DON’T GET THE SHOT! Toxicologist Exposed How Pfizer Got FDA Approved!
'In other words, Pfizer plans, with FDA connivance, to use an entirely new vaccine formulation in children after their clinical trials used the old formulation,' said Dr. Meryl Nass.
In one interview, Dr. Maryl Nass, an internal specializing in toxicology, vaccine-induced illness, and Gulf War Illness, explained her thoughts about the dangers of the vaccine against covid-19. She also explained how the vaccine got FDA approved for children at the age of 5.
She explained the conflict of interest within the US FDA that seems to be behind every decision and how they approved the Pfizer vaccine.
Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender
“All of the COVID’ vaccines,’ and most of the COVID treatment products, have not been [FDA] approved. Approved means licensed. All except one, which is the Pfizer vaccine for adults, age 16 and up, which got approved, i.e., licensed on August 23 .
But every other vaccine and every other age group, including the boosters, have only been authorized under emergency use authorizations (EUAs). There’s a critical difference [between licensing and EUA]. Once a drug is fully licensed, it is subject to liability.
If the company injures you with that product, you can sue them, unless it later gets put on the CDC’s childhood schedule or is recommended by the CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] [during] pregnancy, in which case it obtains a different liability shield.
It then becomes part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP, established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act), and 75 cents from every dose of vaccine that is sold in the United States goes into a fund to pay for injuries that way.”
The NCVIA took down liability for all vaccines recommendations by the CDC for children. From 2016, they also erased the liability for shots given to pregnant women, a category that wasn’t included in the trials of the vaccines.
Countermeasures injury compensation program is nearly useless
Nass explained that the CICP was terrible.
“The PREP act enabled the CICP to be created by Congress,” Nass explains. “Congress has to allocate money for it. If you are injured by an emergency use product, you don’t get any legal process. The companies have had all their liability waived. There is a single process that is administered through HHS [Health and Human Services].”
“Some employees there decide whether you deserve to be compensated or not. The maximum in damages you can obtain is about $370,000 if you’re totally disabled or die, and the money is only to compensate you for lost wages or unpaid medical bills.”
Even though hundred CICP claims were filed for injuries from the C-19 shots, neither one has been paid out. It’s crucial because the statute of limitations is only 365 days.
It’s getting close to running out for people who were vaccinated early,” Nass says.
“You can ask the HHS twice to compensate you, and if they say no, that’s it,” Nass explains. “You can attempt to sue the company that made the product if you’re convinced it was improperly made, but the secretary of HHS has to give you the permission to sue.”
“You have to prove that there was willful misconduct, and no one has ever reached that bar. So, there has never been a lawsuit under this. Anyway, that’s what you’re looking at. If you get the vaccine under EUA and are injured, you’re on your own. People have no idea about this when they vaccinate themselves or their children.”
Why do the officials mandate the vaccines?
Biden mandated the C-19 shot for the companies with more than 100 employees, and soon he wild mandate them for everyone. “We don’t know why that is,” Nass says. It is nonsense because many Americans have already recovered from this virus and have long-lasting immunity.
Nass emphasized that natural immunity is better than the one from the vaccines that fade away immediately.
The shots “may in fact permanently limit the kind of immune response you would make were you to be infected with COVID later,”
“But for reasons best known to itself, the Biden administration feels so certain it needs to vaccinate everybody that it has used illegal means to tell employers they will lose federal contracts if they don’t force their employees to be vaccinated immediately and must fire them — if they’re health care workers, for example, or government employees, or military — if they have not been vaccinated.
Obviously, that is creating a great deal of chaos, particularly within the health care industry, particularly in my state, Maine, where these draconian rules have gone into effect, and many fire departments, police, EMTs, nurses, and doctors can no longer work.
The one thing that was necessary to push mandates forward was for the government to be able to say it had a licensed product. Before the emergency use authorization was created in 2005, you had licensed drugs, and you had experimental drugs and nothing else.
