The legality (or lack thereof), in the United States, of Covid-19 vaccine mandates seems to pivot on an assumption that mandating this vaccine would be similar to previous mandates for childhood vaccines.
But is that a fair comparison?
Regardless of the controversy over previous vaccine mandates they have all been attempting to mandate FDA licensed products. Never has there been a mandate for an EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) product which is officially an experimental product released due to an "Emergency".
The FDA letter of August 23, 2021 for the Comirnaty vaccine indicates an approval. We've commented about the legal distinction between Pfizer and Comirnaty shots and the fact that these Comirnaty shots don't really exist in the US. That issue and the question is still pending, where is the Comirnaty vaccine? From all practical perspectives it doesn't appear to exist in the United States bringing question about the EUA extension of the Pfizer Biontech vaccine.
Any vials of Pfizer Biontech may be claimed to be an FDA Approved and Licensed product but legally there is a big distinction between the two as only the Pfizer Biontech product has the liability shield. This of course begs the question of whether the Comirnaty vaccine will ever make it to the United States or if that approval was just monkey business to trick an already media hypnotized public into just accepting these mandates.
Of course the other big question about the EUA products is whether they are all technically nullified due to the fact that there is now an FDA Approved and Licensed alternative (Comirnaty)!
If I had an employer that was claiming it was FDA Approved and that was their justification for forcing the shot or losing your job I would ask to see the label and the product insert sheet. If it didn't say "Comirnaty" then I would reject it and say "no that's an experimental product".
Speaking of the product insert and FDA approved and licensed product can't have a blank insert sheet! This is apparently pending right now and it must be written with all the adverse events disclosed on it. This is at least partly so that individuals that are in various risk groups would know ahead of taking it that they could have an adverse reaction to it and would refuse the shot in that case.13,000 deaths attributed to these Covid-19 shots
Blank insert sheets are a red flag! It's a violation of the Nuremberg code (international law) for force someone into an experimental medical procedure.
The unfortunate part is that despite an air of justice we live (yes in the US) within a corrupt legal system that pervades our commercial world. Most judges are not truly upholding the law and this is reflected in the reactions to some of the recent Federal lawsuits being brought against these mandates.
Of course the stupid part is that literally millions of Americans are willing to lose their jobs to avoid the (known to be a potentially deadly) shot.
The opposition to this happens to be millions of other Americans that seem to be media brainwashed into believing that "unvaccinated" people are driving the pandemic. This incessant message on the media is clear but the problem is that it is completely unscientific (and doesn't even make any logical sense).
The vaccines are not even designed to stop the spread of any virus but just designed to theoretically minimize symptoms and prevent severe illness. Even that is still up for debate since all of the statistics they used to justify the shots were using "Relative Risk" assessments rather than "Absolute Risk" which leads to misleading data. This method has been used for decades to trick an unsuspecting public to take questionable pharma products when individuals have very little risk in the first place.
All the while a new study out of Israel which is in the peer review status is showing at least a 7 fold increase in risk of symptomatic disease among the vaccinated versus natural immunity. We've referenced this study in previous posts here at KnowingTheTruth.com but it seems like the numbers on the abstract may be changing (possibly due to the peer review status?). Anyway we will continue to watch that study as it's a large scale population review which is quite important considering Israel is has the largest vaccine uptake due to their political climate.
Clearly all of this has been highly politicized and is tearing the country apart. In the midst of all the push to mandate vaccines to workers in healthcare and other industries we also are seeing pushback in certain areas such as the Attorney General of Arizona has declared Tuscon's mandatory Covid-19 vaccine push "illegal" and has stated that they will be held liable for forcing the shots to employees.
If Tuscon, Arizona doesn't recall their vaccine mandate they stand to lose millions in funding from the state. This comes after state lawmakers passed SB 1824 which prohibits local governments in Arizona from establishing vaccine passports or otherwiser requiring Covid-19 vaccination.
I find it interesting these battles between local municipalities who think they are quoting so called "Federal Law" but are actually quoting statements from the CDC which is not even a legitimate goverment organization but actually a private company that is technically not authorized to exist under the US Constitution.
It also echoes issues we've run into when fighting for local sovereignty on the wireless issue. It's a complex issue to be sure when the state and city don't agree. As far as I'm concerned (opinion) the Federal law should only have jurisdiction over state in very specific instances and I don't believe we have a prescident for the CDC guidelines (read "guidelines" that's not a law) to supercede local (i.e. State) laws that have been passed by legislative process.
