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.

SHOCKING Images of Nanosensors/Nanowires in the Vaccines | Dr. Pablo Campra: “The [graphene] system can self-assembly once injected in the body”

Dr. Campra also poses a very serious, life-changing inquiry.

As has been mentioned throughout this site in numerous posts, I have focused on some of the technological advancements and agendas that those at the top levels of global dominance have tried to implement onto the rest of the population.

Vaccines, of course, at least at the time being, seeming to be the main focal point.

The admissions from several doctors, scientists, “world leaders” – that their initiative involves combining medical drug therapies (again, namely vaccines) with gene-editing tools and digital technology – should be an obvious sign that this is not only an attempt at changing our human nature, but also a means of utmost control and surveillance.

“We’re entering the era of the “Internet of Bodies”: collecting our physical data via a range of devices that can be implanted, swallowed or worn.”

“In 2017, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration approved the first use of digital pills in the United States. Digital pills contain tiny, ingestible sensors, as well as medicine. Once swallowed, the sensor is activated in the patient’s stomach and transmits data to their smartphone or other devices.”

“As the Internet of Bodies spreads into every aspect of our existence, we are facing a range of new challenges.”

Web Archive/weforum: Tracking how our bodies work could change our lives

What better way to initiate this goal than to plan for a worldwide pandemic [Event 201 (conducted in 2019 to address a worldwide coronavirus pandemic)… “This board has been urgently convened by the World Economic Forum.” – Anita Cicero], induce widespread fear and panic in the media, in order to provoke a response to get people to demand a tracking app/vaccine?

The answer’s are there. If one sets aside bias and disbelief.

Dr. Pablo Campra, PhD in Chemical Sciences, Department of Agronomy, has independently researched several vials of different COVID vaccines at the request of La Quinta Columna, and has found stunning (terrifying) images that depict what can only be described as nanotechnology.

Along with fiber looking material resembling Morgellons, Dr. Pablo Campra is sure that there is graphene oxide in these vials. Now he addresses engineers, technicians, electricians – anyone who is familiar with technology and nanoparticles, to come forward and do their own independent research to investigate what these “fibers, wires, particulates, chips” really are and why they are in the vaccines.

While Dr. Campra and many others are already hypothesizing and theorizing what these vaccines really are, their conclusions are incredibly alarming, and should be a wake-up call to us all to reflect on what’s really going on in the world.

Full transcript of the interview between Stew Peters and Dr. Pablo Campra.
Some embellishment has been added for emphasis.

Stew Peters: “Well, in this show we’ve repeatedly mentioned the work by La Quinta Columna in Spain. That name means the 5th Column, and it’s a group of dissident researchers who’ve investigated these shots being falsely referred to as vaccines.

Most importantly, they’re the ones who studied a vaccine sample and found graphene oxide in it.

Dr. Pablo Campra is a professor of chemical sciences at the University of Almeria. But he’s also affiliated with La Quinta Columna and has dedicated himself to performing an independent analysis of vaccine samples.

And now he’s released his findings in 3 parts. Earlier this month he put his full graphene oxide findings on Researchgate.

His findings were clear. Using a technique called micro raman spectroscopy, he found ample evidence of graphene oxide structures within random vaccine samples.

But Dr. Campra’s follow-up research could be even more important. If it can be. In another researchgate paper, Campra speculates that microstructures seen in the vaccines made of graphene oxide could be components in a wireless nano-sensor network.

It’s all pretty remarkable. So we’re happy to have Dr. Campra on with us now to get some of the details.

Thank you so much for being here from Spain.”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Yes, Stew. Nice to be on the show. I’m a follower.”

Stew Peters: “Great, we’re happy to have you.

So we originally reported on your graphene oxide findings. They were discovered by Dr. Jane Ruby. You’re still convinced that graphene oxide is in these shots? That’s indisputable?

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Yeah, definitely.

Well, first to make clear, I don’t belong to La Quinta Columna. La Quinta Columna is the channel of free information. And they hired me to – they asked me to, to do this research to detect the graphene particles in vials. Because they have the theory that those vials contain some material that can be responsible for the magnetic effects, the magnetization of bodies, and also for the emission of bluetooth calls. Bluetooth radio waves from vaccinated people. So, they asked me to find the prime material for all the system – that’s supposed to be graphene oxide.

And that was my role in the first level of research. The other two levels is engineers, experts on this field that are doing it now. And they have – they managed to compare some images from my research and they, they claim that those are nano-routers and nano-sensors. So it’s an on-going research. It’s not my responsibility.

