH website. This is terrible and you’re – you’re completely trying to escape the idea that we should do something about trying to prevent a pandemic from leaking from a lab.

There’s – the preponderance of evidence now points towards this coming from the lab, and what you’ve done is change the definition on your website to try to cover your ass, basically. That’s what you’ve done. You’ve changed the website to try to have a new definition that doesn’t include the risky research that’s going on.

Until you admit that it’s risky, we’re not going to get anywhere. You have to admit that this research was risky. The NIH has now rebuked them. Your own agency has rebuked them.

But the thing is, you’re still unwilling to admit that they gained in function when they say that they became sicker. They gained in lethality; it’s a new virus. That’s not gain-of-function?”

Anthony Fauci: “According to the definition that is currently operable… you know – Senator, let’s make it clear for the people who are listening.

The current definition was done over a 2-3 year period by outside bodies, including the NSABB, two conferences by the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine, on December 2014, March 2016. We commissioned external risk benefit assessment, and then on January of 2017, the office of science and technology policy of the White House issued the current policy.

I have not changed any definition.”

Senator Rand Paul: “And coincidentally, coincidentally the definition appeared on the same day the NIH said that, yes, there was a gain of function in Wuhan, the same day the definition appeared – the new definition, to try to define a way what’s going on in Wuhan.

Until you accept it, until you accept responsibility, we’re not going to get anywhere close to trying to prevent another lab leak of this dangerous sort of experiment. You won’t admit that it’s dangerous, and for that lack of judgement, I think it’s time that you resign.”

Chairman Murray: “Thank you Senator Paul. And I would like, um, to give the time to Dr. Fauci.”

Anthony Fauci: “Yeah, well, there were so many things that are egregious misrepresentation here, uh, Madame Chair, that I don’t think I’d be able to refute all of them, but just a couple of them, for the listens to here for – 

You has said that I’m unwilling to take any responsibility for the current pandemic. I have no responsibility for the current pandemic. The current pandemic. Okay?

Number two, you said the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates that’s a lab leak; I believe most card-carrying viral phylogenists and molecular virologists would disagree with you, that is much more likely, even though we leave open all possibilities, it’s much more likely that this was a natural occurrence.

Third, you say we continue – “

Senator Rand Paul: “We’ve tested 80,000 animals and no animals have been found with COVID.”

Chairman Murray: “Senator Paul, the time is for Dr. Fauci to respond.”

Anthony Fauci: “And third, you made a statement just a moment ago that’s completely incorrect. Where you say we continue to support research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Senator Rand Paul: “You approved it in August of last year…”

Anthony Fauci: “No no, your statements say, quote, I wrote it down as you were writing, “You continue to support research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – “

Senator Rand Paul: “Your committee a month ago says you still trust the Chinese scientist and you still support the research over there. You said it a month ago in the committee.”

Chairman Murray: “Senator Paul, I have allowed Dr. Fauci to respond. You’ve had your time and I’m going to give him one more minute.”

Senator Rand Paul: “If he’s going to be dishonest he ought to be challenged.”

Chairman Murray: “Senator Paul, we will allow Dr. Fauci to respond after you’ve given accusations like that. Dr. Fauci.”

Anthony Fauci: “Well I don’t have any more to say except to say that as usual, and I’ve – I have a great deal of respect for this body of the Senate and it makes me very uncomfortable to have to say something, but he is egregiously incorrect in what he says. Thank you.”

Senator Rand Paul: “History will figure that out on its own.”

While Rand Paul seems to be on the right side of history, the complete negligence and willful ignorance on the part of the Senate committee as a whole to not continuously address the many, MANY adverse events of the COVID vaccines which have harmed MILLIONS of people, according to VAERS, and who instead continue to humor the narrative that the vaccine is the end all be all, is, quite frankly, ludicrous and criminal in and of itself. While they may allude to the information about the adverse events, no steps have been taken to fully investigate and analyze the hundreds of thousands of ACTUAL DATA provided.

There is enough substantial evidence declaring that the COVID vaccines are NOT safe nor effective, yet the ruse continues to go on.

