ER Editor: Following the FDA’s approval of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine yesterday for people 16 years and older, we’re running two different reactions, one from Jon Rappoport on the general story, and one by Dr. Meryl Nass, which finesses some relevant points. (See also this Zerohedge report titled Pfizer Jab Receives Full Approval From FDA, Pentagon Mandates Vaccinations For All Troops.)
Dr. Nass importantly notes that the new, approved vaccine will carry a brand name (Comirnaty) and have liability attached to its use, whereas the unbranded, emergency-use vaccine didn’t/doesn’t. Would Pfizer risk being liable for its product given its current safety record? (A new bill in Congress is trying to have their liability removed).
In her latest, subsequent post, Nass notes that they’ll probably use up all the old Pfizer stock first, THAT DOESN’T HAVE A BRAND NAME, authorized formerly under emergency-use and non-mandatable WHILE HAVING US BELIEVE THAT IT IS MANDATED. In other words, the actual vial from which the vaccine is drawn is CRITICAL. No brand name? Emergency use, non-mandatable, Pfizer is not liable. Brand name? Mandatable, with Pfizer carrying the dangerous risk of liability (before Congress comes to their rescue):
So, my inference is that the feds want the public to THINK the vaccine they are receiving is licensed, which will make people submit because they believe it can now be mandated, but instead the public is almost certain to receive the EUA vials instead, to save Pfizer’s behind.
* You will be able to tell the difference when you see the vaccine vial. The letter explains that the COMIRNATY-labelled vials will be the licensed ones, and the others (under EUA) will say something like Pfizer BioNTech Covid-19 Vaccine without the brand name COMIRNATY.
Breaking: FDA gives full approval to COVID vaccines; no public hearing; no transparency; no open review of vaccine data
(To join our email list, click here.)
The fix is in.
We raced from “emergency use authorization” of experimental vaccines to “full approval.” Boom.
Despite the promise of “transparency” prior to giving full approval to the COVID vaccines, the FDA gave its final green light today. Slam-dunk.
And there was NO public hearing.
“Full approval” means the vaccine marketing/intimidation/mandate campaigns will ramp up much higher. “Well, now there is NO reason for anyone to refuse the shot. The FDA states it is completely safe and effective.”
Obviously, the FDA didn’t want to allow even mainstream “experts” to speak in a public hearing before approval; the agency is running a very tight ship. No slip-ups. No defections.
An 8/20 article in the BMJ (“Covid-19: FDA set to grant full approval to Pfizer vaccine without public discussion of data”) quotes a few of these dissenting mainstream pros. For example:
“Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who serves as a consumer representative on the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, said the decision removed an important mechanism for scrutinising the data.”
“’These [FDA] public meetings are imperative in building trust and confidence especially when the vaccines came to market at lightning speed under emergency use authorisation,’ she said. ‘The public deserves a transparent process, especially as the call for boosters and mandates are rapidly increasing. These meetings offer a platform where questions can be raised, problems tackled, and data scrutinised in advance of an approval’.”
“Witczak is one of the more than 30 signatories of a citizen petition calling on the FDA to refrain from fully approving any covid-19 vaccine this year to gather more data. She warned that without a [public FDA] meeting ‘we have no idea what the data looks like’.”
“’It is already concerning that full approval is being based on 6 months’ worth of data despite the clinical trials designed for two years,’ she said. ‘There is no control group after Pfizer offered the product to placebo participants before the trials were completed’.”
“’Full approval of covid-19 vaccines must be done in an open public forum for all to see. It could set a precedent of lowered standards for future vaccine approvals’.”
Understand—this devastating criticism of the FDA is coming from a person who operates WITHIN the public-health establishment.
Amidst a tsunami of reports of vaccine injuries and deaths from around the world, the FDA is proving it is an agency that will certify maiming and killing without hesitation.
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Are the FDA and Pfizer-BioNTech scamming us with a license-in-name-only? And why do they want us to be vaccinated so badly?
DR. MERYL NASS, MD
This is a convoluted legal argument, but since it hinges on the potential loss of huge amounts of money, I think there is a good chance my guess is correct.
EUA or “authorized” vaccines and drugs are defined as experimental. Experimental products require informed consent, and there are other restrictions on their use. Most lawyers believe, as I do, that they cannot be legally mandated because they require you to have the right to refuse. It is written into the EUA statute. There also cannot be approved, licensed drugs that do the same thing as the EUA drug or vaccine, and of course, in this case both HCQ and IVM can prevent as well as treat Covid.
This has troubled the federal government. And so it had the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel manufacture a legal opinion in late July that you could be forced to be vaccinated even while the vaccines were only authorized. However, the OLC arguments were ridiculous and therefore ignored.
When that didn’t work, federal threats got heavy. First it was going to be mandates “if you wanted to do business with the government.” Then mandates for the military. Then mandates for healthcare workers, schools, colleges, you name it. And federal workers.
But legally, all these mandate threats hinged on licensure, aka “approval.” No one wanted to go to court defending a mandate under EUA. And the feds probably promised all the employers, schools, states, etc. that a license would be issued before colleges and schools started.
But there is a huge elephant in the room. Under EUAs, the government pays for the product and the manufacturer has NO liability, unless you can prove willful misconduct AND the DHHS Secretary allows you to sue. That has never happened.
But once the product (Pfizer’s vaccine, today) is licensed, the liability shield under EUA disappears. Unless there has a been a secret agreement regarding liability after approval, which is probably not legal, Pfizer will be liable for all injuries sustained by the licensed vaccine. And Pfizer’s vaccine seems to be causing a record number of injuries and deaths, based on the VAERS data.
The FDA approval letter, issued today, was unusual. It stated that current bottles of vaccine, which are not branded with the “Cominarty” brand name, are still authorized, not approved. Only newer bottles with “Cominarty” labels will be approved, licensed product.
What that means is that people cannot be mandated to receive vaccine from the old bottles. But if they do accept the non-brand vaccine, they cannot sue if injured.
If they receive the branded vaccine and are injured, they can be mandated to take it, but they can also sue the company for damages.
Here is what might be happening. FDA issued a license, so everyone thinks the mandate is now in effect. But if no new “Cominarty” labelled vaccine is being administered, just the old authorized vaccine, there is no licensed product being used, and there is no actual mandate. And no ability to sue if injured.
If you have looked at any of the leaked contract documents between Pfizer and Israel or Albania, or heard about the contract signed in Brazil, you will probably agree with me that Pfizer would not be willing to accept liability for this product.
So: if it does not say “Comirnaty,” it cannot be mandated. If it does say “Comirnaty,” it can be mandated. But if it doesn’t say “Comirnaty,” it is still experimental and you cannot be forced to take it, and if you do get injured, you are out of luck.
Don’t sign a liability waiver for this product! Don’t sign away your rights if you take it.
I am guessing Pfizer will continue to supply the old “authorized” vaccine to avoid liability… and that explains the convolution in FDA’s letter this morning. If I am correct, you won’t have to take it… Anyway, not till Pfizer gets rid of the liability problem…which could happen, as a bill has been introduced in Congress to solve Pfizer’s problem. It’s the Vaccine Injury Modernization Compensation Act of 2021.
Will our legislators throw us under the bus again and remove manufacturer liability for the few vaccines that still have it? Be forewarned.
You can track the bill here.
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.