Image source for all 3 images: Dr. Pablo Campra/Stew Peters Show

Stew Peters: “So was a chemical analysis ever done to verify graphene oxide?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Yeah. What we did is on a spectral investigation. Once you get the micro raman picture, you get the photographs, and then you focus the laser beam on those bodies and then you can be sure of the structure they have.

So we detected the graphene structure in some of the nanoparticles that we were screening in the vials.

Stew Peters: “Was the work ever replicated, in more vials?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “No. – Yeah, we, we had only 7 different vials from 4 different trademarks. And we managed to find this structure in 28 nanoparticles out of 110 possible graphene particles, according to their image. The micro raman is a technique where you match the image with a spectra. Then you can be sure that what you find is that structure.”

Stew Peters: “So you guys came out with this, it’s been months now, that you guys came out with this. We reported on it. There have been a lot of independent researchers, microscopy experts, scientists, that have corroborated, ‘yes, graphene oxide is in these’.

We recently had a Pfizer whistleblower on this program – Melissa McAtee, who said, look, here’s an email that specifically tells the PR department at Pfizer, from the top scientist over there, how to handle this graphene oxide thing being in there.

So they’re not even denying anymore, really, that graphene oxide is in these things. But fact-checkers originally were all over this. And they used, ‘well Pfizer said that it’s not in there’, as their basis for fact-checking you. So to those people, what would you say, to anybody who doubts that graphene oxide is in these vials. In these bioweapon injections. What would you say to them?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Well you know, there’s very little free research on this trail. There’s only a few people, isolated people; institutions/academy is out of this research, totally. So, it’s only a few people that is taking pictures of objects or nano- nanoparticles that may resemble graphene oxide.

But I… I haven’t found anyone who’s done a similar analysis. So I claim that people like, for instance, Carrie Madej, she had a great interview with you or Botha, who are watching blood samples. They can use the same technique of micro raman, because I have seen some nanoparticles – these dark carbonaceous blots, these big particles. And sure, those are graphene. And they just need to, to focus their beam of a micro raman laser on those, and make sure they have that structure on blood.

I haven’t done it. But, I claim they could do it. So I’m sure anyone using the, this technique can detect this structure. Just detect. Then we have to characterize it, that can be different types of graphene – the concentration, toxicity… we haven’t worked on that. But what we claim is that more independent researchers do this the same, and replicate our findings.”

Stew Peters: “Why do you think it’s so important that graphene oxide is exposed? I mean, obviously it’s a toxic substance. Why do you think it’s in these vials.”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Well, first of all, it’s not in the list of ingredients. That’s important. And it – it’s been cited in literature as the basis of this nano – wireless nano-sensor/wireless network. So… it’s been cited in for 10 years, now. So now some experts here in Spain, they have located nanoparticles that might be part of the – of this system.

And graphene is the prime material of this system. So, what we think, what my find is – I haven’t seen the whole assembly of this systems. But the system can self-assembly once injected in the body. So, this is a new line of research.”

Stew Peters: “Do you see, so – there’s been a lot of speculation about this 5G connectivity. Is that specifically what you’re talking about? I mean, this is becoming less tin-foil hat, less conspiracy theory, and more reality as you dig into this? I mean, I’m relying on your expertise here.”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “No, it’s not my expertise, but anybody can enter in the blog of these experts from Spain, it’s called, corona2inspect. Corona2inspect.

They have present this theory – according to scientific literature, and matching the images from our work, with images from literature, and they’re sure that this system is possible nowadays, based on graphene. And they’re discovering everyday new elements of the whole network.

So we need to match this also with the bluetooth signal from vaccinated people. So it’s the whole researchers – the free […]. My responsibility is only to detect it. Detecting the prime material.”

Stew Peters: “Did you just say ‘bluetooth’? You, did – did you just say a bluetooth signal from vaccinated people? They’re emitting a bluetooth signal? Is that right?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Yeah, that – there’s a group in France, we’re in contact with them, and they’re doing a more detailed research on this. But anybody can do a research on this. With a simple mobile phone, and bluetooth scanning app; and iphones and Samsungs don’t work, but you need to download an app.

And you can get very easily this MAC code, M.A.C. code – it’s 6 letters and numbers, from many people. And then you have to do the research of making sure that they don’t have a small watch, or headphones, or Internet of the Things devices that could yield this image.

And we are sure from this research that this signal is real. It’s real. Not in all vaccinated people, but in a high percentage of people.”

Stew Peters: “Why do you think it’s different from some people than from others?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Well, it depends. There’s a high variability in the vials we have observed. Also in the adverse effects. So it’s not on the […] jabbing. And so that’s quite a big variability.