Not to mention the push now to mass vaccinate millions of children, who were never at high risk from “COVID” to begin with… it is obvious that the vaccine effort should have been halted A LONG TIME AGO.

Keep in mind that it is common knowledge that the adverse events are under-reported by a factor of only 1-10% being reported for non-serious side effects, and a speculative estimation of 10-50% being reported for serious events.

There is also the suspicious account of the FDA presentation that flashed for a brief split-second showing a list of the “possible” side effects from the COVID vaccines to be on the lookout for:

Screenshot from: [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XTiL9rUpkg ] U.S. Food and Drug Administration@2:33:40

So to continue to ignore these facts and people’s plights from the devastating effects of the vaccines and prolonging this “pandemic” and the vaccine narrative is either complete obliviousness, to put it nicely, or downright complicity.

Again, this is not to speak of everyone in the Senate individually (unless it is in fact true…), but to point out the incredibly inane decisions of those ultimately in charge of these committees and giving their final verdict which has enabled these atrocious crimes against humanity to continue.

It is my opinion that a call for Anthony Fauci to resign does not do the damage that he has caused throughout the years (including his organizations: NIH/NIAID) justice, but instead efforts to make arrests of those initiating these crimes should be pursued as well.

Moving on to the second portion (from the same hearing), we see Rochelle Walensky responding to Senator Bill Cassidy’s inquiries to address natural immunity versus vaccine-induced immunity, and also her refusal to answer uncertainty in how many CDC employees are vaccinated.

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Dr. Walensky, couple things: as I walked in, I came in late, one of you – either you or Dr. Fauci – were saying that the reason that we’re not saying that natural immunity is protective as is a vaccine, even though there’s recent publication showing that 6-8 months out, 92% of those with natural immunity have T cells, B cells and antibodies that would be considered adequate to protect, and indeed B cell continues to climb, that we don’t have data.

Now in your response to Mr. Casey, you just mentioned that CDC has access to tens of thousands of EHRs [electronic health records]. And I’ve been told that HHS or CDC has access to patient identifiable data, as to who test positive. So I do that as a prologue.

If we don’t know that natural immunity confers protection against future infection, is because we’ve decided not to look. Because I’ve learned that there is a cohort of people that we know have been previously infected, we’ve got the bench research showing that the triad of antibodies, T cells and B cells are there, and that 92% of them are still there at 6 months out, so why don’t we – why have we not done the research showing that natural immunity confers protection against recurrent infection?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Yeah, thank you so much for allowing me to clarify this point, because I understand, I understand the question.

Um, first of all, let me just reiterate that our current stand after reviewing 96 papers in the scientific brief on this issue is that everyone who’s been previously infected should be vaccinated.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “But that’s not my question.”

Rochelle Walensky: “Right, agreed. So, so – and part of the challenge here is as you know the infection induced immunity and the biases associated with retrospectively looking at the data. Several of those papers that we reviewed for that brief have demonstrated that the kind of disease that you had at the time you had it matters.

Um, did you have disease a year and a half ago? Did you have – were you an older person? Were you – ?”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “May I stop you for a second?

We could do this prospectively, because you know who is actually, apparently I’m told, you’ve got patient identifiable data, and you would be able to say, okay, 6 months ago we’re going to start everybody infected within the last 6 months, and be able to follow their EHR, prospectively, to see this.

I mean, theoretically, CDC has the ability to do this right now.”

Rochelle Walensky: “Yet that too would have its own biases. So one of the things that we have demonstrated in the scientific brief is that asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic people, who might not present to their providers, might present to an urgent care clinic who might not be recorded in their own EHR, likely have less robust protection than those who’ve been severely affected.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “But that could be established prospectively if using the data that you have. And you could even say, if you had symptomatic infection, you don’t need to be vaccinated, we would consider you immune, you don’t have to be subjected to the mandate, but – “

Rochelle Walensky: “If we had data – if we had data that demonstrated a correlation of protection, Dr. Fauci already mentioned data that they’re working on to look at correlates of protection, not just in antibodies, but as you noted in T cell function as well. So if we were able to document a correlate of protection we absolutely could prospectively follow – “

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “But this paper that I’m reading from NIH, speaks that there is durable memory of the virus up to 8 months after infection in 95% of the people who recovered, including B cells, which continue to climb, and T cells and antibodies.