There was no gray area between them. Any use of a medication or vaccine that is not fully licensed is still experimental, despite the fact that a new category of drugs has been created with emergency use authorizations.
These are still experimental drugs, so under emergency use, you can’t force people [to take them]. You have to offer them options, and they have the right to refuse. Since that is part of the statute, the federal government can’t get around it.
Therefore, attorneys in the Biden administration knew they could not legally impose mandates under a EUA, and so they demanded that FDA provide a COVID vaccine full approval, aka, an unrestricted license. This was believed to enable them to impose mandates.
They must have put pressure on the FDA, and FDA gave them what they wanted, which was a license for the Pfizer vaccine called Comirnaty on August 23 .”
Comirnaty approval includes important caveats.
In the documents from August 32, 20211, released from the FDA, we could find fascinating caveats. They stated that the Comirnaty vaccines represented an equivalent to the EUA vaccine, and the two vaccines may be used together interchangeably.
The FDA didn’t say particularly what the legal distinctions were.
“I concluded that the legal distinctions were the fact that under EUA, there was essentially no manufacturer liability, but once the vaccine got licensed, the manufacturer would be subject to liability claims unless and until the vaccine was placed on the childhood schedule or recommended in pregnancy, in which case it would then fall … under the NVICP,” Nass says.
“Right now, Comirnaty is still not in that injury compensation program, and it’s licensed, so it no longer falls under the CICP. So, it is, in fact, subject to liability if you get injured with a bottle that says Comirnaty on it. Of course, if you’re Pfizer, what do you want to do?
You don’t want to make that licensed product available until several months have gone by and Comirnaty has been put into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. So, Pfizer and FDA have not made the licensed product available yet.
What has happened instead, in the military, is the FDA has made a secret deal with the military and said, certain emergency use lots can be considered equivalent to the licensed vaccine, and [told military medical staff] which Q.R. codes — which lots can be used. [These specific lots] can then be given to soldiers as if they’re licensed.
Subsequently, we’re told that military clinics are actually putting Comirnaty labels onto bottles that are under EUA. Now, that probably can happen in the military, but only in the military, because there are likely to be memoranda of understanding within the military that we haven’t seen yet that say soldiers cannot sue Pfizer for injuries …
In the military, the government and Pfizer feel like they have set up a situation where nobody can sue, but in the civilian world, that has not happened, and so there is no Comirnaty available.
Yet, on the basis that FDA licenses this product, the federal government is still telling employers that they can mandate it and that they must fire employees that have not taken the vaccine, or they will lose government contracts. We’re in a very interesting situation that is ripe for litigation, and Children’s Health Defense, which is an organization I represent, is litigating some of this.
However, the litigation situation has been very difficult since the pandemic began. Cases that normally would’ve been easy wins are being thrown out by the courts, both in the U.S. and in Europe. Something strange has happened, and the judges are looking for any way out, so they don’t have to rule on the merits of these cases.”
The CHD organization filed a lawsuit stating that people can’t get a shot that is both an emergency use product and a licensed product simultaneously. It is illegal.
COVID jab is authorized for 5- to 11-year-olds in the U.S.
The FDA authorized EUA shot for children from 5 to 11, and that’s crazy! Children at this age aren’t exposed to the risk of getting severe complications from the virus.
So, if your kid is healthy, they aren’t at risk of the virus. But the shot could do multiple complications, including myocarditis and pericarditis. There were many reports of these hearth inflammations due to getting jabbed.
Abhorrent conflicts of interest
The National File and The Defender reported that the membership of the FDA’s Vaccines and CRBPAC had had conflicts of interest. Members were:
A former vice president of Pfizer Vaccines
A paid Pfizer consultant
A recent Pfizer research grant recipient
A mentor to Raphael Simon, senior director of vaccine research and development at Pfizer
James Hildreth — President of Meharry Medical College, which administers Pfizer vaccines
A chair of the Independent Data Monitoring Committee for the Pfizer Group B Streptococcus Vaccine Program
An individual proudly photographed taking a Pfizer vaccine
Several people who are already on the record supporting coronavirus vaccines for children, including Ofer Levy, Jay Portnoy, and Melinda Wharton
“If they voted against authorizing a vaccine, they would be out of a job,” Nass says. “They have no business on that committee … It’s a very unethical stew of advisory committee members ….”