And also the system in some people gets installed, and other people don’t. For instance, graphene is something that you can buy at the grade with months of time. So like if we’re doing 3 and 6 months, you can degradate it. But if you get another jab, then you get the system again back. So, we think some people are more prone to install this system, than others.”

Stew Peters: “I just cannot get over what you’re – what you’re talking about. My brain just keeps going back to this, human being’s are emitting a discoverable bluetooth transmission.

I mean, that is not supposed to be happening, Dr. Campra. Is it?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “This is in literature. The system is, has been signed and implemented long ago. The new thing is that they are probably injecting it into people without their consent. So the system can be used to control your neural network, your – your mind, your emotions, it can control your physiology; it works.

It’s described in literature. But I’m not expert on this, but I think the expert on this should take a look at our pictures, pictures in blood, and try to… unveil the system. That we think, well, it resembles what this – what’s called in the Revelation book, the mark of the beast. This can do the same things. You can buy, sell things, it can control and monitor your mind, your faults, so… I think it’s something worth it to be […].”

Stew Peters: “Here in the United States, we talk about things like critical race theory, transgender acceptance, the indoctrination of our kids in schools. There’s an incessant push to get this injection into our school children; into our kids. Presumably to control their thought process. Their minds. Because the indoctrination is not working, or, maybe in some homes there’s a mother and a father who vehemently oppose that, and teach real core values to their children. 

Our military is being subjected to this shot. They’re being discharged, possibly court martialed, and thrown into the brig if they’re not injected. Imagine controlling the minds of an entire military.

Dr. Pablo Campra:Yeah, this is the feature of the mark of the beast, is this, is that it has to be mandatory. And anyone excluded from it will be excluded from society. So the technology exists, it’s described in the literature, and we just need it to be mandatory.

And then we have to think about which – what time of the history we are living on. I am not – you are a Christian, I know, I am Catholic. And we know this time is unique in history. So… we think we might be very near to unveil this mark.

Stew Peters: “Unbelievable. Um, I would like – would you agree to come back for an extended sit-down interview with me where we can talk a little bit more in depth about these things? Because I think that – I mean, people obviously have been waiting for a very long time to hear from you on this research. Would you come back again for an exclusive with me? We’ll sit down?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Yeah, sure. I will be happy. The problem is I am not expert in nanotechnologies. I am just working in the first level of research detecting this material. And I think you should better find someone in Spain or there, I’m sure there are many technicians in the U.S. who know about these systems. And they should save the – the images which, again, they are in my researchgate. We are uploading all of them. They can save these elements, could be the elements of this network.

But I’m, I’m happy to go back, but I don’t have much to say about the system; it’s not my expertise. It’s just a working hypothesis that engineers are working here.”

Stew Peters: “I’ve got about a minute left, what is… what do you want to say? What is the most important thing that you want to get out here today?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “I guess tell people that they have to choose between the truth, and the false. Problems like yours, they have people to do it. So. That’s what I have to say.”

Stew Peters: “Dr. Pablo Campra, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it.”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Thanks. I appreciate it.”

Some additional images that Dr. Pablo Campra captured from various vials and states of the COVID vaccines are the following:

(for a full account, please visit his researchgate publications @Pablo Campra)

Small list of self-assembling/graphene oxide/nanoparticles in the medical/scientific literature:

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21080682/ ] “Three-dimensional self-assembly of graphene oxide and DNA into multifunctional hydrogels” (2010)

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23212421/ ] “Biomolecular coronas provide the biological identity of nanosized materials” (2012)

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23369286/ ] “Self-assembled free-standing graphene oxide fibers” (2013)

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24852899/ ] “Self-assembly of graphene oxide at interfaces” (2014)

[ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/advs.201700626 ] “Self-Assembled Graphene-Based Architectures and Their Applications” (2017)

[ https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2019/nh/c8nh00318a ] “Graphene oxide touches blood: in vivo interactions of bio-coronated 2D materials” (2018)

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33112593/ ] “Person-Specific Biomolecular Coronas Modulate Nanoparticle Interactions with Immune Cells in Human Blood” (2020)

One last mention, there are allusions (to outright admissions…) of attempts at altering humankind that one can find throughout various esoteric/philosophical/religious literature. What one chooses to do with that information is up to them. But to say that this is not a goal of dominating forces would be incredibly naive and gullible.

Thank you so much to Dr. Pablo Campra for investigating these vaccines and going through so much research. Having an honest person’s perspective is incredibly needed, especially in a time where deceit, manipulation and censorship has run rampant throughout the media.

Many blessings to Dr. Campra and other researchers, readers, interviewers like Stew Peters, etc. who are seeking the truth.

*Featured image source: Dr. Pablo Campra/Stew Peters Show

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.