And I’m also saying you could do it clinically, because we have data that’s patient identifiable, that we could go back and look and see if they were exposed. They could be in a hot spot like Louisiana, where you know they’re being exposed, and then you would see. Not just by lab data, but empirically.

I can tell you, the American people intuitively understand this, and they feel a little bit like we’re being willfully blind to it.

I have limited time, let me just ask you something else. What percent of CDC employees are vaccinated?”

Rochelle Walensky: “We’re actively encouraging vaccination in all of our employees and doing a lot of education and outreach in order to get our agency fully vaccinated.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “And the – but the percent?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have that for you today.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “I’m told that 75… some north of 75% of CDC employees at headquarters are still working remotely. Is that correct?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Um, we are following regulations through HHS and the federal government.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “No, that’s not my question. I apologize to be rude, but – but I’m asking a very straightforward question.

I’ve been told that north of 75% of employees at CDC headquarters are working remotely. Is that correct?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Senator, I don’t actually know the number off the top of my head. So I’d have to – “

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “When you look down the hallway, are there empty desks? Are over 50% of the desk empty?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Senator, I don’t have the numbers off the top of my head. What I will tell you is that we’re working closely within HHS and the administration to follow the governmental rules for return to the workplace.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “There was a recent GAO report that shows, it was released in the last 2 weeks, that there’s been no coordinated response in the federal government to get people back into work.

Now if there’s any agency that – since we have teachers in Fulton county are back at work, that the caseload of COVID in Fulton county is about 88, at its peak it was 606, if what I’ve been told by someone who frankly kind of knows, that people in laboratories are not showing up, I have no clue how people, how laboratory workers who presumably are vaccinated, wearing PPE, would consider themselves eligible to stay at home.

I say this because, I just want to echo – we’ve got to lead by example in the federal government. If our public health agencies don’t have enough confidence in the immunization and the PPE to go back to work, fighting infectious diseases, there’s going to be a lot of undermining of a willingness to further fund public health.”

Rochelle Walensky: “We absolutely have our central labs back at work, conducting their essential research towards this response, and um, we are following the regulations and providing technical assistance and technical support to the federal government for return to work policies.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Uh, one more thing, I had – Angus King and I had sent a letter dated February the 25th, asking about genomic surveillance. We’ve still not received a response. You reference it in your earlier remarks. Both Senator King and I would appreciate a response.”

Rochelle Walensky: “We’ll get back to you. Thank you very much.”

I can sum up Walensky’s testimony in 5 short dialogues; paraphrasing, of course:

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Do you have data showing that natural immunity may offer better protection than vaccine immunity; and if not, then why?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

(By the way, I want to interject here by saying that Senator Bill Cassidy is absolutely correct when he posits that the reason that they “don’t have the data” is because they deliberately did not look for it. I also want to add the shady practice of the pharmaceutical companies breaking protocol and completely getting rid of the control group after only a few weeks into the COVID vaccine trial…)

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “What percentage of CDC employees are vaccinated?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Are around 75% of CDC employees still working remotely from home?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “When you go into the CDC headquarters, how much percentage of desks have no workers there?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

Bill Cassidy: “Senator King and I asked you about “genomic sequence” back in February but have not received a response yet. We would appreciate a response.”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time… but we’ll get back to you.”

This is the Director of the CDC, ladies and gentlemen. This is who is in charge of an organization that we are supposed to entrust our lives to in order to help get us through a “deadly pandemic”.

When she cannot say, in all honesty, that 100% of her CDC employees – who presumably have complete trust in the vaccines that she kept reiterating is the most important thing needed for our health – is fully vaccinated, while at the same time preaching that young children most definitely should get it, is EXTREMELY suspect and I am amazed at the continual indulgence of these hearings to not call out this hypocrisy for what it is. (Save for a small handful of Senators, that is.)

But at least we know that Rochelle Walensky hasn’t lied about how many of her employees have been vaccinated… yet.