“What happened is Pfizer delivered a large package of information to the FDA on October 6, 2021. FDA staff had to go through this large packet of information on the 5- to 11-year-olds and produce their own report, which was about 40 pages long, and create talks to give to the advisory committee, and they did all of this in 17 days.
There was apparently very little critical thought that went into their presentations. Before the meeting, Children’s Health Defense, and I was one of the authors, wrote to the committee and to FDA officials saying, ‘Look, there are all these reasons that don’t make logical or medical sense for vaccinating kids in this age group because they almost never get very ill or die, and the side effects of the vaccine are essentially unknown.
We know there are a lot of side effects, but the federal government has concealed from us the rate at which these side effects occur. But we know that the rate of myocarditis is very high, probably at least 1 in 5,000 young males … which is a very serious side effect. It can lead, probably always leads, to some scarring. It can lead to sudden death, to heart failure.”
Trials in young children were insufficient.
Nass explained in the clinical trials; these two age groups weren’t included. The first group was enrolled for two to three months, and the second one included 17 days after getting the vaccine. Nass pointed out:
“They didn’t look at safety in all these kids. Even though FDA had said, ‘Add kids to your clinical trial,’ Pfizer created a ‘safety subset’ of one-tenth of the vaccinated subjects.
It was this small number of kids from whom they drew blood to show they had adequate levels of neutralizing antibodies, which was a surrogate for efficacy because they didn’t have enough cases of COVID in this abbreviated trial to show that the vaccine actually works in this age group.”
Even though the advisory committee learned that the blood test done for efficacy isn’t valid and wasn’t reliable evidence for the vaccine effectiveness. However, the FDA approved the vaccine for children from 5 to 11.
“Nobody said, ‘Look, the parents of healthy kids may be dying for a vaccine, but that’s because we haven’t told them the truth about the vaccine. We haven’t told them their kids don’t need it. We haven’t told them it’s going to potentially damage future immunity.
We haven’t told them they’re at higher risk of side effects than if they never had COVID. We’re not allowing them to go get antibody tests to establish that they’re already immune and therefore should be waved from being vaccinated.’
The committee members were aware of all this stuff, but in the end [they voted yes] … apart from one very smart member of the committee who works for the National Institutes of Health. He abstained. He didn’t have the guts to vote no, but he knew this was a bad idea.”
Children are being injected without parental consent
“As I said, we don’t know why the government wants everybody vaccinated, but there’s probably a reason that goes beyond protecting us from COVID.
The government got the FDA to authorize the vaccine for 12- to 15-year-olds on May 10 , and subsequently that group, which is about 6 million kids, has been getting vaccinated across the country. That’s under emergency use so, again, you can’t sue.
But something kind of evil happened, which was many cities began vaccinating 12- to 15-year-olds in the absence of parental permission. So, a child could show up with their friends or a friend’s mother at a vaccine center and get vaccinated with no one asking about their medical history, nobody calling the parents. No notation got entered into the child’s medical record that they were vaccinated.
Vaccinators were told to make their own assessment. If they thought this child could give consent, go ahead and vaccinate. Now, that is a gross violation of our laws, and yet it was happening in Boston, in Philadelphia, in Seattle, in San Francisco, and we have good documentation of it.
The government currently is planning for mobile vaccination clinics for kids and vaccinations in schools, and they may take this program of vaccinating without parental consent down to the 5- to 11-year-olds …
In fact, we may see clinics popping up that don’t require informed consent in the 5- to 11-year-old group. Let me just mention that the chief medical officer in Canada’s British Columbia said they have brought laws that allow children of any age to consent for themselves. Think about that. A baby can consent for vaccinations for itself. It would be funny if it wasn’t so diabolical.” Nass concluded.