This should be an important case to watch unfold in Arizona mostly because it's an actual government mandate while most of the others at this point are corporate and only serve to create a "de facto" requirement meaning "you don't have to do this but you just can't work here or shop here, etc. if you don't".
Personally I feel these "de facto" mandates are more important to fight because the state mandates will ultimately fail in most cases under EUA products.
Another lawsuit was filed fighting military mandated Covid-19 vaccines. The point of this complaint is that they've created a new definition of immunity which only considers vaccine induced immunity (nice for Big Pharma) and ignores natural immunity.
Children's Health Defense reported on this case:
The lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Staff Sergeant Daniel Robert and Staff Sergeant Holli Mulvihill, allege U.S. Sec. of Defense Lloyd Austin ignored the DOD’s own regulations and created an entirely new definition of “full immunity” as being achievable only by vaccination.
According to the lawsuit, the military’s existing laws and regulations unequivocally provide the exemption the plaintiffs seek under Army Regulation 40-562 (“AR 40-562”), which provides documented survivors of an infection a presumptive medical exemption from vaccination because of the natural immunity acquired as a result of having survived the infection.
Under the military’s regulations (AR 40-562, ¶2-6a.(1)(b):
“General examples of medical exemptions include the following … Evidence of immunity based on serologic tests, documented infection or similar circumstances.”
According to the lawsuit, Dr. Admiral Brett Giroir, HHS assistant secretary, stated in an interview Aug. 24 with Fox News: “So natural immunity, it’s very important … There are still no data to suggest vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity. I think both are highly protective.”
Yet on the same day, Austin issued a memo mandating the entire Armed Forces be vaccinated, in which he wrote:
“Those with previous COVID-19 infection are not considered fully vaccinated.”
In that memo, plaintiffs allege Austin created a new term and concept, which contradicts the plain language of DOD’s own regulations, long-standing immunology practice, medical ethics and the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence regarding this specific virus.
If you are still reading this and think this is all ridiculous and these people should just take the shot don't forget that there are currently over 13,000 deaths attributed to these Covid-19 shots in the US as reported in the (very difficult to use) VAERS system which was estimated by Harvard in 2010 to only capture about 1% of adverse events.
The Defender (Children's Health Defense) has also reported extensively on the legality of mandating EUA products:
The bottom line is this: mandating products authorized for Emergency Use Authorization status (EUA) violates federal law as detailed in the following legal notifications.
All COVID vaccines, COVID PCR and antigen tests, and masks are merely EUA-authorized, not approved or licensed, by the federal government. Long-term safety and efficacy have not been proven.
EUA products are by definition experimental, which requires people be given the right to refuse them. Under the Nuremberg Code, the foundation of ethical medicine, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is “absolutely essential.”
Earlier this year, Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense president and general counsel, and attorney Greg Glaser stated that federal law prohibits employers from mandating EUA COVID vaccines (or EUA COVID-19 tests or masks).
Holland and Glaser wrote:
“If a vaccine has been issued EUA by the FDA, it is not fully licensed and must be voluntary. A private party, such as an employer, school or hospital cannot circumvent the EUA law, which prohibits mandates. Indeed, the EUA law preventing mandates is so explicit that there is only one precedent case regarding an attempt to mandate an EUA vaccine.”
What to do if your school or employer says you must get the COVID vaccine
The Children’s Health Defense legal team has written three legal notifications that anyone faced with a COVID vaccine, COVID test or mask mandate can use to inform employers and universities that they are violating federal law. You can download the three notifications here.
All of the notifications include this language:
“Federal law, Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, states the following about products granted emergency authorization usage:
Individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—
(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
Any entity or organization that requires EUA COVID-19 vaccinations, COVID-19 tests or masks are in violation of federal law, and will likely face lawsuits if they don’t allow exemptions or alternatives.”
When it comes to legality the fact that there might be another vaccine (Comirnaty) which has an FDA approval still doesn't justify the legality of a mandated EUA vaccine (Pfizer, J&J, Moderna). After all we are now looking at 4 legally distinct vaccine products: Pfizer, J&J, Moderna, and now Comirnaty.
Only the last product is supposedly FDA approved but no one has yet to see the product insert sheet or any vials of said product which has no liability shield! It's not likely anyone will be seeing Comirnaty anytime soon so don't lose sleep over it.
If you found this to be informative or useful please share this post with your friends and let's stop censorship.
Featured Photo By sparkle-motion
FDA Cartoon Image courtesy of: DES Daughter
Arizona Image courtesy of: Kuster & Wildhaber Photography