Lastly, during the committee hearing, there were other Senators posing additional queries as to the questionable responses and suspicious nature of those testifying and their habits of skirting away from certain questions, which I want to mention here as well.

Senators Marshall, Burr and Moran (of the additional 3 testimonies that I watched, there may have been more with similar interests) have also raised legitimate concerns over the vaccines, mandates and debates about natural immunity versus vaccine efficacy – and was also met with a jumble of non-answers mixed with endless endorsements of the COVID vaccines.

Honestly, if I, an average American citizen, can see through their facade, then surely well-educated and seemingly experienced individuals in detecting deceit and malpractice would be able to determine the illegitimacy of these corrupt establishments and their cohorts as well.

So again I have to wonder at the incredibly unnecessary perpetuation of these fraudulent activities, instead of finally taking appropriate steps to shut down this criminal conspiracy.

To those Senators and other researchers who are genuinely seeking the truth and attempting to uncover the treasons, misconduct, and egregious scandal that has corrupted our governmental body and health/medical industries, my sincere gratitude and respect to you for standing strong and having enough integrity to stand up against these depravities.

God bless.

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by Edward Lich from Pixabay

Revolver Exclusive: The Big Pharma “Shell Game” Tricking Our Military Into Mandatory Vaccinations

Commander Jay Furman alerting of deception and malfeasance within the government and pharmaceutical companies.

Reposted from Revolver and Commander Jay Furman
Original article written on September 25, 2021 (reprinted with permission)

Last month, Revolver exclusively published a paper by Navy CDR J.H. Furman, warning that the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination of the entire Navy could constitute a national security threat.

Now, Furman has produced another paper, describing what he calls a “shell game” by which other U.S. government agencies, and several pharmaceutical companies are tricking the Navy into embracing mandatory vaccination, at great risk to the United States.

 

His paper is reproduced below.

The views and opinions expressed in this paper do not in any way represent the United States Navy or the Department of Defense.

 

CDR Jay Furman, USN

At the turning point of the Spanish American War, a single American officer volunteered to hand carry a critical message through impossible enemy lines to a fateful ally named General Garcia, forever changing the course of that war and our country. Today, one million COVID-19 non-vaccinated brave military messengers would deliver a, no less, existential dispatch: the U.S. Military is being misled by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), and the Pfizer and BioNTech drug companies, resulting in the current mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies. While some media outlets reflexively cheer on the deadly shell game, is our military leadership prematurely mandating a vaccine that their personnel cannot, or should not, legally receive? Could that decision prove to be more detrimental to military readiness than the disease itself, thereby posing a greater threat to U.S. national security?

 

On August 23, 2021, news broke that Pfizer had obtained an FDA license for its COVD-19 vaccine. The contrived FDA announcement:

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine [BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA, not Pfizer]. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine [Pfizer’s non-FDA licensed vaccine], and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee) [only available in markets outside U.S.], for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older (emphasis added).

 

The agency charged with the public’s health in pharmaceutical matters issued two related official letters confounding the announcement, above. Reconciling those letters and the ensuing policy is tedious, leaving the truth one-layer too deep for most media outlets. Unfortunately, the resulting confusion appears more goal than incidental. Bottom-line, the FDA did not license a COVID-19 vaccine physically available to consumers in the U.S.

In their first letter, the FDA issued the only COVID-19 vaccination license for COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA (Comirnaty) owned by German company BioNTech (not Pfizer). It is not produced for a U.S.-licensed label anywhere in the FDA’s jurisdiction. In their second letter, the FDA re-issued the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (not a FDA license). The letter officially designates Comirnaty as the licensed name for COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA. This EUA explicitly states that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine “[…] has not been approved or licensed by the FDA, but has been authorized by emergency use [EUA] by the FDA […]” (emphasis added). It goes on to assert that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) formulations are the same and thereby can be clinically substitutable. The FDA notes the abundant supply of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and the non-availability of Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) in the U.S. market. They then explicitly re-affirm that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is, in fact, experimental and only covered by the EUA, not FDA licensed.

