U.S. Military Vaccine Mandates Only Cover "FDA-Approved" Jabs Which Are NOT Available
The "bait and switch" that the United States military is currently perpetrating against servicemembers is despicable. We need to question why it's happening, and what it really means.
Members of the United States military who have been or will be vaccinated against Covid-19 as a result of the mandates are NOT following the direct orders of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Those who CHOOSE to be vaccinated are in compliance, but so too are those who CHOOSE not be jabbed based on the orders given on August 24, 2021.
According to the memo [emphasis mine]:
Mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 will only use COVID-19 vaccines that receive full licensure from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in accordance with FDA-approved labeling and guidance. Service members voluntarily immunized with a COVID-19 vaccine under FDA Emergency Use Authorization or World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing in accordance with applicable dose requirements prior to, or after, the establishment of this policy are considered fully vaccinated.
This is not a minor point. The mandates only apply to FDA-approved injections. Currently, the only two injections that have received FDA approval are Comirnaty and Spikevax. These vaccines are NOT being offered in the United States, including to U.S. servicemembers.
A letter posted to The Gateway Pundit by an anonymous 19-year active-duty officer in the U.S. Army details his/her frustration with the "bait and switch":
I am an active-duty Army officer with almost two decades of service.
I have refused to take the Covid-19 “vaccine” that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin mandated for all military personnel on August 24, 2021, and like thousands of others across the Department of Defense (DOD), I have submitted a request for a religious accommodation (RA) to be exempted from the shot. The Pentagon’s RA provision regarding this shot is proving to be somewhat of a circus and is receiving close attention thanks to multiple ongoing legal challenges. Due to the extreme political impetus behind the Covid vaccine push, I believe the DOD had no intent to approve any of the RA requests; in fact, I would not be surprised if instructions for blanket denials weren’t just unique to the Navy, as Liz Wheeler exposed several months ago.
However, an equally large concern is the bait-and-switch the DOD is (successfully thus far) executing regarding the non-availability of the mandated, FDA-approved shots. The FDA has approved Pfizer’s Comirnaty and Moderna’s SpikeVax, neither of which is currently available in the US, according to the CDC and the manufacturers. The FDA has repeatedly affirmed in its letters of authorization to Pfizer extending its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that the Pfizer Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are “legally distinct with certain differences…”. A US District Court Judge in Florida recognized the same thing in November. In his denial of the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction in John Doe #1-#14 and Jane Doe #1-#2 v. Lloyd Austin, et al., Judge Allen Winsor nevertheless wrote, “I do not discount the FDA’s conclusion that the two vaccines [Pfizer Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 Vaccine] are medically interchangeable. Of course, that does not mean that the two vaccines are legally indistinguishable – the FDA concedes they are not.” Additionally, the CDC’s website lists Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech separately and notes that Pfizer has no plans to distribute Comirnaty in the US at this time (as of 9 February). The document indicates the same for Moderna regarding their recently approved SpikeVax shot. The actual FDA-approved shots are not currently available in the US.
The DOD is requiring service members to get vaccinated anyway, even though the FDA-approved shots aren’t available. The SECDEF issued this mandate in a memo to the force on August 24, 2021, and specified that “only products that receive full FDA-licensure” will be used to fulfill the mandate.
However, the actual shots that the military is providing are still the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine, Moderna Covid-19 vaccine, and the Jansen (J&J) vaccine, all of which remain under EUA. Thus, service members are complying and getting vaccinated with something they have been told, or are being led to believe, is FDA-approved, when in fact it is still under an EUA. And to make it worse, those who refuse to accept the EUA shot are being disciplined and involuntarily separated as if they had disobeyed the actual order (to receive the FDA-approved shot). Title 10 US Code 1107a prohibits the requirement of an EUA medical product to the armed forces without a written waiver from the President, which has not been issued.
I will become eligible to retire in just under a year. However, if my RA is denied on appeal, I am facing a mandatory involuntary separation no later than June 30, possibly a General Discharge (which will strip me of some of my veteran’s benefits), and the loss of a retirement pension. I could be kicked out of the Army at two decades of experience for disobeying an order that is impossible to obey at this point in time.
The mandates do not apply to the EUA drugs currently being injected into Americans who choose to take the drugs. Servicemembers who take them are considered to be compliant, but the EUA injections may NOT be legally mandated. This is according to both the Secretary of Defense's orders as well as the Nuremburg Code itself.
As the author of the letter noted, there appears to be a blanket denial of religious exemption requests in some or all branches of the military. This is what tickles the deepest parts of my "conspiracy theorist" mind because it seems the government is set on jabbing ALL members of the military while eliminating anyone who is not injected. Considering the accepted science that the jabs do not prevent recipients from contracting or spreading the disease, this would seem less like a medical safety protocol and more like something dastardly.
In early 2021, I spoke at length with Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. He told me then, long before mandates, that he expected three groups to be targeted with the jabs and that these three groups would find it nearly impossible to keep their jobs while staying unjabbed. Specifically, he named the military, healthcare professionals, and law enforcement as the targets. His thinking was if the powers-that-be wanted to control or eliminate any groups in America to make us the most vulnerable, those three would be the primary targets.
It's conspicuous that mRNA injections, which make up the lion's share of jabs in western society and include both Moderna's and Pfizer's jabs, are not present in China. None of the vaccines they're using are mRNA injections.
Whatever the powers-that-be have planned, it seems that controlling or eliminating large parts of the United States military is a huge part of their machinations. That should truly concern every American.
Image by New York National Guard via Flickr, CC BY-ND 2.0.
JD...according to Pfizers financial reports for 2021 they ARE distributing Comirnaty in the US. If this is true then that means anyone that dies or is disabled by this injection can sue Pfizer. They only have liability protection for the EUA product not the FDA approved product. Now if they approve the shot for babies and it gets on the childhood schedule then they have full liability protection BUT that has not happened so this means there are people in the US that have probably been given Comirnaty and if death happened or disability big pharma can be sued. OR was Pfizer lying in their financial reports. I have all 4 quarters of their financial reports for 2021.
Liberty Counsel sued Biden back in October on behalf of the military and guess what the DOD said in court?
The injunction was rejected because the DOD pretended that COMIRNATY (virtually licensed product) is the same as Pfizer (EUA) which is a blatant LIE. If you download the factsheets of the two products they don't use the same manufacturing process and the ingredients are not the same. I don't understand how a judge can be so blind as to ignore the obvious evidence.
After that first hearing I stopped following this case because it was obvious to me that something else was going on behind the scenes that defies logic.