Aletho News


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?

By Dr. Meryl Nass, MD | August 23, 2021

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 “Comirnaty” brand name, are still authorized, not approved. Only newer bottles with “Comirnaty” 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 “Comirnaty” 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.

August 23, 2021 - Posted by | Deception |


  1. But I thought there was no legal liability for any of the vaccines – so I am not understanding the distinction between Comirnaty and non-Cominrnaty shots. I have not heard of anyone collecting a thin dime from Pharma re vaccines. That is up to the taxpayers.


    Comment by Patricia Gallagher | August 24, 2021 | Reply

  2. This is only true for jabs on the childhood vaccine schedule. The push to get kids jabbed is so they can jump from EUA to childhood vaccine schedule no doubt.


    Comment by 4justice | December 26, 2021 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.