 

FDA License Letter:

 

EUA Re-issue Letter Excerpts:

Confused yet? The CDC did not help matters, either. On Monday, August 31, 2021, their Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) released an inaccurate statement. The committee’s public announcement unanimously endorsed the FDA license for the “Pfizer-BioNTech licensed vaccine.” They misstated the vaccine name and license holder, never mentioning the actual owner of the FDA license, BioNTech, conflating legal ownership of Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) as Pfizer’s. They neglected to mention it is not available in the U.S. and therefore not possible for consumers here to receive. Those inaccuracies further aided the public misperception that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is FDA licensed. Concurrently, two high-level career FDA officials resigned at the time of the CDC ACIP board announcement, citing frustration with overreach into FDA affairs by other parts of the Executive Branch.

 

The Pfizer company issued a “forward-looking” press release, that was also easily misinterpreted. Perhaps they were hoping the mundane went unnoticed, as the pharmaceutical giant intermingled complex terms and concepts: Pfizer, BioNTech, Comirnaty, COVID-19, mRNA, EUA, authorized, approved, licensed, manufacturer, legal owner, national markets, and etc. The corporate relationship between Pfizer and BioNTech is no less convoluted. The joint venture and vaccine names, also similar, only add to the confusion. All of which potentially prevented a clear understanding of important legal and regulatory nuances, and allowed a fearful U.S. public to believe an available vaccine was now regulatorily licensed for their safety and legal recourse, when in reality, it was not. In brief:

  • BioNTech is the marketing arm of the two company enterprise in the U.S., Europe, and UK.
  • Pfizer produced Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) for BioNTech, while both submitted supporting material for the license.
    BioNTech, alone, received an FDA license for Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA).
  • Both Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) were covered, in-part, by the re-issued EUA.
  • Both Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA may be available in other countries. Yet, Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is not available anywhere under FDA jurisdiction.
  • If and when this occurs, Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) will be “[…] manufactured, filled, labeled, and packaged at Pfizer.”
  • Both Pfizer produced vaccines are, at times, marketed as Comirnaty outside the U.S. While only COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is officially recognized as Comirnaty in this country.

Recent U.S. military vaccine mandates look to be a direct result of the manufactured confusion. August 24, 2021 DoD guidance stated that the Department “[…] will only use COVID-19 vaccines that receive full licensure from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) […]” (emphasis added). A fully FDA licensed COVID-19 vaccine is not available to U.S. service members. They are simply not able to legally comply with the DoD mandate.

By administrative and regulatory law, it appears that all public and private institutions are not allowed to mandate EUA medical products. In 21 U.S. Code 360bb-3-Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies for unapproved products (b)(2)(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), it says that recipients have “[…] the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” In the FDA’s own policy guidelines it is written that recipients “[…] have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product […].” Under U.S. Code 335(i)(4) and related regulations, “the informed consent process typically requires human subjects to agree to the receipt… upon a disclosure that the product in question is not yet FDA approved and that the receipt of such product is voluntary.” Informed consent is required to administer EUA vaccines with few exceptions.

 

The newly mandated Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is legally defined as an EUA and therefore cannot be mandated in the military unless informed consent is waived by a presidential waiver and, according to U.S. Code Section 1107a of Title 10 and DoDI 6200.02, only after meeting specific criteria. Two of these criteria apparently preclude its issuance in this case: 1) “[…] specified military operation presents a substantial risk that military personnel may be subject to a chemical, biological, nuclear, or other exposure likely to produce death or serious or life-threatening injury or illness […]” and; 2) “[…] no available satisfactory alternative therapeutic or preventive treatment in relation to the intended use of the investigational new drug.” In the first, a waiver of informed consent is limited to the support of a specific military operation. For the second, monoclonal antibody therapy is an FDA-authorized alternative COVID-19 treatment.

It does not matter that the FDA stated in their re-issued EUA, their website, or Fact Sheet that the vaccines are similarly formulated and can be clinically interchangeable. The simple fact is that the administration of an EUA vaccine, by law, requires informed consent. It is therefore illegal to mandate any of the three U.S. available COVID-19 vaccines that are not officially licensed. As the Department did not receive an informed consent waiver from the President to mandate the Pfizer-BioNTech CV-19 Vaccine, and the FDA licensed Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is not yet available in the U.S., it remains uncertain how the military can continue to incorrectly mandate COVID-19 vaccination.

Consequently, the Services’ mandatory vaccination orders are impossible to lawfully execute according to Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 90. U.S. military officers take an oath to the Constitution, and not to those appointed over them in the event orders are unlawful (enlisted service members swear allegiance to both). An officer may find themselves duty bound to refuse an unlawfully mandated vaccination in support and defense of the law of the land, on the behalf of their troops.

 

Meanwhile in other countries, Pfizer has not provided any COVID-19 vaccines without explicit (and extreme) indemnity contracts in place. They are requiring not only protection from all future product harm civil lawsuits, but also protection from Pfizer’s “[…] fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing processes… or malice […].” The company is requiring some countries to fund foreign bank accounts, take out insurance, and put up sovereign assets such as their Embassies or military bases, according to global health law lecturer Mark Eccleston-Turner of the University of England and statnews.com.

The aforementioned regulatory charade may be a U.S. version of Pfizer’s COVID-19 global indemnity project. Unfortunately, the company has a history of misbranding “with the intent to defraud or mislead.” In a landmark DOJ case they were found guilty of a felony, and fined $2.3 billion (the largest such fine ever) for fraudulent marketing. Interestingly, the FDA receives almost half of its current funding from industry in the form of “regulatory fees,” a clear conflict of interest which should be strongly questioned.

If the vaccine is actually safe and effective, then why all this confusion? Why did they only license “Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA),” exclusively available outside of this country? Why did they not license the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine,” the only label available in the U.S. Why does Pfizer not just import the approved label? Why are they so keen on some form of almost total indemnity everywhere their vaccines are available? Why are we told they are interchangeable, but their license and EUA are legally not? If what is in the vial is the same, then why the legal labyrinth? And what exactly was the cross-agency overreach into FDA licensing processes and why is there no formal Congressional inquiry?

 

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is asking questions. He recently wrote a letter to the FDA requesting “why they did not grant full licensure for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that is already in use and available in the U.S., and how the agency will ensure that those being vaccinated under mandates will receive the FDA-approved version […].” Those concerned about our nation’s defense should consider asking their Congressmen and Senators to do the same.

The complex web of words, business structures, international legal agreements, and unforthright regulation may not collectively protect U.S. citizens. Rather, they enable a slight-of-hand scheme that increases global market-share, reduces expenses, and lowers potential legal exposure. All the while, this product (with no long-term studies and declining efficacy) is pushed on the consumer—at all costs—regardless of the potential harm. If the confusion were removed as it should be, informed citizens, their elected officials, and public servants would not stand for this carnival-like side show.

Nine months into the vaccination campaign, available evidence to-date does not look good for existing U.S. vaccines. The original “wild” version of SAR-CoV-2 is virtually dead and the increasingly immune variants dominate. Delta is highly contagious, but much less dangerous to the general population. The largest real-world analysis study, examining 700,000 records in Israel’s official health database, found that the COVID-19 vaccinated are 13 times more likely to be infected and 27 times more likely to demonstrate serious symptoms than those with recovered natural immunity. The Combined Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which tracks post-vaccination events for possible patterns, has through August recorded more than 600,000 events, including 81,000 serious or life-threatening events and about 13,000 deaths.

In contrast, as of 12 August, the COVID-19 mortality rate in the military was .001%, or 29 deaths in the almost 2.2 million-strong and exceptionally healthy U.S. service member population. Recent studies, meanwhile, indicate that teen boys and young men (the military’s dominant demographic) are more likely to suffer heart problems from vaccination than they are to be hospitalized from COVID-19 itself. It is not difficult at all to imagine that in a force as young and healthy as the military, universal vaccination could cause more harm than the disease itself.

We all, citizen, elected official and military, want to protect the Force, but the extent of national harm that could result from doing so in this way, with wrong or incomplete information, is staggering to contemplate. Industry, regulators, and media must be immediately cross-examined. We literally only get one shot at this, as these vaccines are irreversible experimental gene therapies. I have previously suggested a Department-wide safety pause to conduct further study, so as to not prematurely commit the entire U.S. fighting force to one permanent experimental group. Given all of the cross-agency confusion, Congressional inquiry may be necessary. A bipartisan body could better investigate the misperceptions informing national security decisions.

Until more is reliably known, DoD can still maintain a control group with almost half of the 2.2 million uniformed population still deciding not to vaccinate. We could easily commence prevention and treatment therapies like I-MASK+ currently used in nations around the world with great efficacy.

It would be a national calamity to “rush to failure” en masse with the entire U.S. troop strength, using vaccines that may be more harmful than the disease itself to this specific population entrusted with our nation’s defense. The pervasive misperception that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is FDA licensed, thereby justifying mandatory vaccination policy, is a logical syllogism based on a false premise and, therefore, invalid. The FDA, CDC, Pfizer, BioNTech and the media must reveal what is under all of the “shells” for the sake of this Republic.

Many U.S. military service members are carrying these messages to Garcia in the strongest terms possible, by tendering resignations. I am aware of many seasoned officers and enlisted who have done so, or done the effective equivalent (early retirement or non-reenlistment). This mandatory vaccination decision may, in the end, squander billions in training and readiness. The sudden loss of even a fraction of the one million non-vaccinated force could expose critical capabilities at scale. The talent capable of separating, at this time, have completed all service obligations, are fully trained and highly experienced, constituting the best of our warfighter expertise and lethality. Many others are declining to visit the military recruiter’s office for the first time. The already difficult task of recruiting for our all-volunteer force may become nearly impossible with a mandatory vaccination policy.

The most tragic are those already in the Service who have a remaining obligation (contracts or enlistments) and cannot choose to leave for risk of legal or financial ruin. Continue down this path, and our military will almost certainly suffer a heretofore-unseen morale deficit, further reducing overall fighting capability. If we run off or demoralize fully half of our armed force, then the defense of this nation will be significantly crippled.

And for what? To protect 0.001% of those in service? We would wreck our military, just after wrecking our economy, at the worst possible time, when U.S. soft power and perceived hard power are arguably at their lowest levels in half a century. This unnecessary vaccine mandate comes at a moment when strategic competitors are demonstrably more capable, more aggressive, and more able to project their will against U.S. interests than ever before.

If the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy is truly a military readiness initiative, then the reality is it will cause a far graver impact to our national defense posture than this disease. America’s foes do not care the reason why our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guard or Guardians are not on duty to prevent attack. Mandatory vaccination’s enterprise-level damage to recruiting, retention, and trust and confidence within the ranks could make us all more vulnerable than COVID-19 ever could alone. It has been said that this great nation can only be conquered from within. If the military self-inflicts a strategic sized wound (by persecuting half the troops), then it is possible we could gift this nation’s enemies our own mortal blow.

To review, the FDA licensed vaccine is not available to consumers in the U.S. and even DoD cannot mandate any emergency vaccine without a specifically conditional, presidential waiver of a service member’s informed consent. To do otherwise is unlawful. The way I see it, service members have three choices: 1) choose to receive the EUA shot; 2) submit a religious and/or medical waiver, or; 3) refuse the EUA shot, as only a fully licensed vaccine labeled Comirnaty, not available at your U.S. clinic, can be mandated at present.

As we do best, service members are helping service members. More information can be found at COVID-19 educational information hub: thecontrolgroup.us

Commander Furman is a career United States naval officer, naval aviator and foreign area officer with extensive experience advising senior military, diplomatic and international organization’s leadership. The Commander has spent years serving throughout Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East at sea, ashore and airborne. He holds a Master of Arts in Security Studies from the Naval Postgraduate School.

NOTE FROM EXPANDING AWARENESS RELATIONS:
Thank you to Commander J.H. Furman and The Revolver for bringing these incredibly important issues to our attention. The amount of deception and manipulation that these “medical/health agencies”, government/politicians and pharmaceutical companies have employed to vaccinate everyone cannot in common sense terms be deemed as a beneficial goal and/or for health reasons. There is something else at work here.

Thank you again to Commander J.H. Furman and everyone else speaking up during these perilous times. Your bravery and integrity in coming forward is greatly appreciated and much needed to bring this awareness to the population.

God bless.